i can say unequivocally that I would put that money to better use than whatever jillenstein plans to do with it

This!

Ok, I know you were the King of False Equivalence before the MAGAing, so, are you trying to regain your crown from the usurpers, or, like, what's going on here?

For the record I don't believe there was fraud, does that help?

So, in an election where everybody, including both candidates and all their people with all their resources, thought one side would lose bigly, does it make sense that all contesting-of-the-results are not created equal?

And that's just one part.

Discovering a hacking large scale conspiracy here would be the mother of all justice finally, party time, US#1 moments!

I personally refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Trump presidency either way. Your electoral system, a true moronic disgrace, is currently living its worse moment in modern history (ie since women and other races vote). This is the moment that deserves a revolt actually or to hold Trump to unprecedented grass roots eternal peaceful resistance that will take down the entire economy in strikes and marches of millions of people everywhere every time he tries to pass abusive and extreme legislation. If he had any decency based on election results 40% of his cabinet would be moderate liberals. That is how you undo the injustice of the result without aborting the law itself instantly.

I dont know how many of you recognize that Clinton not only won the popular vote by unprecedented margin for a loser but also would have won the electoral vote if each state awarded their electorates proportionally with the votes received in that state and not a winner take all bs, ie the system you should have if still insisting on electors. In other words ethically she won in every way that it should matter to a rational observer that thinks all voters in US deserve the same weight in determining their president even if you weight a bit differently rural areas to over-represent them.

Republicans are a true shame to this country by continuing to defend such a moronic system of electorates that makes some states important and others irrelevant and that effectively decided the election with a 100k fluctuation ignoring the true will of the people in both the true popular vote and the true electoral vote count. Ie there is no such thing as red America in the map or any mandate. It is still mostly blue if you do it right and award electorates by how people voted in each state to properly represent fairly the will of the people regardless of who came first where.

This, but I'd put it at 98%. If nothing else this recountening will shed light on the massive voter suppression.

It's become apparent that people don't grasp how truly bizarre the results of this election were. At this point the popular vote lead is in line with some of the final national polls, and all the original narratives are dead. Overall turnout down, nope. Minority turnout down, nope. Obama->trump voters, nope. Most everything is now in line with predictions except, oh look, a metric ****ton of black voters decided to not vote, in NC and in the firewall states, but not so much in the rest of the country. And, oh look, this is the first presidential election since the Voting Rights Act was gutted.

Ok, now I'm rustled again.

Your post is a disgrace. You cling to a false assumption that if the rules of the election were different, the candidates and the voters would behave exactly the same. Such an assumption is ludicrous. You're so butthurt about the result that you can no longer think rationally about it.

In the United States, the will of states decide who will be president, not the will of the people. But for ****s and giggles lets pretend it is the will of the people that decides who should be president. Further lets assume to be true the ludicrous assumption that the candidates and voters behave exactly the same. You still cannot credibly claim that Hillary won it because she didn't get a majority of the vote. You would need a run off election or an Alternative voting system to determine what the will of the people actually was.

The truth is, we don't really know the will of the people because the 2016 election wasn't formulated to measure it. Stop pretending you know what isn't known. Hillary only wins it when you cherry pick the rules and underlying assumptions about the behaviors of the actors. You are better than this Masque. If this election was illegitimate, then so was nearly every modern election before it.....including William Jefferson Clinton's. Did you bitch and moan about that?

You are a man of bold statements.

The will of the states according to the will of the people under an electorate system will still decide it as i propose and as any rational person should propose if you want to remain under an electorate system.

Unfair idiotic systems need to be rejected and any time to do so after they have massively demonstrated their ineptness is not soon enough!!!

Clearly you can have a fair system that awards in the end the electorates according to the top 2 parties and offers a voice to the other parties electorates that can only vote among the top 2 now or not vote at all and then the winner is the top count of electorates. Now do you honestly think that the way the other 2 parties behaved in the election they would choose Trump if given the choice of these 2?

You have a system that has to arrive at a result either way. You need one winner in the end. But it is important how you get there. Otherwise you have a banana republic system. And you actually do in so many ways behave like one. Its a light version of a Castro regime benefiting only a few actually masquerading as free fair capitalism and some bs concept of American dream. It is called idiocracy under plutocracy. And it will not become great again (like it were when it went to the moon or helped win the ww2 or prevented communism from taking everything) that way.

All i am saying is that without aborting the electorate system that makes the electors the final deciders, you can have a better representation of the will of the people (otherwise what the f*ck does the concept of "their" president mean really?) that must be the most important objective in an election in a modern country that supposedly embraces democratic principles and human rights.


Is there any doubt by the way that electors will always side with the party regardless of the quality of the original electorate votes winner in modern era (like past 100 years) ? They are puppets of their parties actually in my opinion, the most loyal people and i dare you to show me otherwise with examples that had any impact anywhere. They dont care when it finally counts at the very end if a moron or dangerous reckless person is president as long as their party will have the key positions and supreme court appointments and all kinds of goodies that the will of the actual people never intended!


