NationStates

Trotskylvania wrote:

Novus America wrote:
The states were intended to chose the president, check your constitution again. It says the states determine how electors are to be apportioned. If the states want to do it by national popular vote they can, but they do not have to either.

Sure I disagree with the winner takes all system, but that is what our elected governments have chosen to keep.

The constitution allows us to run elections pretty much however we want, and this is how we have chosen to run them. Yes I would chose a different way. But you or me do not dictate how elections are to be run. We vote for people who chose how.

The states can choose the manner of choosing their electors. The apportionment of electors is controlled by Congress under the same mechanism that apportionment for the House occurs.

This was gloss for "we won't force you to let certain people vote". The delegates at the Constitutional Convention and in the ratification debate made it clear that this system was meant to be based on popular voting for electors, and with few exceptions, that's how the system was enacted.

And the states have chosen this system. Sure some people at the convention might have wanted it to be based on popular voting (source?) but they could have chosen to have it be a normal popular election. And did not.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

It's broken but you don't care because the candidate you want won.

k.

Lets be honest Herp, that's how it is every 4 years. If Hillary lost the popular but won the electoral most of her supporters wouldn't care.

False.

Multiple people hate the EC and wish for it to be scrapped. While I admit that the backlash wouldn't be as strong as it now, critics of the system would still be vocal about it.

United States of Natan wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Clinton wasn't entitled to my vote and I don't think she would have made a decent president.

Oh, so that justifies allowing someone even worse than her to win? yeah, because that's logical.

I don't necessarily see Trump as even worse than her. Really they're about on the same level of shitiness for me personally, they both have a few good points and a whole lot of bad points.

Grand Britannia wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Lets be honest Herp, that's how it is every 4 years. If Hillary lost the popular but won the electoral most of her supporters wouldn't care.

^this

No one cares about the Electoral College until their candidate loses.

repeating the same false claim doesn't make it true.

There's evidence of nationstaters, like myself, complaining about the electoral college in 2014, when Obama was in the white house.

Socialist Nordia wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... rape-case/

" ...laughing about the rape cases she was dealing with..."

This link clarifies that Hillary was never laughing directly at the girl, as Trump has wrongly said. I already understand this.

Socialist Nordia wrote:

Grand Britannia wrote:
^this

No one cares about the Electoral College until their candidate loses.

That's bullshit, everyone always hates the electoral college, I've called for it to be abolished consistently for years.

Cleary not every one hates it. If they did, the state governments would have effectively abolished it already by making their electors determined solely by national popular vote. But they did not. Some people dislike it, so people like it, some want it reformed, many do not understand it, but you vote for the people that administer it.

New haven america wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Lets be honest Herp, that's how it is every 4 years. If Hillary lost the popular but won the electoral most of her supporters wouldn't care.

False.

Multiple people hate the EC and wish for it to be scrapped. While I admit that the backlash wouldn't be as strong as it now, critics of the system would still be vocal about it.

Sure, I'm among that group and I've called for it be done away with for a while. But lets be honest, most people in the country don't care enough about it beyond when their candidate loses.

If it was really that widely hated it wouldn't exist.

The Shady Looking Vukmiri Delegates wrote:Anyways I'm joyful America picked a party that will probably fix the Rust Belt and much more, I'm just hoping he will agree to Keystone and make that Trudeau dip change his mind.

He's going to make steel not rust? If so, he needs to bring that wizardry to the Northeast as well (the brake lines of my 2003 Chevy Silverado and the brake lines and frame of my 1999 GMC Sonoma would thank him).

The Shady Looking Vukmiri Delegates wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Cali is a blue state m8.

That's what I said "mate."
absolutely love how Dems say they hate the electoral college and they hate it's very existence but the moment Cali is on their side

No, they always had The State of JonTron on there side.

The system is widely hated by most. It's just that the hate is mostly silent in between election cycles.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Obama won in 2012 with both the electoral college and the Popular vote.

