Did Trump win presidency by a technicality?

[kentuck]

In 240 years of our existence as a country, we have had 5 elections that went to the person that did not win the popular vote. Two of those happened in the last 16 years. It is not a common occurrence.

It is, in a way, a technicality brought about by an obsolete rule creating a electoral college vote over the popular vote. Legally, Trump will be sworn in as the new President. Morally, he will never be legitimate.

[progree]

1. Bill Clinton too was only "technically" president, per El Rushbo

After the '92 election Rush Limbaugh rallied Republicans with the claim that Bill Clinton was only "technically" president because he only won a plurality of the vote, not a majority. It was part of their justification for the constant attacks and scandal-mongering. Naturally, that "principle" went out the window in 2000 and 2016.

(I stole that from someone on DU yesterday, I can't find who it was)

[Gothmog]

2. Yes-Trump took advantage of the electoral college

[Motown_Johnny]

3. The baseball team with the most runs wins, not the most hits.

The hockey team with the most goals wins, not the most shots.

The football team with the most points wins, not the most yards.



Are these technicalities?


We could have won, we didn't. Lets grasp reality and try to not make the same mistakes again. Blaming the system for our failure isn't helping anything.



We should have won PA, MI and WI (and should have been able to compete in OH). I believe we didn't because some voters chose to vote for the candidate who they expect to be tougher on free trade. They voted to save their jobs. Our failure to address the needs of those voters was our downfall. Lets not ever do that again.


The electoral college is here to stay. Complaining about it is not helpful. How about we plan on it instead?

[kentuck]

4. 3 million more hits is hardly the same as buying the refs.

in my opinion.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. We should have won PA, MI and WI (and at least had a shot in OH.

It doesn't matter how many people in solid blue states turned out. The battlegrounds were lost.


I don't mean to be rude but your opinion doesn't really matter either. Reality exists and the reality is that you need to win the electoral college to become President.

[kentuck]

7. And I'm saying 5 times in 240 years is more of a technicality than a common occurrence.

I understand that it is the law and that is the reality.

But, I cannot accept that Donald Trump won some great victory, as he and his supporters have said.

It's OK to be rude. It's a national past-time now.

[Yupster]

16. Once in a while a baseball team wins when it only gets three hits

and the opponent gets nine hits.

It's rare, but it happens.

Did they win or lose by a technicality?

What if it's rare that it happens?

Think of poor Andrew Jackson. He got way more popular votes and way more electoral votes and still lost. His solution was to win big four years later.

Think of poor Harvey Haddix. He pitched a nine inning no-hitter and lost. His solution was to be named pitching coach of the early Mets.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. I didn't mean to imply that it was a great victory, but...

a win is a win.

[Blue_Roses]

6. "Planning ahead" always requires reviewing

what works and what doesn't. While I think the popular vote should be our way of settling an election in these current times, the electoral college remains--for now. I suspect it's on a short leash though.

This election was far from what we call "normal" in the US. It demands our attention and action. To do that, we talk about or "complain" as you say.

[progree]

9. "electoral college ... I suspect it's on a short leash though." ???

I don't. The Repukes know the EC tilts their way, and they are in charge of pretty much everything for the next 4 years anyway. I don't see that National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or anything like that succeeding either, not with the Repukes in charge of the states they are in charge of.

Changing it via a constitutional amendment (3/4 of the states and 2/3 of both houses of Congress) is way beyond impossible, at least until Dems start showing up to vote in midterms.

[Blue_Roses]

10. It does require a constitutional amendment

and will only happen with a majority of Dems in Congress, but at least this election FINALLY has some serious talk about it--something we've needed for a long time.

After the Bush-Gore debacle, many of us were screaming that this needed to be changed. There wasn't even a ripple of interest. But, with the ridiculous outcome of this election, I've seen a few ripples. I also suspect that the more we learn about this election coup, the process will make waves. Maybe not in our lifetime, but eventually.

[progree]

12. A majority won't do it. It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states

to change the Constitution. I see no murmuring for change at all on the Republican side -- they know the EC tilts their way. And the Repukes have long ago purged the vast majority of their "good government" moderate types who might actually vote for the good of the country and for small d democracy instead of for the good of the Party. The only "serious talk" is among Democrats.

On the timescale of beyond our lifetimes -- sure, anything can happen and its impossible to predict anything that far (my life expectancy is only 20 years).

[Blue_Roses]

14. Yes, I'm aware of the fractional numbers

needed in Congress to get shit done. But thank-you for the refresher anyway. Wow, you're only 20?

[progree]

15. I said, "my life expectancy is only 20 years"

That's not the same as being 20 years old.

[font color = blue]>>Wow, you're only 20?<<[/font]

[Motown_Johnny]

18. The electoral college is here to stay.

To change things would require a Constitutional Amendment (no matter what anyone else might say) and that is a political impossibility.

Too many states, and their members of Congress, would need to vote to reduce their impact on picking a President. It won't happen. Maybe not ever, certainly not in the foreseeable future.


We should have concentrated on the swing voters in the battleground states. We didn't and we lost.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. I think we all agree that this was not a normal election.

I am just saying that we should not be focusing on the popular vote. As far as the process goes, it is meaningless. It is like counting hits or yards or shots on goal. A meaningful statistic to indicate the areas where you need to improve but having no direct impact on victory or defeat.

[Initech]

8. It's time to do away with the Electoral College once and for all.

[EL34x4]

13. And Republicans will argue that it's time...

...to defend the Electoral College now more than ever.

And they will.

[Initech]

17. Because they can't win elections without stealing it.

[uponit7771]

11. Comey, Voter suppression, Russia... !!!! Please, lets not legitimize Benedict Donald with ....

... suppositions that MiniPoot did anything but cheat.