by Taitung pinyin » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:18 am
by Murovanka » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:19 am
Taitung Pinyin wrote:From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?
by Alvecia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:21 am
Murovanka wrote:Taitung Pinyin wrote:From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?
Don't fix something that ain't broke.
by Timmy City » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:21 am
Murovanka wrote:Taitung Pinyin wrote:From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?
Don't fix something that ain't broke.
by Hirota » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:32 am
The opposite is actually trueTaitung Pinyin wrote:it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc.
by Valcouria » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:41 am
by Reedian » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:44 am
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:46 am
Murovanka wrote:Taitung Pinyin wrote:From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?
Don't fix something that ain't broke.
by Havenburghe » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:49 am
Valcouria wrote:Let's get one thing straight; America is not a democracy. America is a republic. We elect representatives to serve our interests in the government. And we elect them in a democratic fashion. If it were a pure democracy, then all 315 million people would essentially be responsible for every facet of government behavior and direction.
With regard to the Electoral College, it is actually a solid institution because it reflects the population of states in terms of size in relation to the country as a whole. There have been multiple times in history where the popular vote was won but the Electoral College was lost, but the vast majority of times it has reflected the popular vote, generally speaking. The only reason you get results like those we see here today is because candidates focus on the individual states rather than an aggregate national total. This is exactly what the Founder's wanted due to fears of both mob rule and an overbearing federal government.
Even the first-past-the-post system used in elections makes everyone focus on the individual candidate rather than the grand total. It is not the goal to elect nationally by numbers, but by candidate. While this unfortunately can lead to crises in candidate's ethical and moral stances, by and large it represents the goal of the nation, which is to make people vote for the person, not the party or the country.
by Libertatema » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:50 am
by Skyviolia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:51 am
Valcouria wrote:Let's get one thing straight; America is not a democracy. America is a republic. We elect representatives to serve our interests in the government. And we elect them in a democratic fashion. If it were a pure democracy, then all 315 million people would essentially be responsible for every facet of government behavior and direction.
With regard to the Electoral College, it is actually a solid institution because it reflects the population of states in terms of size in relation to the country as a whole. There have been multiple times in history where the popular vote was won but the Electoral College was lost, but the vast majority of times it has reflected the popular vote, generally speaking. The only reason you get results like those we see here today is because candidates focus on the individual states rather than an aggregate national total. This is exactly what the Founder's wanted due to fears of both mob rule and an overbearing federal government.
by Xadufell » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:52 am
Grinning Dragon wrote:Why would anyone waste a good bullet on the likes of CNN anyway? I don't understand why anyone would get that worked up over a bunch of dipshits, christ if their shit show is getting you that worked up, just turn the damn thing off and go for a walk/run/ride.
by Alvecia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:54 am
Xadufell wrote:People wouldn't have brought this up if Clinton won, to be honest.
But anyway. I think the current system in the US is effective as is.
by Valcouria » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:57 am
Havenburghe wrote:Valcouria wrote:Let's get one thing straight; America is not a democracy. America is a republic. We elect representatives to serve our interests in the government. And we elect them in a democratic fashion. If it were a pure democracy, then all 315 million people would essentially be responsible for every facet of government behavior and direction.
With regard to the Electoral College, it is actually a solid institution because it reflects the population of states in terms of size in relation to the country as a whole. There have been multiple times in history where the popular vote was won but the Electoral College was lost, but the vast majority of times it has reflected the popular vote, generally speaking. The only reason you get results like those we see here today is because candidates focus on the individual states rather than an aggregate national total. This is exactly what the Founder's wanted due to fears of both mob rule and an overbearing federal government.
Even the first-past-the-post system used in elections makes everyone focus on the individual candidate rather than the grand total. It is not the goal to elect nationally by numbers, but by candidate. While this unfortunately can lead to crises in candidate's ethical and moral stances, by and large it represents the goal of the nation, which is to make people vote for the person, not the party or the country.
