Want to abolish the Electoral College? Maybe you didn't know...
that Abraham Lincoln received just 39% of the popular vote, but won the presidency by a landslide, thanks to the Electoral College.
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Adogslife · 61-69, M
The popular vote isn't a factor in the Presidential election any more than hits are in a baseball game. Runs are the single measure of a winner in a baseball game. The Electoral College vote is the only prescient factor in an election.
The purpose of the system is so that a localized candidate, backed by an area of population density, can't sway an election. That very fact is what Hillary lost sight of. That's simply poor management. Hillary won the State of California with over 60% of the popular vote. She won the CA popular vote by significantly more than she won the entire country. Therein lies the stupidity. She could've won 99% of the vote. It doesn't matter. The state has 55 electoral votes. You don't get s he more through dominating. You just inflate a stat that's irrelevant - the popular vote.
Trump managed his campaign better. Strike in states where there's something to gain. Don't spend too long where your guaranteed to win or guaranteed to lose. If the popular vote mattered, he would've adjusted his roadmap accordingly.
Hillary didn't. She stupidly focused her campaign on population centers neglecting a massive portion of the country. That's an egregious error by her manager AND her husband. He should've known better. They kept her too isolated to even fathom the potential of loss.
So, for all the Trump haters, I get it after that gut wrenching of a loss. But, that should make it self evident that Trump isn't stupid. He put a team around him with the single goal of winning.
In the end, he outsmarted all of the professional pundits and the D.C. elitists and politically entitled. He beat both parties at their game.
Hillary should be ashamed.
The purpose of the system is so that a localized candidate, backed by an area of population density, can't sway an election. That very fact is what Hillary lost sight of. That's simply poor management. Hillary won the State of California with over 60% of the popular vote. She won the CA popular vote by significantly more than she won the entire country. Therein lies the stupidity. She could've won 99% of the vote. It doesn't matter. The state has 55 electoral votes. You don't get s he more through dominating. You just inflate a stat that's irrelevant - the popular vote.
Trump managed his campaign better. Strike in states where there's something to gain. Don't spend too long where your guaranteed to win or guaranteed to lose. If the popular vote mattered, he would've adjusted his roadmap accordingly.
Hillary didn't. She stupidly focused her campaign on population centers neglecting a massive portion of the country. That's an egregious error by her manager AND her husband. He should've known better. They kept her too isolated to even fathom the potential of loss.
So, for all the Trump haters, I get it after that gut wrenching of a loss. But, that should make it self evident that Trump isn't stupid. He put a team around him with the single goal of winning.
In the end, he outsmarted all of the professional pundits and the D.C. elitists and politically entitled. He beat both parties at their game.
Hillary should be ashamed.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
katielass · F
You are exactly correct in your description of the two campaigns. Trump campaigned a lot in states that most repubs would have kissed off, believing they had no chance. But trump knew there were people in those states looking for change. hillary took them for granted, but I believe she did so because she felt she had to focus on getting the base out to vote. As it happens, they didn't come out to vote and she wasted her time.
ReaperofTime · 46-50, M
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
katielass · F
OMG! Where did some of you people get your education? the Electoral college was designed:
1. to prevent a few more populous areas from deciding and thereby disenfranchising the rest of the country and
2. because they didn't trust the people to make informed decisions as most did not have access to information needed to make an informed decision. They didn't have cable news or newspapers available. Also, for expediency, the electors voted for the people because it would have taken months for everyone to go vote.
1. to prevent a few more populous areas from deciding and thereby disenfranchising the rest of the country and
2. because they didn't trust the people to make informed decisions as most did not have access to information needed to make an informed decision. They didn't have cable news or newspapers available. Also, for expediency, the electors voted for the people because it would have taken months for everyone to go vote.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
OMG!
SW-User
Women and minorities weren't allowed to vote then. Lincoln supported a woman's right to vote. He would have won the popular vote if all citizens were created equal in his day.
I'll keep voting for Frank Zappa until the Electoral College is abolished. Fierce independent for life. Not going to register Republicrat just to make my vote count. It doesn't anyway.
I'll keep voting for Frank Zappa until the Electoral College is abolished. Fierce independent for life. Not going to register Republicrat just to make my vote count. It doesn't anyway.
ReaperofTime · 46-50, M
Lincoln was a complete farce. He didnt free slaves because it was right. He did it to keep British intervention from crushing the Union. He was also a latent homosexual.
BrakeIT · 56-60, M
True regarding women, although I'm not sure what you mean by minorities.
And as we also know, he supported the abolishment of slavery. The first Republican president elected to office.
And as we also know, he supported the abolishment of slavery. The first Republican president elected to office.
SW-User
I don't even know it's that's true, but I don't because there would be no point in candidates going to states with lower populations during the campaign season then. They'd be ignored.
The states with large populations would rule over the rest of the country, despite states having different laws, interests and needs.
The states with large populations would rule over the rest of the country, despite states having different laws, interests and needs.
BrakeIT · 56-60, M
Exactly. The southern states were the "losers" because of the EC in the election of Abraham Lincoln. Had the president been elected by popular vote, the south would have prevented the less populous northern states from having any impact on the election, and the democrats would have continued slavery.
katielass · F
@BrakeIT: I'm only going to address a statement you made that I know to be inaccurate. The south was NOT more populous.
InvaderNice · 26-30, M
Also, the whole reason about abolishing it is because this election was "unfair". Guess what. Wisconsin did a recount and SOMEHOW Hillary lost by more. Maybe because whoever slanted the numbers before just didn't feel like it this time.
sighmeupforthat · 46-50, M
did anyone pay attention to details? who was voted in each state?
i believe in one 1% voted for the bald eagle.
the list gets better and better.
the details of the recounts are online.
i believe in one 1% voted for the bald eagle.
the list gets better and better.
the details of the recounts are online.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
I didn't know that. It's different now though.
BrakeIT · 56-60, M
That's why they established the EC...because while names and faces change, the essence of man and federal unionism doesn't.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
What? 😂😂😂
Thanos · 31-35, M
For real? I gotta go google