is running into people who keep pushing the Hillary's-unlikeable-and-that's-why-she-lost meme.

Unlikeable except to the solid majority of voters.

some of it is angry tears. WHY don't they challenge this? There's ample reason to do so, and even top academics in the field of computer science are urging them to do so. (CNN article about this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html?sr=fbCNN112316hillary-clinton-challenge-results0247AMVODtopLink&linkId=31471138 ) I know Trump would if it were him. Any Republican would. I just can't understand why we are not doing this. There are still states where reasonable doubt exists.

Last edited Wed Nov 23, 2016, 08:19 AM - Edit history (1)

She did not win a solid majority. She did win 3% more votes than he did.

The problem is that every person doesn't get one vote. Because the little states get proportionately more votes, because of the 2 senators per state rule, your Wyoming vote counts much more than his California vote does.

I sense it's already started.

even tho trumpeter may be sworn in. dems ought to run a shadow cabinet/govt similar to britain

Over here we don't have direct elections for prime minister, cabinet ministers have to be members of the legislative, usually MPs, but the odd recently ennobled lord too. The team is settled long before the election. If you were to have a similar situation it would mean having a candidate with all the cabinet positions worked out from the off, no setting up a team after the results come through.

It would also mean having a party leader as opposed to a candidate and that would be happening right now not in however many years' time when you have the next lot of primaries. In short it's not something that can be easily shoehorned into your political system.

Before Clinton was inaugurated Dole told him "I represent the 56% of America that didn't vote for you."
That should be the Democratic Party's mantra

but fails to win the Electorial College there are calls to change the way we elect Presidents.

In modern elections it is the Democratic candidate who loses the election.

Getting rid of the Electoral College will be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible. I would rate the chances of doing that as chances of my winning the Lotto this week if I buy just one ticket.

Of course I might be wrong.

Who knows, in such a strange election year such as this maybe Trump will do something so stupid or something extremely serious will come up about the election that will flip enough Electorial votes to send the election to the House of Repsentatives who would pick one of the top three candidates who won electoral votes. If so the House may pick Hillary rather than Trump since they were the only two candidates to win any electoral votes.

I would rate the chances of that happening as my winning the Lotto this week if I don't buy a ticket.

Of course I might be wrong.

Tilden, Cleveland in 1888, Gore, and Hillary were all Democrats and all won the popular vote in elections they lost the EC.

The only other time where this happened was 1824, tho that instance is often left out bc it was before the pop vote was counted in every state.

and then they'll find another way to cheat us.

accomplish that.

The article goes in depth on how even this idea might prove difficult. For it to work it is necessary gain control of a number of state legislatures and hold that control so as other states come online so that it doesn't get overturned.



It is a long and difficult path even following this approach but it might prove to work better than atempting to push through a constitutional amendment.

Last edited Wed Nov 23, 2016, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

And other slow going issues, but over 3 million landslide victory in EC Ought to unnerve trump at 3 am.

And Wear it proud!