TRUMP WON POPULAR VOTE?

So it looks like Trump won the popular vote too, although the mainstream midia seems to ignore that

Other urls found in this thread:

edition.cnn.com/election/results/president
wnd.com/2016/10/democrat-confesses-to-rigging-elections-for-50-years/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

holy shit, source?

Fantastic source you got there

sauce me

>Brazil in charge of source

He is still behind by 600000+ and Califonia is only at 70% reporting. It's literally impossible.

Hillary is currently ahead.

edition.cnn.com/election/results/president

Why does it matter?

>thank you based electoral college

i could not find a non bias source

Nice source! Sorry, bro. The Electoral College exists to circumvent public opinion; no getting around the fact that it's a garbo institution.

> Not even with made up stats

CNN has him as the projected winner.

Millions of people voted for Trump there, Northern California is red. It's very possible he could win the popular vote still.

It would be fun for the leftist butthurt, even if it doesn't change anything

THeyre reporting in slowly on purpose so they can increase Hillary's popular lead day by day

Oh my lordy, can you imagine the salt and backpedaling the lefties are gonna go through if he gets it? They've been rioting for days because they think they have the majority.

Need some sources Roberto.

It literally doesn't matter.
>Between 4 and 12 million illegals voted
>Most Republicans in deep blue states don't even bother because they know they won't win, whereas libshits share the 'every vote matters' mentality
>Extra rigging measures like busing illegals (and legals) around to vote Dem, see wnd.com/2016/10/democrat-confesses-to-rigging-elections-for-50-years/
>Soros owned voting machines with purposely noncalibrated digitisers, and Trump's name at the bottom (unheard of)

The God Emperor won. Deal with it, you pestiferous subhuman vermin.

>The Electoral College exists to circumvent public opinion
Wrong. Amongst other things, the EC exists to give smaller states an incentive to be a part of the Union by purposely giving them a slightly larger say than their population would otherwise get if they were to get power proportional to their size. It helps with decentralising the power, makes everything ever so slightly harder to rig and ensures smaller states actually go out to vote.
On that matter, in Europe, smaller countries like Portugal, all of Scandinavia, and so on, are ignored by the EU due to their size, so there are virtually no benefits to being a part of the EU unless you have a large population other than being allowed to join their shitty monopolised market (which is essentially blackmail).

You niggers tend to forget that if you were to get rid of the EC, a lot more republicans would vote in deep blue states and the outcome would have been the same in this particular election.

We should really rub it in. They deserve it for the riots.

Has michigan been called for him yet?

The results are obviously in, but the media won't report on it.

Bragging rights basically. Winning electorally but without getting the popular vote is kind of equivalent to winning a game by virtue of being in the lead when it's called off early for some reason. It's counted as a win, but doesn't really give you the satisfaction of crushing your opponent.

I don't think the EC is itself a bad idea, the problem is the winner-take-all policy virtually all states have.

So does that place Trump past the 300 mark?

yup

...

>I don't think the EC is itself a bad idea, the problem is the winner-take-all policy virtually all states have.
Someone should model the results if the electoral votes were awarded proportionally (as in, 60% of the republican vote would net you 60% of the EC votes of a given state).

306

Because Trump supporters expected a huge turnout/landslide and lost the popular vote

Honestly, if we can open markets for UK, US and Russia at the same time, is EU really even necessary?

I mean, if you have good relationships with US and Russia, that pretty much opens trade routes to all Asian markets as well.

I thought they said it was a (((mistake)))

Amongst other things, the EC exists to give smaller states an incentive to be a part of the Union by purposely giving them a slightly larger say than their population would otherwise get if they were to get power proportional to their size.
Correct. What reason do we need to small U.S. states need to have them remain in the Union? Why maintian an arbitrary vote weighing authority to incentivize behavior people will do anyway?

It helps with decentralising the power, makes everything ever so slightly harder to rig and ensures smaller states actually go out to vote.
Wrong. It, by definion, centralizes power in smaller states. The people in those staes have votes that are *literally worth more* than votes of other power. This is in direct conflict with principles of equal representation. We're not talking about a direct democracy on all issues; the EC doesn't decide typical legislative affairs. It only voices an opinion on the office of the Presidency. There's no mob behavior to prevent.

Electoral College negotiated as a line item to appease states with large slave holdings in the 18th century. Why keep it?

WAIT
WHAT
ARE YOU SAYING THE MEDIA MAY BE BIASED TOWARDS DONALD J TRUMP?
HOW COULD THIS BE?

Popular vote doesn't matter since voting in murrica it's a mess several states require no documentation and then you have things like mail voting and what not and it's like that on purpose because if third world shitholes like Brazil and India can enforce documentation and biometric scan to vote they could do it as well.

