5 ms·

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face

We didn't choose Trump. He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes, an unprecedented amount. Making such statements is a slap in the face of the majority of American voters. There are also still substantial questions remaining as to how much assistance Trump may have received from foreign governments in achieving his victory.

refurb 10y ago
The American people chose Trump. Sorry, there is no way around that. The US doesn't elect its president based on the popular vote.
- davesque 10y ago
  Right, which is why the American people did not choose Trump. The electoral college did. It's not fair to point the finger at the people when the system was the most likely cause of the outcome.
  - flamedoge 10y ago
    I think placing blame solely on electoral college system is detracting from the real problem, which is that there is a polarized division. Electoral college can be a fair system most of the time, and I hold benefit of the doubt that there was no systematic gerrymandering going on specifically for this election.
- becarefulyo 10y ago
  The electoral college was created in part to prevent unqualified candidates from becoming president. It failed spectacularly.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Unqualified by which definition? The one the Democrats hold?
    - becarefulyo 10y ago
      By any reasonable human being's standard.
      - MrZongle2 10y ago
        You misspelled "true scotsman".
        becarefulyo 10y ago
        Debating with sophomores is about as fruitful as debating with holocaust deniers.
        diyorgasms 10y ago
        What's more, it seems many sophomoric Trump supporters are Holocaust deniers, from what I see in pro-Trump communities.
        MrZongle2 10y ago
        I guess you could call some of them deplorables. Heck, why not just assume most of them? Because if some Trump supporters are sophomoric and possible Holocaust deniers, why bother paying attention to what any of them say or claim? They're clearly all halfwit racist degenerates who hate women and the LGBTQ crowd. If the world were rid of them, it would be a much better place. Yes, it's much better this way.
flukus 10y ago
It's impossible to say what the vote count would have been had the rules been different. There are a lot of potential trump voters in very populous states that likely stayed at home.
- davesque 10y ago
  There were probably just as many non-Trump voters that stayed home in solid red states.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Very possible, but we'll never know.
- logicalmind 10y ago
  Here's alternative way to think about this. If you consider the fact that a lot of states are oppressive to their people(minority suppression, anti-choice, anti-environment, etc.) you see that people who can't live under those rules move elsewhere. Often to larger states/cities. The problem with this is that it only sways the electoral college more in the direction of the oppressors. Non-oppressive states get bigger, more inclusive and more open. Oppressive states push a single minded, and often single party, mentality. This essentially locks the power of the electoral college into the hands of the more oppressive states.
  - flukus 10y ago
    In reality it's the opposite that seems to be happening, red states becoming more metropolitan and turning blue. But what we saw with Trump was him winning traditionally blue states. Were those traditionally blue states being oppressive and sending their minorities to California?
grzm 10y ago
There are three things you can say about the popular vote in the 2016 US Presidential Election: - the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same - the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate. - the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president What is much harder to argue is that the results of the popular vote would have been the same if the election were based on the popular vote. Both campaigns were run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. The GOTV efforts were similarly run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. Voters themselves to some extent take into account the Electoral College when deciding whether to vote and who to vote for. Many people choose not to vote if they're in a state where their vote may not matter much. Some people trade votes. Some people choose which candidate they vote for (for example, third party candidates) depending on the likelihood of their vote effectiveness. And all of this needs to take into account how few voters turned out in general. This is nothing new, of course, but it does bear keeping in mind when evaluating statements like "the majority of American voters". Oh, there's a fourth thing as well: It's very distracting from other important issues, from both sides. Some (not all) Clinton supporters hold it up as validation that Clinton should have been president. Some (not all) Trump supporters (and Trump himself) view the popular vote important enough to repeat claims that voter fraud is the only reason Trump didn't win the popular vote as well. At this point there are more important issues to focus on. One of which may be the role of the Electoral College.
- davesque 10y ago
  All of that may be true, but it's still valid to point out the popular vote discrepancy as a response to the claim that the American people chose Trump. As an American voter who opposed Trump during the election, I feel especially entitled to do so in response to someone who criticizes us as being "stupid" for having done something that many of us don't feel responsible for having done. Indeed, if further evidence surfaces of Putin's involvement in the election, I'll feel even more secure in my opinion.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I completely understand where you're coming from. I also know that phrasing it the way you have, without any additional context, very often results in semantic, distracting discussions like those that followed, distracting from the very valid point you're making. When making a similar point, I focus on how clearly split the country is and the record-low unfavorability of both major party candidates. Hard to argue with either of those, and clearly demonstrates that Trump can't accurately be described as having a mandate. It's also generally non-partisan. It also reminds everyone that Clinton was by no means a great candidate either, which also is well worth keeping in mind. So much of the rhetoric on either side during the campaign was "how can you vote for that candidate?", pointing out the flaws, rather than extolling the virtues of the candidate one was going to vote for. If Clinton had carried the Electoral College, we wouldn't be discussing this under "Trump Fires Acting Attorney General", but the split and polarization of the country would likely be just as strong, just on different topics.
mordant 10y ago
> He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California.
- benchaney 10y ago
  Is California not part of the United States?
  - savagej 10y ago
    It will eventually rejoin the US. But for now it is politically vastly different. The EC served its purpose in containing CA.
  - savagej 10y ago
    It will eventually rejoin the US. But for now it is politically vastly different. The EC served its purpose in containing CA.
    - sctb 10y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines after we've asked you to stop, including reposting comments that were flagged by the community.
- pg314 10y ago
  That is a silly argument. You can argue equally well that Clinton won the electoral college except for Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and South Carolina. That excludes about the same number of people as your argument, and is equally silly.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago

refurb 10y ago

The American people chose Trump. Sorry, there is no way around that. The US doesn't elect its president based on the popular vote.

