I didn't see a whole lot of coverage, but it seemed to me that most if not all main urban centers or heavily populated counties voted Hillary while the more rural areas voted Trump.

You mean what's typical of every election in the last 20+ years?

Popular vote is fairly even... 59,690,409 to 59,479,505 or less than 1% difference, so it's not like one side can honestly claim a meaningful majority of that. But that doesn't really matter, all that matters is how a given state votes, because it's a winner take all system.

I don't know what would make for a better system, perhaps some sort of proportional system where each state's electoral college votes are awarded based on a % of the vote.

So say a state that has 10 votes, if Candidate X gets 58% and Y gets 40% then X gets 6 votes and Y gets 4...

Although I'm not sure that would actually change anything. Consider California with 55 votes... Clinton got all 55 but only won 61% of the vote. So she'd get 33 of the 55 votes, Trump would get 16.5. So would that actually change what's needed to get to 270?

It would IMO be nice if the election didn't hinge almost completely on the 5 or 7 "battleground" states

Paul Ryan's "savings" were less than HRC when adjusted for the year and depended on the private sector delivering medical care cheaper than Feds. I work for Feds in direct cost-savings programs. I can assure you there is no way in hell private plans compete with us. They spend about the same per person currently even with feds/states covering the poorest, oldest and sickest among us. This fairy tale about the US private insurance market being a way to lower costs really needs to die.

Well, agree with the amount or not, it was a plan you can reasonably critique rather then the ... PROFIT! method. So, tell me how would you critique HRC plan?

Besides the affordable care act which went into practice with 100% support from her party, do not bend the cost curve down and healthcare entitlements are accelerating, and as you can see from the CBO articles, it failed at one of it's primary goals. So, now tell me how the government did a better job at this vs Paul Ryans?

@Vanor

It would have a result as other states would also be divided, such as the 38 electors in Texas with 19 going to Trump and 16 to Clinton. Florida roughly even for 15 each.

It seemed African Americans and Hispanics didn't vote in the numbers that were expected. That kept the urban voting low.

@Vanor

It would have a result as other states would also be divided, such as the 38 electors in Texas with 19 going to Trump and 16 to Clinton. Florida roughly even for 15 each.

Yeah I know, but would it actually change anything? I guess someone would have to look at the % for each state and then how many electoral votes each candidate would get based on that.

Without having done the math, my guess it wouldn't actually change the final outcome, but if all it did was force people to campaign in every state instead of the 5-7 toss up ones it could be a good thing.

I mean if the Democrats couldn't count on 55 votes from California and Republicans couldn't count on the 38 from Texas, maybe that would be a good thing.

Actually, Trump might be the first politician in history where people are glad if he doesn't keep his election promisses.

He did sound almost normal during his speech. hope the whole campaign was just an act and we get to see a more reasonable and competent side of him now he's the prez.

Also can't wait for him to meet Boris Johnson.

Trump: "Oooh I like your hair!"

Jonson: "I like your hair to!"

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/michigans_presidential_electio.html

This article really makes me upset with MI. 2.24% of voters didn't enter a presidential candidate.

He did sound almost normal during his speech.

Now he is even more dangerous, since you think he sounds normal.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/michigans_presidential_electio.html

This article really makes me upset with MI. 2.24% of voters didn't enter a presidential candidate.

George W. Bush didn't enter a presidential candidate. . .

@Vanor (I'm on phone and quoting and editing is hard)

I fully agree that proportional electoral voting would require candidates to actually pay attention to all states.

Somebody did the work for 2012

Obama had 60% of the electorals, but proportionally he would have had only 51%

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2016/03/18/electoral-votes-awarded-proportionally-2/

That is very tight

Yeah I know, but would it actually change anything?

Quoting myself here... Because I did the math, and while it may be a bit sloppy, I rounded up anything to the nearest whole, but according to my quick and dirty excel file, it would change things... Namely neither side would win.

Per my math and I think I'm missing a state, but not one big enough to change anything drastically...

Clinton would've ended up with 253 votes and Trump would of had 249 votes. So neither side would get 270.