>is EU really even necessary?
Nope, but globalist retards will try to convince you otherwise because the majority of them, myself included, were not born before the EU and could not fathom an international market. Originally the EU was going to replace a myriad of treaties and trade agreements between countries by providing a common framework on which we could trade on, and then it became the seven headed hydra that it is today.

>Wrong. It, by definion, centralizes power in smaller states.
This is not possible because you would need various smaller states in order to match a large one like, say, California. Thus, it follows that it would be strategically better to campaign in many small states than spend all your resources campaigning in a massive state. Don't be silly.

>The people in those staes have votes that are *literally worth more* than votes of other power. This is in direct conflict with principles of equal representation.
Then destroy all arbitrarily defined borders within the US and make every state the same size. A state of 5 million needs an extra incentive to be a part of the union, or it won't be mutually beneficial. I have already given you an example of how Europe works and why it's bad for smaller countries that would benefit from an EC. Naturally this is easier said than done because the EU is not democratic and you don't get to vote for anyone.

>It only voices an opinion on the office of the Presidency. There's no mob behavior to prevent.
There is because of the oath that the state representatives take in order to vote according to the popular vote in their respective states.

>Electoral College negotiated as a line item to appease states with large slave holdings in the 18th century. Why keep it?
Because it's a good thing. If anything, you could argue there should be proportional representation, but EC votes are NOT delegates, they are small localised national elections on a per state basis.

THE ALT-LEFT WILL RISE!
PROTECT THE WEAK AND TRAMPLE THE UNEDUCATED!
HAIL HOPE!
HAIL LOGIC!
HAIL SCIENCE!
EMBRACE PARADOX!
LOVE OR DESPAIR!

See you in 50 years

According to google's election tracker, sourced by Associated Press, hillary currently has a 630ish thousand lead on him. I doubt that's going to be toppled. It may drop to like 300k, but I think it's about where it's going to be.

why are people still listening to george will?

No he didnt.
Before it said it was 93% counted, it doesnt show the % counter anymore.

As much as id love him to win it he has fallen behind. 2 days ago it was 0.3% difference, now its 0.5%

yeah cnn came out and said that website "design issue" wasn't supposed to indicate he won popular vote

>Further polarizing dems by separating sjw commies with moderate left leaning joes
Oh man this, the left will cannibalize each othee for the next half century, they won't be able to get back in power for another 200 years

Great thread, hue.

Yes, 306. He literally could have lost florida and still won.

...

> This is not possible because you would need various smaller states in order to match a large one like, say, California.
Yes...that's completely reasonable given the nature of national elections. I don't see how arbitrarily subdividing a nation with boundaries somehow grants more validity to the opinions of people who happen to be located in one polygon vs. another. How is a state's level of relative representation important on a national affair? One person, one vote is the only fair administration of national votes.

> Then destroy all arbitrarily defined borders within the US and make every state the same size.
Why? Alternatively, we could just not weigh votes depending on location.

> There is because of the oath that the state representatives take in order to vote according to the popular vote in their respective states.
You didn't answer my concer. The EC cannot prevent any sort of mob-like behavior, because it does not represent a check on democracy. It simply throws the result of a direct democracy off of it's natural conclusion; it cannot prevent unethical behavior, it only re-distributes the result.

> Because it's a good thing.
How is weighing the votes of an electorate based upon arbitrary criteria a good thing? At the very least, citizens with 97% voting agency should only have to pay 97% of their prescribed taxes. Taxation without appropriate representation.

military vote not counted, that's 1.4 million people

He was up by 1.5 million votes on election night. The exact moment he won, they started swinging them all towards Hillary. Really made me think.

>admitting to voter fraud with your real name attached
wew

>I don't see how arbitrarily subdividing a nation with boundaries somehow grants more validity to the opinions of people who happen to be located in one polygon vs. another.
Because the US is a fucking union of states, you massive retard. It's akin to a subcontinent in sheer size and comparable to Europe. Are you going to fucking tell me that Alabama and New York share the same traditions and culture? The US may be a country of European immigrants, but Minnesota, for instance, has mostly Swedes and Germans than most, and New Jersey has more Italians. Other states have more potatobrits, and so on.
The US is massive and would not thrive if there were no governors but was instead wholly ruled by a federal government--it's too big to be ruled that way.

>You didn't answer my concer. The EC cannot prevent any sort of mob-like behavior, because it does not represent a check on democracy. It simply throws the result of a direct democracy off of it's natural conclusion; it cannot prevent unethical behavior, it only re-distributes the result.
It does decentralise it a little though, whether you like it or not. Each state votes for a candidate. The state votes, and the people of that state decide who the vote goes to. Like I said, it gives smaller states an incentive to be a part of the union, and large states benefit from it as well due to their sheer size.

