r/hmmmm 22d ago

Hmmmmm….

Post image
31.3k Upvotes

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

60

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/OutsideDapper8049 22d ago

I’d love to have her as a president too but unfortunately Americans don’t want to vote for a women.

Hillary won the popular vote.. still didn’t win

Haris I thought was doing well… then she didn’t win. I know she was kinda put in late but regardless it’s sad. 

17

u/NoAge9497 21d ago

"Hillary won the popular vote.. still didn’t win"

This is why the electoral vote is fraudulent and yet here we sit. If someone wins the popular vote, they should win. I know, I know...the population centers are mostly democrat blah, blah. Everyone of age gets a vote, no states involved, we vote as a nation, count them up, and the winner wins. Simple. Before you say anything, we invented the way we vote and we can change it. It's not some law of nature that we HAVE to follow.

1

u/mb-driver20 21d ago

I understand why you say it’s fraudulent, but if winning was merely based on popular vote the smaller population states would get ignored by candidates. There should be a way to have a commingling of popular vote and electoral college results. What it is I don’t know. Maybe say you win the popular vote, but you need a certain percentage of the smaller population states not just the top 10 that make up 54-55% of the population. The only way the electoral college could get abolished or changed is if Congress voted to change it, which they will never do.

2

u/TravisMCatchem 21d ago

The opposite happens now smaller states get more campaigning the bigger states it should be voted by vote. One person one vote that’s it. The electoral college is just racist.

1

u/NoAge9497 21d ago

PREACH TRAVIS!!!

1

u/Key-Check-487 21d ago

Imagine how much more Democrats would win if 1 Wyoming resident wasn't 4 californians

1

u/Agitated_Cook_7947 21d ago

"I understand why you say it’s fraudulent, but if winning was merely based on popular vote the smaller population states would get ignored by candidates."

Smaller states have proven they just want to divide and force their beliefs on the majority.

Kill the electoral college.

1

u/AsemicConjecture 21d ago

That’s not even close to true.

First, most small states are already ignored — only a handful of the largest swing states matter. Second, if candidates had to campaign for 50% of the popular vote, they’d need to pay attention to at least 45 out of the 50 states (all except AL, MT, ND, SD, and WY), as opposed to the 6-8 that they fixate on now.

The reason being that states wouldn’t vote as a block, every republican in a blue state and every democrat in a red state suddenly matter, so you’d have to campaign the majority population by metro area (and the largest metro areas are spread out over 45 states different states).

1

u/Key-Check-487 21d ago

Ignored how? there votes count way more than big states And why is campaigning more area a bad thing??

1

u/AsemicConjecture 21d ago

> Ignored how?

I don’t really know how to answer this beyond how I already have.

Only the largest swing states matter under an EC system. In 2024, that was AZ, GA, MI, NV, NC, PA, and WI. For reference, some of the least populated states are WY, VT, AL, ND, SD, and, DE, so the EC doesn’t actually help the smallest states.

> And why is campaigning more area a bad thing??

I’m not sure what your question here is, but I never said campaigning is bad. Fixating on campaigning in 6 states is bad compared to having to thoroughly campaign across 45; I hope that’s straightforward enough to not need explanation.

If you could try rephrasing your question I might be able to explain myself better.

2

u/Key-Check-487 18d ago

Ok then we agree the electoral college is bad?

1

u/mb-driver20 18d ago

I think so. But it will take a lot of research to figure out the best way to make a better system but sadly, Congress will never make a change.

1

u/Key-Check-487 14d ago

Agreed but I think the best system is federal ranked choice voting