Do you honestly think that if the electorate system was as fair as i describe it the people would vote differently to such a degree as to undo the result that currently puts Clinton at the top of all counts that ethically matter? How? What do you think would have happened differently?


I am not butt-hurt. I am ashamed to be living in this country and to not have a better alternative without radical life changes that affect my ability to do my research, a country that has such a huge potential , that presents such an important experiment for the future of the planet and morons have for decades decided to f*ck it up beyond recovery with idiotic backwards marching choices. These are predominantly republicans and some democrats that instead of rationally reacting to represent more moderate practical and common sense positions take the wild left side with political correctness going crazy and cause election losses very often to important progressive ideas that make scientific ethical and cultural sense more than what the other side has to offer.



PS: You realize that under current system it is quite possible eventually to have someone that gets 40% of the votes defeat a 51% candidate by simply getting wins in a few critical states by 1 vote and losing a ton elsewhere. That is ok with you. That deserves to be your president and determine the direction of the country against the will of 51% of the people say in that example. Yes the states decide it not the people directly, but they better decide it rationally not with coin flip bs methods. The responsibility of the state is to properly represent the citizens of that state. A winner take all system doesnt do that. It manipulates instead the composition of the country and the accumulation of population in fewer big centers ignoring the fact that in the end all citizens have interests in all states one way or another because our lives are interconnected and the decisions of a president affect all people.

I am 100% certain that if the rules of the election are different then the candidates and the voters would have behaved differently. If the rules were different, I don't know who would have won.

You are making an error in thinking by arguing that if the rules you cherry picked were in place Hillary would have surely won.....therefore Trump's victory is not legitimate. This is a failure on many levels.

The 'true electoral vote count'!

The fact that the above post contains the words ethically and rational is just icing.

This is absolutely 100% true but liberals aren't pushing these ideas. We need to find our courage now or never. Don't let conservatives mock you or bully you into giving up on these important points. Take notice that they actually have no good arguments for the current Electoral College system, would be amazingly pissed if the results were reversed, and the entire reason the E.C. was created in the first place was to prevent a demagogue from becoming President. That doesn't look like it's happening, so there is absolutely no good reason to keep the E.C. And if we aren't gonna make noise about that now, when? There will be no better time.

Hillary Clinton is currently ahead in the popular vote by over 2,000,000 votes.

Lol at attacking him for saying the election was a national disgrace. He is factually demonstrably correct.

Also there is a long set precedent that the electoral college can choose the candidate who won millions more votes. Proof of hacked voting machines makes it imperative that they follow the will of the people and select the most popular candidate. Also the fact trump is appointing white supremacists and is already corrupting the office he hasn't even taken yet means they should.

The comparison between Stein wanting to ensure the vote wasn't corrupted and Trump refusing to accept an uncorrupted losing result is ****ing moronic. Stop being part of the problem.

There is a longstanding precedent that the winner of the electoral college becomes the President despite losing the popular vote.

You can't even argue with the delusion here.

The margin of error on a poll with 100 million participants is very small.

Nazis getting mad that elections might get audited with private funds tells you all you need to know about what they stand for

There's no evidence that the election was hacked. Lots of "anonymous insider sources" (i.e. establishment democrats) implying this but they don't have a shred of evidence.

That said, the election results should be audited as a matter of course. It should be 100% standard and publicly funded.

But it was created specifically to stop trump and people like him.

To quote Hamilton it is there to ensure "the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

It also never had to choose a president with such a losing margin as trump. Hillary will win the vote by more than five times what Gore did and 25x Cleveland.

If the electoral college is to have a point it is to stand up next month and protect the country. The president elect is already bumping up against the lines of criminal corruption and has made millions already mixing his role as president and as businessman.

It would be unprecedented but it is possible.

Hillary isn't contesting anything. She is supporting Stein's decision to recount the vote.

That said, the only way this changes anything is if there was massive organized voter fraud in multiple states. In all honesty, I'd rather take Trump winning and this recount discovering nothing than uncovering voter fraud. Trump winning is a 4-year problem. Uncovering large-scale voter fraud would be the death rattle of American democracy and the rise of a Putin-esque dictatorship.

Irrelevant.

The election is formulated to measure the will of the states not the will of the people. If the election is not formulated to measure the will of the people it cannot be claimed to be a trustworthy measure of the will of the people.

If the rules of the election were different so that the popular vote determines the outcome. Trump may have won it anyways. If Trump campaigned in California and New York aggressively he could have picked up 2 million plus votes.

Sure there haven't been enough faithless electors to change an outcome yet. But there have only been 43 presidents so far. One in 44 seems about right if you wanted to estimate how often this power should be enacted.

There are growing calls to do so from both sides if he doesn't sell off his business empire, btw. Which he won't do.

He won't and the entangle are immense. Impeachment probability over this issue is high.

What an awful post.


I think the electoral college is nonsense but


1)you're assuming without it the voting would have been the same which is beyond idiotic


2)you think HRC would have filled her cabinet with 40 pct conservatives?


Like most hard core supports of any politician you're an absolute clown and a hypocrite who just wants to cry when their candidate loses.

You would have no problem if HRC won the presidency but lost the popular vote.