I'm just... disappointed. Not because I desperately wanted a Clinton presidency, just that I thought the country would reject the message of isolationism, hate, fear, and misogyny. To me this was a referendum on decency, and I honestly and deeply held my countrymen and women in such high regard that I was banking on them saying "no" to divisive and populist rhetoric. Alas, apparently I was only half right.

Now is the time to respect the will of the people on the office of President because to be a citizen of the country means taking the good with the bad. To those of you that got the results you wanted, congratulations. For those that didn't my empathy and condolences. Either way tomorrow is a new day.

Yeah I know, but would it actually change anything?

Quoting myself here... Because I did the math, and while it may be a bit sloppy, I rounded up anything to the nearest whole, but according to my quick and dirty excel file, it would change things... Namely neither side would win.

Per my math and I think I'm missing a state, but not one big enough to change anything drastically...

Clinton would've ended up with 253 votes and Trump would of had 249 votes. So neither side would get 270.

You're missing 36 electoral votes. That *could have put either of the two numbers over 270 depending on the state. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Maybe some of those went to Stein or Johnson?

To me this was a referendum on decency, and I honestly and deeply held my countrymen and women in such high regard that I was banking on them saying "no" to divisive and populist rhetoric.

Now is the time to respect the will of the people on the office of President because to be a citizen of the country means taking the good with the bad.

Absolutely not. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and that includes internal threats. Being a citizen of this country means being allowed to question everything.

I'm not suggesting civil war or secession, but the other half should not roll over, either.

Don't conflate respecting the will of the people with rolling over. I will continue to support progressive causes. I believe the president elect will do just fine hoisting himself by his own petard.

What's most bogus is the whole electoral system. One person, one vote, the most votes win. This would have meant HRC won, but more importantly, Trump would have lost.

Yes, he is President but he didn't win because the majority wanted him. Important to remember.

Don't conflate respecting the will of the people with rolling over. I will continue to support progressive causes. I believe the president elect will do just fine hoisting himself by his own petard.

What's most bogus is the whole electoral system. One person, one vote, the most votes win. This would have meant HRC won, but more importantly, Trump would have lost.

Yes, he is President but he didn't win because the majority wanted him. Important to remember.

You beat me to the punch. Strictly speaking, the will of the people was HRC. The system gives us Trump. Ironic, given that he was the vote "to defy the system."

Yes, this is the second time in 16 years the candidate with the most votes has lost the election. Unfortunately, it will require a constitutional amendment to change the voting process. Good luck with that...

Sorry guys, this is making me feel worse. I'm out for a bit .

Yup. But why would the republicans ever change a system that benefits them? It would in effect require a 2/3 democrat majority in both House and Senate. Perhaps in 2018 if a Trump presidency translates to a sweeping win for Democrats but 2018 already was pretty rough for Democrats' senate chances to begin win. Plus who knows how that'll turn out? Trump has thrown the usual rulebook out the window.

Yes, this is the second time in 16 years the candidate with the most votes has lost the election. Unfortunately, it will require a constitutional amendment to change the voting process. Good luck with that...

Sorry guys, this is making me feel worse. I'm out for a bit .

You know, you could always try to sue both parties for Electoral fraud. ;-)

The profiling of the population and adjusting voting districts sounds exactly like someone is rigging the elections and both parties do this on a regular base.

Or Supreme court might declare the current modus for the presidential elections as not fit for purpose to create a fair vote. Happens in other countries even over slight issues and force the adminstration to adjust the voting procedures to make them more fair.

Personally I'm interested in seeing how Maine's Ranked Voting they just passed works out. Looks promising to me though.

Other then that, it looks like Congress will finally have some legislative laxative applied. For all our sake I just hope it's not a bunch of crap coming out.

Oh, and my state did indeed vote to authorize the sale of wine and liquor. So there's that at least!

Other then that, it looks like Congress will finally have some legislative laxative applied. For all our sake I just hope it's not a bunch of crap coming out.

Hope you like a Republican viewpoint. With them in control of the Executive, both Legislative, and Judicial Branches (with a Supreme Court appointment), there isn't much competition.