Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (979649)	11/7/2016 1:16:17 PM
From: ACAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576858

Humbly gracious even in defeat, explain that to Donny!

To: jlallen who wrote (979649)	11/7/2016 1:26:56 PM
From: zax	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576858

The republic certainly has lots of "bananas" ... like you.

To: jlallen who wrote (979649)	11/7/2016 1:30:20 PM
From: gronieel2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576858

*...I don't doubt Trump will lose. It would have taken a miracle for any GOP candidate to win this "election". Hope is slim that Trump can pull it off...but looks unlikely at this point....* Toss in the towel Mr. Real Estate Witness. You and your loco friend seem to be resigned to a landslide victory for the Democrats. Whadda you expect when you run a foul mouthed orange Cheeto? Maybe one of the kids has a bed in the basement down there in Florida.

To: jlallen who wrote (979649)	11/7/2016 1:35:00 PM
From: HPilot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576858

I don't have a link but just heard on the radio that Hillary is lagging in early votes in NC and FL. In Florida she has a lead but is about 80,000 to 100,000 votes less than Obama had at this time. And polls for FL show that Trump will win the votes from people who plan to vote Tuesday by over ten points which would swamp the early votes.

To: jlallen who wrote (979649)	11/7/2016 2:06:19 PM
From: Old Boothby	2 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo slowmo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576858

One of the issues is how the electoral college has evolved as the country has grown since its founding. I don't think that the Founders ever intended for a single state to account for more than one-fifth of the required EVs to win the presidency. California's 55 EVs represent about 20.37% of the EV pie toward 270 -- one state. That's a massive head start for CA on the other 49 states. While I appreciate the fact that most Californians are very liberal/leftist/progressive, not everyone in California is. So, California's population of 38.3 million in 2014 was about 12.17% of the nation's population of 318.9 million in the same year. While I understand the EC math behind arriving at CA's 55 EVs, I still maintain that it's not fair for a state with 12.17% of the total U.S. population to hold more than 20% of the EV pie toward 270. Of course, if the total electors are considered (currently 538), CA actually comes up short with about 10.22% of the total electorate, v. their 12.17% population (and I realize it isn't weighted against the total population). In fairness, some may say that CA is actually under-represented. Some states, such as Maine and Nebraska, now allocate their EVs by districts, which is better, but an outcome based on the popular vote would be ideal in my opinion. Of course, that would have meant a Gore presidency in 2000.