Sorry, I just thought you were meaning in terms of sheer amount of PV.

1876 was also one of the most controversial elections; not just because of a popular vote or the electoral college, but because the winner was essentially picked due to support of legislation ending Reconstruction.

I'll write something lengthier once I'm home, but putting results 1876 in comparison to 2016 is comparing apples to a tomato

So do you believe 1876 is more similar to 1824 in terms of determining the presidency outside of the ballots and courts? And do you feel after this election anything will change soon with the EC?

Yes and no. You're right that Tilden led the popular vote by more than Clinton currently does. But many historians also argue that, had the dispute over electoral votes gone to court like in 2000, Tilden would have won enough of the 20 outstanding votes to win.

But unlike other cases, including 2000, 1876 was essentially resolved with a comprise. Democrats allow Hayes to win the Presidency (while losing the PV), and Hayes would end Reconstruction still ongoing in southern states.

Ultimately, history will never know how 1876 would have gone. Though because of the comprise in awarding states outside of court, and the ongoing count that continues to expand Clinton's lead, I question the direct comparison

Quote from: Azendac on November 22, 2016, 02:57:29 PM

Quote from: LC on November 22, 2016, 02:55:27 PM

Alright dude, it's clear you've got a narrative to believe and you won't budge an inch from it. If you want to believe Obama was encouraging illegals to vote (which he wasn't) and the democrats are importing Mexicans by the truck load to take control of the country go ahead.

I'm not exactly interested in debating a fantasy so I'm done with this line of discussion.

Brah you're not even trying. I gave you my honest opinion and I'll happily listen to yours. Don't plug your ears and storm out just because I have things I believe in, I'm no going to do the same to you.

What's there to say? Obama was clearly referring to legal citizens since that he specifically said that

"if you have an undocumented family member" meaning the individual who is debating whether or not to vote because as a citizen they are eligible to

And what about his "when you're voting, you are a citizen" comment? I don't think he's referring to citizens here. Course I should have clarified that I'm not denying he's talking to legal family member of illegals, It just really gets under my skin when they call them "undocumented" because that is deliberate obfuscation, like calling it "collateral damage".

"then you have an even greater reason to vote" meaning that because undocumented citizens (illegal aliens) can't vote, you have even more reason to vote since you can use your voice in the political process to speak for them

That does make sense though, I disagree with the principle but it makes sense legally.

I can't refute your claim that democrats are smuggling Hispanics in by the millions to take over the country because no proof that it's even happening even exists. And I mean legitimate proof, not some mad raving from someone like Alex Jones. It's the equivalent of you claiming there's an invisible pink elephant in the room that only you can see. I mean yeah, I can't prove that it isn't there but there's no way for you to prove it's actually there either so we're stuck at an impasse. There's no actual discussion to be had.

All you have to do is break down the votes by demographics, and see that Hispanics overwhelmingly vote democrat. Which shouldn't surprise anyone given Trump's running, and Hillary's promises to them. You could make the case that it's just a happy accident that the DNC panders to hispanics in that way, but functionally it's not different to them deliberately doing so.

Honestly America does not need to remove the electoral College but needs electoral reform. Ditch the two party system and try to bring in more companies.

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Risay117 on November 22, 2016, 05:54:19 PM

Honestly America does not need to remove the electoral College but needs electoral reform. Ditch the two party system and try to bring in more companies.

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

Companies?

I am tired. I meant parties.

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Ian on November 22, 2016, 01:13:50 PM

Without it, everyone who doesn't live in the current big states or swing states are basically told to fuck off.

Can you come up with a logical reason why they shouldn't be told to fuck off?

Why shouldn't the most populous areas hold more sway?

So they cant fuck over everywhere else.

Laypeople don't know what's good for them. Pure democracy is a disaster waiting to happen.

I spent the entire first page of this thread explaining to people that we're not a direct democracy only for you to complain about how shitty our democracy is?

Well it makes voting blue in states like Texas pointless and voting red in states like CA pointless as well. With a popular vote system then every single vote would count and it would give the people the actually ability to vote for the candidate they want to be president. The biggest bullshit thing about the EC is that the person who wins the most EC votes may not end up being president, Clinton can end up winning simply because of the EC people voting for her. Our so called democracy is shit.

Dont be fucking retarded. no.

This ain't a democracy anymore

It never was.

We're a Constitutional Republic.

What is it then, edgelords.

"A republic"?

That's a form of democracy.

I'm confused by what you're trying to say.

That sounds edgy! Your idea is stupid and wrong because it's edgy!

Hey, why not we just get rid of the election and make it a series of challenges with the last people standing have to duel each other for the right to rule.

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk