Okay, not following your logic, but if it makes you happy...That is precisely what I meant and it is 100% accurate. She had the most votes. She did not win a majority.
Okay, not following your logic, but if it makes you happy...That is precisely what I meant and it is 100% accurate. She had the most votes. She did not win a majority.
Although, SF, the office of the President is already limited in terms, so we need to find a way that all States and people have equality in picking the President.
Although, SF, the office of the President is already limited in terms, so we need to find a way that all States and people have equality in picking the President.
Okay, not following your logic, but if it makes you happy...
no one is taking CA away.
It's a frigging lame point. It's like saying, "well, if you take away TX..."
I've actually heard righties say "if you take away NY, CA and the coasts..." People are people. "If you take away CA" is an incredibly lame point, because they're Americans, they vote, and barring a major earthquake, no one is taking CA away.
Yes thing... just as it is fucking LAME to run around screaming that Hillary had more votes. IT DOESN"T FUCKING MATTER UNDER OUR SYSTEM.
Oh, lol, I remember this stupid argument now...Do the math. It isn't hard. 137,525,484 votes were cast for President. Hillary won 65,853,652. That equates to roughly 48.02% of the vote. That is not a majority.
Kinda matters when debating whether that system needs to be changed...no?
Oh, lol, I remember this stupid argument now...
true datsince the number of electoral votes of each state is 2 (all states) plus additional votes based on population (and people) we already have a system in place that permits all states and people equality in picking the president.......isn't great how they already figured that out in the 1780s and you didn't suggest it until now?.........
and again... if you want that debate, then pointing out the fact that one state made such a huge difference proves why the electoral college is in place to begin with. You cannot cry about the popular vote and then not break it down into more detailed analysis.
Oh, lol, I remember this stupid argument now...
actually CAlifornia has more electorals than any other state,It's not really an "analysis." What you're essentially saying is that people in CA matter less. Their votes shouldn't count as full votes.
we discussed this before, I'm not doing it againLet me guess, you simply are feeling stupid because the math was too hard for you? Or do you think you can simply alter the definition of words to fit whatever narrative you wish to tell?
It's not really an "analysis." What you're essentially saying is that people in CA matter less. Their votes shouldn't count as full votes.
we discussed this before, I'm not doing it again
Definitions are regional as I proved with "wicked".
You lose.
No, we have not. But I certainly understand your desire not to be proven wrong again. It is simple math. So don't question something so simple if you don't wish to discuss it.
pma·jor·i·tyməˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun
- 1.
the greater number.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"[/COLOR]
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half; More
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
- P