MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Trump supporters: How many winning votes...

Trump supporters: How many winning votes are needed for a Democrat to win the Presidency?


4 million more than the Republican?
5 million?
10 million?

Or should it all come down to an insanely gerrymandered system that's based on where each voter lives?

Obviously 3 million more votes than the Republican is not enough.

UNDER A REPUBLICAN, AMERICA RAVAGED THE MIDDLE EAST TO BRING DEMOCRACY AND FAIR ELECTIONS... and we don't even have that here.

Eat that. "Democracy" is meaningless in America. Hypocrisy aside, government is just a big game, anyway, and that's the outsider view from a capital-A Anarchist.

One day, government will be irrelevant, humanity will be too spread out and too advanced for any modicum of control. Until then, all the Statists are just playing games.

reply

We need a gerrymandered system because otherwise New York and California will decide the election!

That's what I was told anyway. To me it makes sense that if a candidate dominates in a large state then it should count in their favor.

reply

Exactly -- Republicans love to consider huge cities as singular entities instead of what they are, millions upon millions of voters.

A great example is a room divided in two, representing two states. Each side of the room has only one electoral vote. On the right side of the room stands two Republicans, and on the left side stands 20 Democrats. Every vote is a tie because each Republican vote is worth the same as 10 Democrat votes.

Those two republicans stand by their electoral system because they claim that "the left side of the room can't be deciding every election," despite there being 18 more Democrats.

Ask a real-world Republican if this 10x inflation of the votes would be fair, and I would hope they'd say no because that line drawn down the middle of the room is meaningless.

Then ask them what inflation of votes IS fair... and hopefully they'll have to think long and hard, but any real person would say that the only fair vote is for each vote to be worth the same.

Real-world Republicans love the outdated, archaic electoral college because the rural votes they depend on can be over 3x as valuable as urban votes. More like 3.5x!!!

That's not quite 10x, so I challenge any Republican to tell me what the hard line is for fairness when it comes to inflating votes based on geographic location. Is 4x too much? 5x? Maybe 10x is fair?

When it comes to Presidential elections and the electoral college, democracy in America is a joke.

NO ONE in the world can explain WHY areas that are dense with millions of voters are less valuable and deserve less representation than sparsely populated rural areas.

No one. In our modern connected world, it is geographic discrimination. People are punished for living in cities, and the message is that rural voters are more important. No reasoning behind it anymore, not for well over a century has there been a reason for it.

reply

Do you eat in the city you live in?

Do you want to keep eating?

There's your geographical inequality there.

reply

So global majority rule it is?

reply

so all other countries are wrong to let the population decide who governs them who ever wants to move has a choice

reply

It's the majority in each state that decide which candidate the state shall endorse.

reply

I think you need to read how you select people who are on electoral college they are the only voters in this country

reply

So it's the candidate with the least votes?

reply

guess you where one of the few who actually voted after this election with over 3 million peoples votes cast in the trash bin think we need to re think how we count them remember only the people at the table are equal not the servents

reply

Because we are the United STATES of America, and that still means something.

The distribution of power in the Electoral College is exactly the same as it is in Congress, but you don't see Democrats whining about that. And it's exactly how it's been for centuries. And despite all the turmoil over the years, we've always had a smooth transition of power every time we've changed presidents.

But of course, that's a downside to Anarchists like you. So why should we take your opinion seriously?

"One day, government will be irrelevant."

There are plenty of places around the world where government is irrelevant. Why aren't you moving there?

reply

The united part didn't matter much to most of the states Trump won when they rose up and tried to secede. Coz gotta have me muh slaves.

reply

"The united part didn't matter much to most of the states Trump won when they rose up and tried to secede."

Here's a clue: All the people who were involved in the Civil War are dead.

reply

[deleted]

Wow. Clueless. You're the one trying make some kind of comparison between the states 'Trump won' and those that tried to succeed 150 years ago. Nobody who tried to succeed is still alive, so your comparison is meaningless.

Understand? Or do I have to write it in crayon for you?

Which is different than the Electoral College, which has been in place for over 200 years, and has aided in the smooth transition of power we've enjoyed in that time.

In other words, quit your fucking whining over losing an election that was won fair and square by the rules in place. The rules state that the popular vote is meaningless, so neither of the candidates tried to win it. If it had mattered, they both would've changed their campaigns to get as many votes as possible. And Trump would've kicked her ass that way too, because she was such a horrible candidate, and he was such a great one.

reply

[deleted]

Wow. Clueless. You're the one trying make some kind of comparison between the states 'Trump won' and those that tried to succeed [/b] 150 years ago. Nobody who tried to [b] succeed is still alive, so your comparison is meaningless.

Understand? Or do I have to write it in crayon for you?


LOLOLOLOLOLLOL

Tried to call somebody else dumb and conflated succeed with secede.

Let me write it in crayon for you, dumb dumb. The Confederacy tried to secede but they did not succeed.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

would love to know where you learned all this why say move bet you live in the city I do not

reply

"would love to know where you learned all this why say move bet you live in the city I do not "

Same place I learned how to punctuate sentences.

reply

wow can feel the heat from this one

reply

[deleted]

too bad all the newspapers are gone maybe you can autocorrect for someone like donnny

reply

Same place that taught you the difference of secede and succeed?

Lololololol!

You really got screwed from that red neck home-schooling you got in your first 18 years. Really got screwed.

reply

"Same place that taught you the difference of secede and succeed? "

The 'difference of'?

LOL?

What the fuck kind of grammar is that?

reply

Proper.

reply

[deleted]

You're wrong, as usual.

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/121134/difference-of-vs-difference-between

A difference of is used to indicate the extent of a difference; it's a measure, whether a degree (temperature), a metre (length), a litre (volume) or a kilogram (mass).

There is a difference of half a litre between the capacity of the two jugs.
There is a difference of nearly a centimetre between the lengths of the tables.

A difference between is used to compare two creatures/objects directly.

There is a slight colour difference between the two vases.
There is a marked difference in character between the identical twins.

reply

Why aren't you moving there?

I love the "logic" of antagonistic "right-wingers."

Version A: If you don't like something about America, then leave!

Version B: Those foreign immigrants should stop fleeing their war-torn countries and stick around to try improving their homelands instead!

LOL

reply

I love the "logic" of antagonistic "right-wingers."

Version A: If you don't like something about America, then leave!

Version B: Those foreign immigrants should stop fleeing their war-torn countries and stick around to try improving their homelands instead!


Clueless.

First of all, I didn't say 'Leave." He was advocating the irrelevancy of government, so I simply pointed out that there were already places in the world where the government is irrelevant, and asked him why his isn't moving there.

It was a question, not a demand for him to leave. Try to keep up.

Which makes your 'Version B' meaningless.

Next time, actually try to read and comprehend my posts before replying to them.

"LOL"

I guess you find your own inanity funny.

reply

Oh, and this: "And it's exactly how it's been for centuries."

Exactly, an outdated and archaic system designed for this country in its infancy.

If slavery was still legal: "And it's exactly how it's been for centuries."

If women still couldn't vote: "And it's exactly how it's been for centuries."

So, how many more millions of votes are needed for a Republican Presidential nominee to lose the election?

I'm looking for a number, not "And it's exactly how it's been for centuries."

reply

270 electoral college votes are generally required to win an election. Understand?

reply

[deleted]

Says the man who can’t differentiate between succeed and secede. Pay attention to him!

Bwahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

reply

Another dumb Democrat relying on typos to avoid discussing the issues.

reply

Another dumb Republican trying to blame his horrible spelling on 'typos'. No surprise - Repbublicans never take the blame for any of their actions.

reply

Another dumb Republican trying to blame his horrible spelling on 'typos'. No surprise - Repbublicans never take the blame for any of their actions.


Repbublicans ?

Hahahahahahahaha!

Now that is sweet! Made my day!

reply

Exactly, an outdated and archaic system designed for this country in its infancy.

If slavery was still legal: "And it's exactly how it's been for centuries."

If women still couldn't vote: "And it's exactly how it's been for centuries."


This is the kind of stupidity that causes people to become liberals.

There are many things around that have been around for centuries. Slavery and women not voting aren't examples of them. See how that works? Things that don't work, we get rid of.

Things that do work, like the Constitution, capitalism, the American civilization, etc, we keep. And the Electoral College is working and is worth keeping.

Just because your ass is still stinging from getting spanked in an election, doesn't mean it's 'outdated and archaic.'

reply

if you want to get rid of the EC then go back to only land owners can vote too. it was seen that you needed to own stake in a country to vote on its future and it will also make voting fraud that much harder.

before 1792 you pretty much had to own land to vote. actually, several northern states allowed free blacks, women (in NJ), and (naturalized citizens after 1790) who owned land could vote before US born poor whites.

if you want a straight up vote with everyone included the amount of voter fraud will be ridiculous. look at russia's ballot stuffing. do you really trust red states to have a fair election? youd have 40 million votes coming out of alabama. trying to clean up the mess would be futile and a democrat would never win.

be careful what you wish for.......

reply

Add up votes for candidates on the right, then add up votes for candidates on the left, then compare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Candidates_table

By the way, the winner of the election was backed by a majority in 30(60 %) of the 50 states, and received 304(56.5 %) of the 538 electoral votes.

reply

[deleted]

Use the rules in place or work to change them if you don't like them. Despite what the left thinks , bitching and moaning doesn't actually get anything done. I know that's a hard concept to understand,but....

reply

Butching and moaning led to gerrymandering for Rethuglikkkans. Lest we forget.

reply

Because Democrats never gerrymandered.

You must get your history lessons from CNN.

reply

We aren't a democracy. A democracy wouldn't last as long as the US has lasted.

reply