Blockbuster CIA report: Russia definitely meddled in U.S. election to elect Trump.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, but I do like how our court jester is fit to be tied because we were "attacked"(!)... while at the same time claiming that the information released was no big deal, "a case where a mountain was being made out of a molehill".

And IF we were "attacked", it was his own party's head who was in charge of national security at the time! Obama apparently left the door wide open for the Russians to steal the record of debauchery his party was involved in! His phony outrage is badly misplaced.

[Sea of red]

Which sounds more impressive than it is when you consider the only reason she won the popular vote was because of California. If California's votes aren't taken into account Trump comes ahead by roughly 1,25 million votes. In short, the Electoral College seems to have done it's work of keeping one state from forcing it's will on to the rest of the US.

So what? Those people are no less citizens than anybody else and their vote should not have to be marginalized because there are not enough conservatives residing in other states. California simply has a great economy that no other state ( including Texas) can compare to when it comes to jobs and standard of living. Tell the other states not to suck so much, instead of polishing their geographic turds.

The electoral college only seems to "work" to conservatives because they have lost six out of the last seven popular votes in this country, and it's hard for them to win without it.

[Sparko]

So what? Those people are no less citizens than anybody else and their vote should not have to be marginalized because there are not enough conservatives residing in other states. California simply has a great economy that no other state ( including Texas) can compare to when it comes to jobs and standard of living. Tell the other states not to suck so much, instead of polishing their geographic turds.

The electoral college only seems to "work" to conservatives because they have lost six out of the last seven popular votes in this country, and it's hard for them to win without it.

Their votes were not marginalized. They helped California to vote Hillary with their electoral votes.

[Sea of red]

Their votes were not marginalized. They helped California to vote Hillary with their electoral votes.

Right, but some are harping on the point that so many liberals live in California to argue the difference in the popular vote margin isn't a legitimate point.

I am willing to accept the electoral college, and even the concept of someone winning the presidency without the popular vote, but the margin of victory Trump had the EC was not representative of how close the actual election was. That's something I have a problem with.

[Sparko]

Right, but some are harping on the point that so many liberals live in California to argue the difference in the popular vote margin isn't a legitimate point.

I am willing to accept the electoral college, and even the concept of someone winning the presidency without the popular vote, but the margin of victory Trump had the EC was not representative of how close the actual election was. That's something I have a problem with.

yeah but that is the system and always has been.

Heck, even in a popular election, once a side gets past 50% votes, the left over votes don't really "count" They could just go home and nap once the 50% mark is broken and the election result would still be the same. so lets say we had a popular vote instead. And since we have time zones, the east coast votes first. By the time the vote gets to California the entire state could be useless if the popular vote has reached a certain level of distance between the two sides. It could get to a point where not even if everyone in California voted for Hillary that Trump could lose. So then the entire state's votes would not count, right?

[Cow Poke]

Here's an excerpt from a piece in the American Spectator that really nails it, and fits some of our liberals "to the T".
(bolding mine)

They grow more paranoid, blaming enemies, both foreign and domestic, for their loss of power.

[Sea of red]

yeah but that is the system and always has been.

Heck, even in a popular election, once a side gets past 50% votes, the left over votes don't really "count" They could just go home and nap once the 50% mark is broken and the election result would still be the same. so lets say we had a popular vote instead. And since we have time zones, the east coast votes first. By the time the vote gets to California the entire state could be useless if the popular vote has reached a certain level of distance between the two sides. It could get to a point where not even if everyone in California voted for Hillary that Trump could lose. So then the entire state's votes would not count, right?

The solution is to simply count the votes the next day and not report the results until everybody is done.

[Mountain Man]

So what? Those people are no less citizens than anybody else and their vote should not have to be marginalized because there are not enough conservatives residing in other states. California simply has a great economy that no other state ( including Texas) can compare to when it comes to jobs and standard of living. Tell the other states not to suck so much, instead of polishing their geographic turds.

The electoral college only seems to "work" to conservatives because they have lost six out of the last seven popular votes in this country, and it's hard for them to win without it.

