In any event, there are going to be swift changes in policy by April next year and as long as we stay away from the tariffs, all changes will be good. See ya Olbammycare
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442059/dont-blame-clinton-trump-2016-wouldve-beaten-obama-2012 The Math: Trump 2016 Would’ve Beaten Obama 2012 The electoral college would produce a razor-thin margin: Trump 273, Obama 265.
What is an American again? Anyway, I'm trying to think of a reason the electorate system is the fairest amongst the states. Suppose there was a rogue state that opened its border to anyone from the "Americas", north or south, just before an important election, to try to influence a national election through shear numbers. Well, by calibrating electors to older population (ten year census?) figures, a state is prevented from dominating other states due to overly liberal immigration policies (or the breaking of conservative policy). Or rather, one party is prevented from using immigration to gerrymander dominance over another party. While such liberal policies might swing that state, electors based on older census figures would function to BUFFER other states (or other parties) from the liberal policies of such states...or that states inability to slow illegal immigration. Take California for example, with 55 electors it is the most influential, but per capita, those electors probably under-represent it's population growth in the last ten years. If so, electors are functioning as buffers to population surges, compared to states that grow more in line with natural born birth rates. In which case, savvy political parties can target their spending on more rich electoral fields where they can get more leverage for dollars spent. Again, these will be states with a more natural born birth rate. Perhaps that also means more "Americans", or at least those places with the deepest roots of heritage invested in the land. But both parties, if savvy, can focus resources on known "battleground" states. So it's fair. So this is an argument that says the electoral system better represents the will of the country, as is weights in favor of those Americans with the deepest roots...as per natural birth rates. Stark you need to read this.
Does this thing factor in things like population changes? Fl has around a million more people now than in 2012 so obviously both Trumps and Hillary's total vote will be higher than Obamas.A better way to look at this imo is % of the vote. In 2012 Obama got 50% of the FL vote ,Trump 49 Obama got 52 % of the PA vote,Trump 49 Obama got 54 % of the Michigan vote,Trump 48 Obama got 53 % of the Wisconsin vote,Trump 48 Obama got 52 % of the IA vote,Trump 51 etc
Winning the popular vote counts for exactly nothing. Bringing it up as some kind of face saver is for nothing but losers.
This is factually true, though the margin of difference is less than 2 tenths of a percent (200,000 votes out of 118 million) without MI, AZ and NH fully reported. So while factually correct, I'm not sure how impactful this argument is.
Obama has stated at least twice, "Trump will not be president". Skullduggery when the electoral college members cast their votes in December?? The Dems would like it changed so that the election is determined by popular vote. That way, all of the illegals' votes (especially if later granted amnesty and citizenship) would carry enough weight to swing the presidency to the Dems in perpetuity. ("Perpetuity" meaning... until we collapse into a totalitarian regime, of course. After which we won't have to bother with voting.)
If it was up to four or five electoral votes, I can see them trying to change some electors. At nine, i'll give them the benefit of the doubt but still watch very closely. I'm guessing the Trump team is watching very closely, too.