₦airaland Forum

orunto27:
Not Democratic. It's Manipulation American Style to rotate Government every eight years between The DEMOCRAT and The Republican.

uduak2016:
Explain.

FSBoperator:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/soros-son-alex-soros-found-participating-democrats-anti-trump-protest-riots/


Why has Obama or Clinton not call the Protesters to order?

Click on the link above.

alezzy13:
Why should they?

Even if Soros induces people to protest, the question is, why on earth would he need to? You're probably not aware just how much Trump is hated by the establishment, liberal left, etc.

Its American, the land of freedom of speech. Just as Trump aligns with those who think you and I are no different from monkeys (check: Jeff Sessions, Mr Bannon, both of whom will likely from part of his administration), Mr Soros is fully entitled to his right to denounce the Trump presidency.

Gunnaz007:
The zombies talking about popular votes for Hitlery have knowingly or unknowingly ignored reports of large scale electoral fraud on the part of the Demoncratic Party, in which illegal immigrants were allowed to vote in precincts and states controlled by the so called liberals/progressives. How this was possible is by going to a polling booth and asking for a ballot without presenting any form of ID, busing of people to different counties to vote for up to eight times using the records of over 3 million dead people that have not been deleted deliberately from the electoral register among others (Project Veritas videos provide evidence pointing to these fraudulent acts). Even the fo.ol Obama had the guts to encourage illegals to vote when interviewed by a very silly and arrogant hispanic lady! However, the silly quadrrenial pandering to minorities did not work because a considerable number of them saw through the shenanigans of the Demoncratic Party, as Trump got more votes from Minorities than Mitt Romney and George Bush. In New York, the city mayor is set to destroy a database of 850,000 illegals in a bid to frustrate plans by the incoming administration using the records therein to deport the illegals. Now I can assure you that most of this illegals in New York voted for Hillary!! So if sanctuary cities for illegals are shutdown and millions of illegals deported, I swear the Demoncratic Party with their extreme left, immoral, and anti-God ideology (in the name of being progressives) will be out of power for a generation or more!!! So Mr or Mrs OP, the Electoral College is a checkmate for frauds such as listed above! Deal with it!!

FSBoperator:
If it boiled down to popular votes alone, then the States of New York and California will solely determine the election outcome.

The electoral college recognises the sovereignty of individual states within the Union and as such gives the majority minority states a level playing field to counter the minority majority states.

To put this into better perspective, consider the election result map below :

https://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//KDK2015050701-map7.png
https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screenshot-2016-08-10-17.01.23-1024x765.png
Trump won more states than Clinton!

This is why the popular vote is secondary to college votes in determining the outcome of the US election.

omonnakoda:
Two things.
1. It does not give a "level playing field" since electoral college votes ARE DETERMINED by population. A situation where one state has
55 College votes and another has 3 is not a "level playing field"

2. Popular vote is not "secondary" to college votes > I think this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. It is possible to win the election without winning the larger number of states or the popular vote.They are not binaries

The real issue is this: In every state it is a "Winner takes all situation" which I think is a huge flaw. A candidate who maybe wins California by 100 votes will get ALL 55 electoral college votes and that is the flaw. If it was a proportional arrangement that would sort out a lot of the perceived wrongs.
Because of this Winner takes all phenomena a candidate who wins by let us say a margin of 100 votes in the biggest 12 states will win the presidency even if he gets 0 votes in the remaining 38 and thus would have won fewer states and not have won the popular vote either. I will repeat this .A candidate who is able to win the biggest 12 states by electoral college votes even if he wins by a margin of 1 vote only in all twelve and gets 0 in the other 32 wins the presidency
It is a complex issue which we have sought to get aroung by insisting ,in our system, on a minimum 25% in 2/3 of the states thus ensuring that the issue of spread of appeal is addressed

gidgiddy:
As of Monday, Clinton has received 63.6 million votes and Trump has received 61.9 million - a difference of approximately 1.7 million votes in the final voting count.

This also means that Clinton has won more votes than any presidential candidate in the history of the United States, with the exception of President Barack Obama.

With the State of Michigan as the last state yet to declare its final results, it is thought that Clinton will eventually surpass Trumps total votes by more than 2 million votes.

However, Trump won because the electoral college system of America gave him 290 votes compared to Clintons 232.

Many Americans now argue that the electoral college system has become outdated and undemocratic because just 15 states out of 50 can decide who the President will be regardless of the outcome of the popular vote.

What are your thoughts?

