Trump: I would rather have presidential election based on the popular vote

[corbe]

Trump: I would rather have presidential election based on the popular vote

By Brett Samuels  - 04/26/18 12:58 PM EDT 

President Trump on Thursday argued that he'd rather see the presidential election be determined based on the popular vote than the current Electoral College system, claiming it would be "much easier to win."

"They also like to always talk about [the] Electoral College. Well, it's an election based on the Electoral College. I would rather have a popular election, but it's a totally different campaign," Trump said during an interview with "Fox & Friends."

"It's as though you're running — if you're a runner you're practicing for the 100-yard dash as opposed to the one-mile," he continued. "The Electoral College is different. I would rather have the popular vote, because it's — to me, it's much easier to win."

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/385022-trump-i-would-rather-have-presidential-election-based-on-the-popular

[Emjay]

I think the electoral college was a good idea, maybe still is.  But it certainly favors liberals. California is a good example.  A lot of California citizens are conservative to the point of wanting to secede but the huge population areas in liberal strongholds give the liberal candidate a huge advantage.

Something to think about, maybe.

[RoosGirl]

[txradioguy]

I would rather have a popular election, but it's a totally different campaign

With a totally different outcome.

Did anyone in his inner circle ever let him know he lost the popular vote?

[GrouchoTex]

With a totally different outcome.

Did anyone in his inner circle ever let him know he lost the popular vote?

According to Trump, he did win the popular vote, but because of voter fraud, it showed HRC getting the higher total.
Just ask him.

[Emjay]

With a totally different outcome.

Did anyone in his inner circle ever let him know he lost the popular vote?

Well, there's that.

[edpc]

Someone should explain it to him in golf terms.  The difference between the popular vote and electoral vote is like stroke play vs match play.  If you take an 11 in stroke play, your round is lost.  In match play, it’s just the loss of one hole and you can still win.

[musiclady]

With a totally different outcome.

Did anyone in his inner circle ever let him know he lost the popular vote?

I'm pretty sure his inner circle would get fired if they told him the truth.

[Emjay]

I'm pretty sure his inner circle would get fired if they told him the truth.

It would be interesting to know how many Presidential elections in the past would have had different results without the Electoral College.  If any.

[musiclady]

It would be interesting to know how many Presidential elections in the past would have had different results without the Electoral College.  If any.

Off the top of my head, three.

(But my head's getting very old, so I may be wrong about that.  ^-^)

[corbe]

   Al Gore is the most recent, here is a handy little table from WIKI @Emjay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

[GrouchoTex]

   Al Gore is the most recent, here is a handy little table from WIKI @Emjay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

@corbe
Thanks,

Wow, that's pretty fascinating!

Gore/Bush and Nixon/Kennedy came to mind (and HRC/Trump of course).
But I had no idea that it had happened so often.

[INVAR]

Trump is the imbecile we always said he was, and admits here that his only desire is the ease of 'winning'.

Popular vote simply turns us into a pure mobocracy officially - and all future national elections will be decided by NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and the Big Blue Meccas of the Northeast megalopolis.

The rest of rural America will no longer matter and will have zero voice in the direction of the country.

But that is the intent everyone wants now anyways isn't it?

So, that is our near-term reality.

[roamer_1]

I think the electoral college was a good idea, maybe still is.  But it certainly favors liberals.

No, it most certainly does not. Popular vote would be governed by population centers in populous states. That's where the candidate would go to get the most votes... the most bang-for-buck. Rural areas and rural states would not be represented, because it wouldn't be worth going there.

And populous states and mega-cities are invariably liberal hotbeds.
Everything Conservative would be gone in one election.

[GrouchoTex]

Trump is the imbecile we always said he was, and admits here that his only desire is the ease of 'winning'.

Popular vote simply turns us into a pure mobocracy officially - and all future national elections will be decided by NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and the Big Blue Meccas of the Northeast megalopolis.

The rest of rural America will no longer matter and will have zero voice in the direction of the country.

But that is the intent everyone wants now anyways isn't it?

So, that is our near-term reality.

You are correct, and any presidential candidate would only need to visit the top 10 metropolitan areas to win an election.
To hell with the rest of America.
Think about who they would cater to, and only cater to.

[GrouchoTex]

The truth is, direct democracy, on a scale this large, could be as tyrannical as a dictatorship.
Popular vote only for the presidency?
No, thank you.

[roamer_1]

The truth is, direct democracy, on a scale this large, could be as tyrannical as a dictatorship.
Popular vote only for the presidency?
No, thank you.

But that is in fact the tenor of the fight in this day... The sophistry of the cities being imposed upon rural America... And it is nearly a fact that is also the argument between liberalism and conservatism.

[GrouchoTex]

But that is in fact the tenor of the fight in this day... The sophistry of the cities being imposed upon rural America... And it is nearly a fact that is also the argument between liberalism and conservatism.

Truer words, my friend, truer words...

[jmyrlefuller]

On one condition:

A person MUST achieve a majority of all votes cast to be elected on the first ballot. (Also: if at all possible, include a mandatory "none of the above" option.) That way, the vote cannot be split.

No majority, it goes to Congress the same way it would now.

[Oceander]

On one condition:

A person MUST achieve a majority of all votes cast to be elected on the first ballot. (Also: if at all possible, include a mandatory "none of the above" option.) That way, the vote cannot be split.

No majority, it goes to Congress the same way it would now.

All votes cast, or all votes that could be cast?

[WingNot]

The truth is, direct democracy, on a scale this large, could be as tyrannical as a dictatorship.
Popular vote only for the presidency?
No, thank you.

This.

But that is in fact the tenor of the fight in this day... The sophistry of the cities being imposed upon rural America... And it is nearly a fact that is also the argument between liberalism and conservatism.

And That.

The Founding Fathers knew what would happen if you let the "Majority of the Population centers" ride herd over the people in the real america.   

[Emjay]

   Al Gore is the most recent, here is a handy little table from WIKI @Emjay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

Wow, Corbe.  Thanks.  I did not realize there were so many elections that would have been different with popular vote.  Clinton didn't get popular vote either time.

Harry Truman would have lost and so would John Kennedy.

We wouldn't have had 'Gimme Jimmy" Carter.

Lincoln would have lost.

Lots more in older times but these are the most recent and relevant to us.

On balance ... I'm glad we got Harry Truman and maybe John Kennedy (even though I hated him)

We avoided algore but we got Clinton twice
 
And .... (drumroll)  We would have had Hillary.

So, on balance, I say let's keep the College.

[Cyber Liberty]

All votes cast, or all votes that could be cast?

If I were making that rule (not that I agree with it, because I don't) it would be "votes cast."  "Could be cast" is an invitation to voter registration chicanery even worse than the mess we have in California today.  "Well, if this (maybe) Million illegal aliens and felons over here could vote, then we only got 1/3 of the population voting."  Nobody could ever get a simple majority of that.

[Oceander]

If I were making that rule (not that I agree with it, because I don't) it would be "votes cast."  "Could be cast" is an invitation to voter registration chicanery even worse than the mess we have in California today.  "Well, if this (maybe) Million illegal aliens and felons over here could vote, then we only got 1/3 of the population voting."  Nobody could ever get a simple majority of that.

True enough, but limiting it to only a majority of votes actually cast still allows a small minority to control things, and incentivizes election fraud to dissuade people from voting, or having their votes invalidated. 

[DB]

Trump knows zip about the constitution and the reasoning of its articles.

Idiocracy has arrived.