>>>>>>>I had to laugh. There was a concerted effort by the liberal to get the electors to vote for Hillary instead of Trump. Here's what really happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"In the end, it was not Republicans breaking ranks. The Democratic dissidents - four from Washington state and one from Maine - underscored deep divisions within their party and effectively dashed long-shot hopes by some activists that Republicans pledged to Trump might back Clinton.
>>>>>>>By late afternoon, no Republican elector was reported to have cast a ballot for anyone other than Trump, although one elector from Texas had written that he planned to do so."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-turn-faithless-electors-in-us-electoral-college-surprise/ar-AAlKQk1?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't remember any of this type thing going on when president Obama was elected.
>>>>>>Were there any organized protesting, rioting, crying about wanting to go to straight majority vote after Obama won the election?
>>>>>
>>>>>There wasn't a split between the popular vote and the electoral college in either of Obama's races. And his wins were big enough to honestly call a landslide.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>Right. So, current rules are great as long as your team is winning. Otherwise, cry foul and demand the rules be changed.
>>>
>>>My point was that it wasn't relevant in those elections.
>>
>>It's relevant now, because your candidate lost?
>
>It's relevant now because for the 2nd time in the last 5 elections, the candidate with more votes lost. This time, that candidate got more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history who wasn't named Obama. It raises questions about whether the system we have reflects the will of the people.
>
If you begin to cite the # of votes in growing population instead of percentages I begin to wonder what kind of foil hat is needed to block the radiation decrementing the thinking skills in some part of the population after the election.