>How is weighing the votes of an electorate based upon arbitrary criteria a good thing?
You could argue that the function that determines the amount of EC votes per state is arbitrary, but like I said, it's an incentive. I don't like large states because of how impersonal it becomes to rule over them and how many layers of abstraction are required between the top brass and the people, but a solution to your shitty dilemma would be to merge smaller states together.

whats the point of ec over simple highest number wins or irv then

>How is weighing the votes of an electorate based upon arbitrary criteria a good thing? At the very least, citizens with 97% voting agency should only have to pay 97% of their prescribed taxes. Taxation without appropriate representation.
Speaking of which, only citizens that pay taxes (positive net tax contribution) should be allowed to vote, or their votes should be worth more.

>25%~40% Johnson

Well said my friend from Portugal!! I live in Alabama. It is like a different country between the North and South.

Do you know how to count at all you retarded faggot?

>whats the point of ec over simple highest number wins or irv then
Because the USA is a collection of states. Each state picks a representative.
The issue here, according to some posters, is that it should be proportional. I disagree because it would increase the centralisation of power and remove an important incentive for smaller states to remain in the Union, while also ensuring they don't conglomerate into hard to manage superstates like California as their voting power would diminish.
Then the other issue some posters seem to have is that the factor which decides how many EC votes a state should have relative to their population was arbitrarily decided. I can't argue with that, but I will look into it.

Since the US states have substantial autonomy, it is reasonable to say that people people living in different areas experience the government and politics in significantly different ways. Therefore, holding 50 separate "elections" rather than one, direct vote may actually be beneficial when it comes to reflecting the values held by the public.

Trumps number has a 9 in it and Hillary has a zero.
9 is bigger than zero, dumbass.
Kill yourself

The majority of the votes left to be counted are from the west coast you retarded faggot.
>what are uncounted votes

>what is not having an income that can be taxed
>what are poor people

> The US is massive and would not thrive if there were no governors but was instead wholly ruled by a federal government--it's too big to be ruled that way.
There's nothing inconsistent about abolishing the Electoral College and having a republic built upon Federalism, lol. I think you misunderstand the scope of the EC. It exists only for the election of the President of the United States...it literally does nothing else and is unimportant to the core tenants of statehood in the US.

> It does decentralise it a little though
No...it absolutely does not. How is literally giving a person more votes than another person an act of decentralizing power? The people of California deserve 38.8 million says in the Presidential election because 38.8 million people will have to live under the results of that election. The people of Delaware deserve 935,614 says for the exact same reason. Anything other than one man one vote is by definition centralizing power on the basis of geographical location.

> Like I said, it gives smaller states an incentive to be a part of the union, and large states benefit from it as well due to their sheer size.
No further incentive other than Union membership is required to keep people in the Union. As a US citizen, I am completely content with booting any State that demands special privilege through inflated representation. How do larger states benefit by having their electorate disenfranchised?

> I don't like large states because of how impersonal it becomes to rule over them and how many layers of abstraction are required between the top brass and the people
The EC does not govern in any way shape or form. It does literally nothing but distort the democratic process.

Well said!

I know, the Sup Forumsack explained it better than I did and in fewer words.
Imagine applying the same sort of policies to every single state. Would be disastrous.

Exactly. "Small states" get their representation through the Senate, and through state governments. Federal elections should be decided by everyone.

>The majority of the votes left to be counted are from the west coast
Which counties? If they are mostly votes of the rural population, them Trump may still win the popular vote.

> I don't see why you would limit mob rule in such an indirect and complicated fashion when you could just prevent unethical behavior with constitutional amendment, invalidated only by super majority.

He's down by 2,500 in New Hampshire. I hope there are enough absentee ballots from the military to make it up because I have money on the state going red.

Bullshit, it would just worsen voter fraud and encourage democrats to move third world shit in the country. The EC doesn't completely remove that but it curbs it a little. Fuck California and overcrowded states, they already have more than enough electoral votes.

How the fuck does it take this long to get all the votes in? They have not called Michigan because they don't want it to be on the record. Fucking pussies. This election woke me up, fuck the MSM and FUCK THE MARXISTS.

I don't see how those preferences are any better expressed by holding state based elections than they would be in one aggregated national election for the office of the President. It can only muddle the mixture; you can't get a clearer picture of the electorate than a complete, unadulterated survey of that electorate.

>all that Johnson

What the fuck

Not even ironically funny.

The fact that you replied made it funny for me

CNN call my fucking state already. Michigan is fucking red, get over it

>How is literally giving a person more votes than another person an act of decentralizing power?
This is a nonissue because, like I said, the state representatives vote, not the people. There is a function which outputs the number of EC votes based on the size of state, but that's about it.
Feel free to move to the smallest state you can think of. Your voting power won't 'be worth more' UNLESS it's the same as the majority (of your given state).

