On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 3:29:23 PM UTC-5, Dechucka wrote:
The popular vote whiners are a bunch of sore loser pussies.

That's false. There is something legitimately wrong with the person
winning the presidency not having won a majority of the popular vote.

Sorry, but that is why we have the EC. Example. Hillary won the popular
vote by 2.4 million. She won California by 4.3 million. Without
California, she would have lost that popular vote by 2.1 million. Do you
wish to have the winner in California consistantly define our President?

That is illogical. California has about 10% of the US population which I
assume means 10% of votors

It's also wrong. The official vote totals were 7,362,490 for Clinton and 3,916,209 for Trump. That's a difference of 3.4 million, not 4.3.

As for having California "define" our president, what is he suggesting? That California's citizens not be allowed to vote?

One person, one vote. "The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people..." -- James Madison, Federalist #39. The Founders did not say "the states." They said "the people."

--
Ed Huntress





I doubt you can name another elective office in the country at any
level of government that isn't determined by popular vote.

There was a purpose in the EC. When this country was set up, it was to
be run by both the states and the people. Hence the Senate, whose
members were selected by the state makes up 100 of the electoral vote.
The House of Representatives (referred to as the People's House) had its
members selected by the people. 435 of them. Add 100 Sentorial votes
and 3 votes for the District of Columbia, you have 538 votes. To win a
majority, the magic number is 270. Works great.. Particularly when one
knows how it works. Each of those state votes are a popular vote win.
Ergo, Hillary won 20 of those popular vote contests, Trump won 31.

but wait the people from most states can vote how they want in the EC

snip