FSBoperator:
[s]Hilary's loss pain all the zombies and Afonjas[/s]

FSBoperator:
Then how come Trump won the college votes?

omonnakoda:
Two things.
1. It does not give a "level playing field" since electoral college votes ARE DETERMINED by population. A situation where one state has
55 College votes and another has 3 is not a "level playing field"

2. Popular vote is not "secondary" to college votes > I think this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. It is possible to win the election without winning the larger number of states or the popular vote.They are not binaries

The real issue is this: In every state it is a "Winner takes all situation" which I think is a huge flaw. A candidate who maybe wins California by 100 votes will get ALL 55 electoral college votes and that is the flaw. If it was a proportional arrangement that would sort out a lot of the perceived wrongs.
Because of this Winner takes all phenomena a candidate who wins by let us say a margin of 100 votes in the biggest 12 states will win the presidency even if he gets 0 votes in the remaining 38 and thus would have won fewer states and not have won the popular vote either. I will repeat this .A candidate who is able to win the biggest 12 states by electoral college votes even if he wins by a margin of 1 vote only in all twelve and gets 0 in the other 32 wins the presidency
It is a complex issue which we have sought to get aroung by insisting ,in our system, on a minimum 25% in 2/3 of the states thus ensuring that the issue of spread of appeal is addressed

Olu20090:
You nailed it. Otherwise a muslim fundamentalist can wake up one morning win all core northern states plus support from some yorubaa muslims, gets elected as president of Nigeria against the wishes of Christian yorubaas, SE and SS. Well said!

orunto27:
I text American manipulative style of rotating Presidency every eight years between Democrat and Republican. They did same to Algore and Bush.Theirs, is more mature than the Nigerian Style of seeking to annihilate the opposition.

gidgiddy:
Yes, but is it democratic? Democracy is always about the majority

byrron:
Trump got the majority electoral college votes which is the real determinant of who becomes the POTUS. Clinton is fully aware of that system before she decided to contest for the presidential election.

There have been precedents where those with the most popular electoral votes lost the presidential elections as a result of not winning the most electoral college votes e.g Bush vs AL GORE.

It is democratic because the majority of the electoral collage votes determines who the next POTUS will be, that has been the norm for decades only for the presidential elections but this system does not apply at state levels for the gubernatorial elections.

7lives:
You nailed it, i can't remember the last time a party, be it the republicans or the democrats had rule America for more than 8 years.
Algore and Bush election was even a cliffhanger but Algore was a true democrat who does not want to create chaos in America and so quietly let go, so what exactly is Hillary's problem after all her husband had also benefited from this so called flawed electoral system.

Gunnaz007:
Electoral College has been the norm for over two 'CENTURIES,' (200 Years) not 'decades'... It is almost as old as the United States which gained independence in 1776. The alt radical left are displaying acute cognitive dissonance by protesting Trump's victory at the collegate!

drss2:
american electoral college system was design in such a way dat a presidential candidate will have more spread ova d entire length n breadth of america, otherwise few states with high population will end up producing d president.
a US presidential candidate winning electoral votes signifies dat d candidate is accepted in more states dat make up america, compared to popular votes. in oda words, a candidate winning electoral college means dat he/she is more popular in states, while a candidate winning by popular votes may not necessarily mean dat he/she is popular in d states dat makes up america.

omonnakoda:
Two things.
1. It does not give a "level playing field" since electoral college votes ARE DETERMINED by population. A situation where one state has
55 College votes and another has 3 is not a "level playing field"

2. Popular vote is not "secondary" to college votes > I think this exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. It is possible to win the election without winning the larger number of states or the popular vote.They are not binaries

The real issue is this: In every state it is a "Winner takes all situation" which I think is a huge flaw. A candidate who maybe wins California by 100 votes will get ALL 55 electoral college votes and that is the flaw. If it was a proportional arrangement that would sort out a lot of the perceived wrongs.
Because of this Winner takes all phenomena a candidate who wins by let us say a margin of 100 votes in the biggest 12 states will win the presidency even if he gets 0 votes in the remaining 38 and thus would have won fewer states and not have won the popular vote either. I will repeat this .A candidate who is able to win the biggest 12 states by electoral college votes even if he wins by a margin of 1 vote only in all twelve and gets 0 in the other 32 wins the presidency
It is a complex issue which we have sought to get aroung by insisting ,in our system, on a minimum 25% in 2/3 of the states thus ensuring that the issue of spread of appeal is addressed

ezenwajosh:
WASN'T THAT THE SAME SYSTEM OBAMA WON THE ELECTION ON

alezzy13:
They have the same number of senators but different number of reps. The idea of the senate is to give every state, irrespective of your size, an equal voice

orunto27:
In the case of Hillary, the newness of female introduction to the Race for the first time aggravated and complicated the election. Feminine Nuance!