>It exists only for the election of the President of the United States
Thanks, mr obvious.

>How do larger states benefit by having their electorate disenfranchised?
Because they still have a significant amount of EC votes. If the election could be decided by two states alone, then the candidates would pander to those two states ONLY.

>The EC does not govern in any way shape or form.
I did not say that. I was talking about states, not the EC, and how much I hate superstates for the same reason intelligent kids suffer when they have to be taught alongside underachieving ones--you must always cater to the latter.

relevant counties, so heavily liberal ones

Well... What do you propose, Watson?

> Bullshit, it would just worsen voter fraud
How does the EC prevent voter fraud in any way...lol?

> encourage democrats to move third world shit in the country
If the majority of the electorate consists of Democrats...why shouldn't it be that way? Moreover, isn't most 'third world shit' protected against by constitutional amendment?

> Fuck California and overcrowded states, they already have more than enough electoral votes.
That's like, your opinion man. There are more people that have to live under the president in California. Why should their say be arbitrarily diminished?

>voting for hillary in nj and ny multiple times

Man this guy was a retard, what a waste of time.

That's still within the margin of error.

Trump was shilled as a pro-war candidate (I know he's not). Military personnel often vote against war, because they don't want to die for some saudi money.

>"If the election could be decided by two states alone, then the candidates would pander to those two states ONLY."

This is literally the situation we already live in you retarded faggot.

>Trumps number has a 9 in it and Hillary has a zero.
>9 is bigger than zero, dumbass.

Glad to make your day.

You don't get why moving third world shit to your country undermines the constitution.
Anything else is just tears from a sore loser. Fuck you, fuck your anti federation anti American California, fuck off and secede.

It doesn't really matter either way, the popular vote is not how elections work in the USA

>This is literally the situation we already live in you retarded faggot.
Nope. You're probably arguing about muh battlestates, but it's no one's fault certain states vote for one party by default.

>it is literally impossible that someone could be joking

>"b..but what trump said was just l..locker room t..talk! he didnt m..mean it! it was a j..joke!"

The idea is that different areas do have different interests, and it could really fuck over some people to let a handful of cities decide every election.

> This is a nonissue because, like I said, the state representatives vote, not the people.
The Electors are bound by oath to vote in the fashion of their electorate, lol. Any person who has not upheld their duty as an elector has been permanently blacklisted from public service. Moreover, if it it is technically legal to not vote with your electorate, every American voter has a reasonable expectation that they would do so; this in no way invalidates the fact that the EC skews election results from the will of the public.

> Because they still have a significant amount of EC votes. If the election could be decided by two states alone, then the candidates would pander to those two states ONLY.
If two states had an overwhelming majority of a nations population, the national election SHOULD be decided by those two states. don't understand what's so complicated about this.

> you must always cater to the latter.
No? Why would I violate the principles of modern democracy and the fairness of public elections in return for a vague feeling of warm fuzzies I get when giving special attention to slow children?

they are waiting to report it because they have to remove the 3 million illegal votes

Yes it is. Democrats don't turn out in Montana as if it were Ohio just like how Republicans don't turn out in California as if it were Florida. People would have an actual reason to vote if their state wasn't permanently in one column.

kek, wouldn't surprise me if a good chunk of trump votes were fraudulent.

>the EC skews election results from the will of the public
NO IT DOESN'T

For concern in populist_perils:
try:
constitution.append('nope on ' + concern)
except:
print('better luck next year')

they took it down

Then get rid of fucking states, what's the point if only two areas decide? Fucking unbelievable I bet you never cared about the constitution . Within the fucking federation you are free to make your state a liberal shithole without imposing your views on other states but no, you socialist fucks want it all

> You don't get why moving third world shit to your country undermines the constitution.
I just proposed that the vague policies you purport to hate are probably already prohibited. I'm not sure what your contention is.

> Fuck this Fuck that
oh look ad hominem, cool

>You niggers tend to forget that if you were to get rid of the EC, a lot more republicans would vote in deep blue states and the outcome would have been the same in this particular election.
Doesn't that swing both ways though? More Dems would vote in deep-red states?

popular vote is irrelevant. less than 50% of the electorate voted. cant get a good metric when less than half of your study doesnt participate

...

You don't need ID to vote there right? wonder what happens when you subtract all the illegal votes

Did Johnson get his 5%?

>doesn't know what ad hominem means
Dude, just give up already.

>The people of California deserve 38.8 million says in the Presidential election because 38.8 million people will have to live under the results of that election

what is a california? is it.....a state?

the presidential election is not PEOPLE voting for president, it is COUNTRIES voting for president

how each country determines its vote is actually up to them! see maine and nebraska