davesque 10y ago
Right, which is why the American people did not choose Trump. The electoral college did. It's not fair to point the finger at the people when the system was the most likely cause of the outcome.
- flamedoge 10y ago
  I think placing blame solely on electoral college system is detracting from the real problem, which is that there is a polarized division. Electoral college can be a fair system most of the time, and I hold benefit of the doubt that there was no systematic gerrymandering going on specifically for this election.
becarefulyo 10y ago
The electoral college was created in part to prevent unqualified candidates from becoming president. It failed spectacularly.
- refurb 10y ago
  Unqualified by which definition? The one the Democrats hold?
  - becarefulyo 10y ago
    By any reasonable human being's standard.
    - MrZongle2 10y ago
      You misspelled "true scotsman".
      - becarefulyo 10y ago
        Debating with sophomores is about as fruitful as debating with holocaust deniers.
        diyorgasms 10y ago
        What's more, it seems many sophomoric Trump supporters are Holocaust deniers, from what I see in pro-Trump communities.
        MrZongle2 10y ago
        I guess you could call some of them deplorables. Heck, why not just assume most of them? Because if some Trump supporters are sophomoric and possible Holocaust deniers, why bother paying attention to what any of them say or claim? They're clearly all halfwit racist degenerates who hate women and the LGBTQ crowd. If the world were rid of them, it would be a much better place. Yes, it's much better this way.

flukus 10y ago

It's impossible to say what the vote count would have been had the rules been different. There are a lot of potential trump voters in very populous states that likely stayed at home.

davesque 10y ago
There were probably just as many non-Trump voters that stayed home in solid red states.
- flukus 10y ago
  Very possible, but we'll never know.
logicalmind 10y ago
Here's alternative way to think about this. If you consider the fact that a lot of states are oppressive to their people(minority suppression, anti-choice, anti-environment, etc.) you see that people who can't live under those rules move elsewhere. Often to larger states/cities. The problem with this is that it only sways the electoral college more in the direction of the oppressors. Non-oppressive states get bigger, more inclusive and more open. Oppressive states push a single minded, and often single party, mentality. This essentially locks the power of the electoral college into the hands of the more oppressive states.
- flukus 10y ago
  In reality it's the opposite that seems to be happening, red states becoming more metropolitan and turning blue. But what we saw with Trump was him winning traditionally blue states. Were those traditionally blue states being oppressive and sending their minorities to California?

grzm 10y ago

There are three things you can say about the popular vote in the 2016 US Presidential Election: - the result of the popular vote and the electoral college were not the same - the popular vote/electoral college split confirms that the country is very split and that Trump does not have a mandate. - the electoral college may not be the best way to elect the president What is much harder to argue is that the results of the popular vote would have been the same if the election were based on the popular vote. Both campaigns were run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. The GOTV efforts were similarly run with the Electoral College — not the popular vote — in mind. Voters themselves to some extent take into account the Electoral College when deciding whether to vote and who to vote for. Many people choose not to vote if they're in a state where their vote may not matter much. Some people trade votes. Some people choose which candidate they vote for (for example, third party candidates) depending on the likelihood of their vote effectiveness. And all of this needs to take into account how few voters turned out in general. This is nothing new, of course, but it does bear keeping in mind when evaluating statements like "the majority of American voters". Oh, there's a fourth thing as well: It's very distracting from other important issues, from both sides. Some (not all) Clinton supporters hold it up as validation that Clinton should have been president. Some (not all) Trump supporters (and Trump himself) view the popular vote important enough to repeat claims that voter fraud is the only reason Trump didn't win the popular vote as well. At this point there are more important issues to focus on. One of which may be the role of the Electoral College.

davesque 10y ago
All of that may be true, but it's still valid to point out the popular vote discrepancy as a response to the claim that the American people chose Trump. As an American voter who opposed Trump during the election, I feel especially entitled to do so in response to someone who criticizes us as being "stupid" for having done something that many of us don't feel responsible for having done. Indeed, if further evidence surfaces of Putin's involvement in the election, I'll feel even more secure in my opinion.
- grzm 10y ago
  I completely understand where you're coming from. I also know that phrasing it the way you have, without any additional context, very often results in semantic, distracting discussions like those that followed, distracting from the very valid point you're making. When making a similar point, I focus on how clearly split the country is and the record-low unfavorability of both major party candidates. Hard to argue with either of those, and clearly demonstrates that Trump can't accurately be described as having a mandate. It's also generally non-partisan. It also reminds everyone that Clinton was by no means a great candidate either, which also is well worth keeping in mind. So much of the rhetoric on either side during the campaign was "how can you vote for that candidate?", pointing out the flaws, rather than extolling the virtues of the candidate one was going to vote for. If Clinton had carried the Electoral College, we wouldn't be discussing this under "Trump Fires Acting Attorney General", but the split and polarization of the country would likely be just as strong, just on different topics.

mordant 10y ago

> He trailed the leading candidate by almost three million votes i.e., he won the popular vote, except for California.

benchaney 10y ago
Is California not part of the United States?
- savagej 10y ago
  It will eventually rejoin the US. But for now it is politically vastly different. The EC served its purpose in containing CA.
- savagej 10y ago
  It will eventually rejoin the US. But for now it is politically vastly different. The EC served its purpose in containing CA.
  - sctb 10y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines after we've asked you to stop, including reposting comments that were flagged by the community.
pg314 10y ago
That is a silly argument. You can argue equally well that Clinton won the electoral college except for Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Kansas, Utah, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana and South Carolina. That excludes about the same number of people as your argument, and is equally silly.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
drzaiusapelord 10y ago