A republic is is a democracy. Its like saying a pig isn't meat its pork. Either way we aren't really a democracy anymore. More an oligarchy.
Skyviolia wrote:Valcouria wrote:Let's get one thing straight; America is not a democracy. America is a republic. We elect representatives to serve our interests in the government. And we elect them in a democratic fashion. If it were a pure democracy, then all 315 million people would essentially be responsible for every facet of government behavior and direction.
With regard to the Electoral College, it is actually a solid institution because it reflects the population of states in terms of size in relation to the country as a whole. There have been multiple times in history where the popular vote was won but the Electoral College was lost, but the vast majority of times it has reflected the popular vote, generally speaking. The only reason you get results like those we see here today is because candidates focus on the individual states rather than an aggregate national total. This is exactly what the Founder's wanted due to fears of both mob rule and an overbearing federal government.
But it doesn't protect states in terms of size. One Wyomians vote is five times more valuable than a Californians and that doesn't really matter because those states are safe states. The electoral college system forces candidates to only focus on around 3-9 states.
by United Empire of Humanity » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:57 am
SAS is like 1/3 self hating Americans self flagellating for attention from le enlightened Europeans, 1/3 people who just like to make fun of the ridiculous shit some Americans say, while the other 1/3 are /r/latestagecapitalism tier hatred of the US. You can't even praise America for defeating imperial Japan without someone crying about muh nukes.
Bullshit
by Mefpan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:18 am
by Jello Biafra » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:21 am
Xadufell wrote:People wouldn't have brought this up if Clinton won, to be honest.
by Oceara » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:26 am
by Libertypendence Park » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:33 am
Guilaza wrote:Lincolnopolis wrote:We could finally have a television channel covering Disability issues and finally have a growing number of people with disabilities that own and run companies. Finally, I wouldn't have to hear the rude and offensive things from non-disabled people. Yeah, I'd be glad to not have to deal with you.
I have aspergers...
by New Axiom » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:35 am
Zakuvia wrote:If you aren't imagining a chain gang of adorable old retirees building a wall with Fixodent and using their Hoverounds as tow trucks then you're not the NS I remember.
by Libertypendence Park » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:36 am
Guilaza wrote:Lincolnopolis wrote:We could finally have a television channel covering Disability issues and finally have a growing number of people with disabilities that own and run companies. Finally, I wouldn't have to hear the rude and offensive things from non-disabled people. Yeah, I'd be glad to not have to deal with you.
I have aspergers...
by Vassenor » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:38 am
Libertatema wrote:I've found 3 sources, two of which say Clinton won the popular vote and one of which says Trump won it.
The Trump source is the more trustworthy IMO, as they have lists of the amount of votes in all the counties, and it adds up.
by Libertypendence Park » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:38 am
United Empire of Humanity wrote:Why yes I did support this before it would have made Hillary win, thank you very much.
Guilaza wrote:Lincolnopolis wrote:We could finally have a television channel covering Disability issues and finally have a growing number of people with disabilities that own and run companies. Finally, I wouldn't have to hear the rude and offensive things from non-disabled people. Yeah, I'd be glad to not have to deal with you.
I have aspergers...
by Galloism » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:39 am
Libertypendence Park wrote:I notice that the electoral college system is only a problem when your candidate loses because of it. Hypocrites. No party that works so hard to suppress third parties retains its integrity when it tells me that the electoral college system is broken and/or rigged. I speak to Republicans, too.
The popular vote places disticnt favoritism on regional favorites. If the popular vote was institutionalized, presidential politicians would only campaign in Texas and the coasts. This system gives representation to states without much clout of their own. Same reason why we have senators.
Ask yourself this question: would you abolish the electoral college system if it also meant eliminating the senate and having a unicameral, proportionally representative legislature?
by Western-Ukraine » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:42 am
Factbooks: National Politics
Region: U R N
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cessarea, Corrian, Cyptopir, Google [Bot], Plan Neonie, Suriyanakhon, Tiami, Uiiop
Advertisement