Look, man, claiming that people's votes are "marginalized" in the electoral system makes as much sense as saying that people who voted for the losing candidate in a popular vote had their vote "marginalized". Alternatively, without the electoral system, people in states with smaller populations could claim that their votes are "marginalized" because they have no way of overcoming the votes of the handful of states with densely populated urban areas.

In other words, no matter what election system we put into place, there will be a winner, and there will be a loser, and those on the losing side will never be happy with the outcome. But to insist that the electoral college is "broken" or "stupid" because your candidate lost? That's just petty, dude. Do you guys have any argument against the electoral college that isn't predicated on "Hillary lost"?

[Cow Poke]

The solution is to simply count the votes the next day and not report the results until everybody is done.

THAT would be wonderful. Of course, the problem is that our votes are spread over, what, 6 time zones?

[Sea of red]

Here's an excerpt from a piece in the American Spectator that really nails it, and fits some of our liberals "to the T".
(bolding mine)

They grow more paranoid, blaming enemies, both foreign and domestic, for their loss of power.

It's politics. People get upset when they feel powerless. Conservatives were certainly not angels that took any of their Obama defeats well in the first months of his presidency with all their Tea Parties protests, CPAC's. and the meltdown they had on their side of the media. They complained day and night about Obama before he took office, and the eight years of his presidency.

I mean, when Romney lost many conservatives called everyone that voted for Obama mooches and losers, so it's not like everyone on the right took that defeat with grace - they didn't.

[Mountain Man]

THAT would be wonderful. Of course, the problem is that our votes are spread over, what, 6 time zones?

I still think there should be a law against reporting on election results until after the last poll is closed. How many times have we seen the media try and sway West coast voters by calling Eastern states way earlier than is reasonable?

[Cow Poke]

It's politics. People get upset when they feel powerless. Conservatives were certainly not angels that took any of their Obama defeats well in the first months of his presidency with all their Tea Parties protests, CPAC's. and the meltdown they had on their side of the media. They complained day and night about Obama before he took office, and the eight years of his presidency.

I mean, when Romney lost many conservatives called everyone that voted for Obama mooches and losers, so it's not like everyone on the right took that defeat with grace - they didn't.

I don't remember the Republican LEADERSHIP pitching fits like this when Obama was elected. And it was Hillary who made such a big stinkin' deal about how Trump would never accept the results if she won --

you know, like in my signature.... (Hillary talking about Trump)

...I assumed he would say what everybody has always said, which is, hey, of course, you know, because to say you won't respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.... The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America... It is not a joke, and, look, some people are sore losers, and, you know, we just gotta keep going...

She is such a freakin' hypocrite on this.

[Cow Poke]

I still think there should be a law against reporting on election results until after the last poll is closed. How many times have we seen the media try and sway West coast voters by calling Eastern states way earlier than is reasonable?

Or Florida, which is in TWO time zones! Remember the mess of the 200o election?

After the 2000 election, when some networks incorrectly called the Florida results before voting had ended in the Panhandle, which is in an earlier time zone, the network presidents were again summoned to Capitol Hill.

[Sparko]

The solution is to simply count the votes the next day and not report the results until everybody is done.

Doesn't change the outcome though. They can just stop counting when they reach 51% of the total votes they got and stop. That's all that is needed. 49% of the vote could then be tossed out and not affect the election.

That is what my point is, there will always be "extra" and "unneeded" votes in any form of election. Whether they are all stuck in California, or spread out through the states, the only reason their vote counts is to create a 100% TOTAL, or for posterity (claiming a mandate, etc) - but as far as electing, they don't really count. Just like in the electoral college, once 170 is reached they announce the winnner. The states who have not even counted their votes yet basically don't even count toward the election. on either side.

[Cow Poke]

Doesn't change the outcome though. They can just stop counting when they reach 51% of the total votes they got and stop. That's all that is needed. 49% of the vote could then be tossed out and not affect the election.

I'm not getting that -- what if the uncounted votes are from a heavily democratic or republican county, and..... I'm missing something here.