Sure, that doesn't change what I said though. Most people don't care about the electoral college until their candidate loses because of it.

You have a point.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

United States of Natan wrote:Oh, so that justifies allowing someone even worse than her to win? yeah, because that's logical.

I don't necessarily see Trump as even worse than her. Really they're about on the same level of shitiness for me personally, they both have a few good points and a whole lot of bad points.

That point of view is incredibly dangerous. Hillary is nowhere near as bad as trump. And even so, this is about more than just the candidates. If she had won, she'd appoint to the court a justice who'd protect rights. Trump's appointee will only take them away. Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade, because trump's gonna get rid of that. Gun control will also be stopped, as will gay marriage. Basically everything we've worked for. And unfortunately, who knows how long it will be before we can get them back?

No... people who voted for Trump should be blamed. 3rd party voters should vote for their candidate even if they don't have a chance at winning, it's BS like this that stops 3rd party candidates from gaining enough popularity to be able to participate in the debates, etc.

United States of Natan wrote:Yes. if they had the common sense to realize the stakes of this election, and that this isn't the right time to be making a protest vote, then maybe we'd actually be celebrating the triumph of a decent president over trump.

>Implying Clinton was anywhere near a decent candidate for POTUS

I dislike Trump more, but I can absolutely see why people voted Third party. Both were absolutely terrible candidates mired in scandals, one was a Neo-fascist businessman who wasn't even that good, and the other was a corrupt to the brim warhawk who wanted to escalate tensions with Syria and Russia.

Stop giving this false equivalency. Third Party candidates need to be given more recognition, not less.

Socialist Nordia wrote:

Grand Britannia wrote:
^this

No one cares about the Electoral College until their candidate loses.

That's bullshit, everyone always hates the electoral college, I've called for it to be abolished consistently for years.

I like for reasons that others havery explained quite well. Everyone does not hate it.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

The Shady Looking Vukmiri Delegates wrote:That's what I said "mate."
absolutely love how Dems say they hate the electoral college and they hate it's very existence but the moment Cali is on their side

No, they always had The State of JonTron on there side.

The system is widely hated by most. It's just that the hate is mostly silent in between election cycles.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Sure, that doesn't change what I said though. Most people don't care about the electoral college until their candidate loses because of it.

You have a point.

You say that like I know what a Jontron is, please elaborate.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

New haven america wrote:False.

Multiple people hate the EC and wish for it to be scrapped. While I admit that the backlash wouldn't be as strong as it now, critics of the system would still be vocal about it.

Sure, I'm among that group and I've called for it be done away with for a while. But lets be honest, most people in the country don't care enough about it beyond when their candidate loses.

If it was really that widely hated it wouldn't exist.

Well, one of the main problems about it is that a good chuck of the population doesn't understand it, they just see it as "It's just how we pick our president, it's fine, it does it's job". Hence, if they don't understand it, and see that it works... sometimes, then they don't really care.

New Roma Republic wrote:Are third parties to blame for the Trump Presidency?

"Blamed?" *Hands you a celebratory glass of fine champagne* Not at all! Thanks for helping!

If I were to place blame, I'd put it squarely on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton. Her ascribing laundry lists of nasty things to us Trump supporters, her smirky dismissiveness of everyone else's opinion as if what anyone else thinks is just too little and insignificant to count, her smirky dismissiveness and laughing in Trump's face in the debates are what really cinched it for me. Such people do not deserve the White House. They deserve to have their smirks wiped off their faces and to be FORCED to acknowledge that disagreeing with an agenda does not invalidate a person.

On Tuesday, I voted to wipe that damn smirk off of her face and give her the Vaudeville Hook - hopefully once and for all. I know at least some others voted Trump for the same exact reason.

Blame Hillary. She shot herself in the foot with her own high-and-mighty attitude.

Do most people vote third party just to express their distaste in the electoral system?

I don't know what "most people" do it for, but the last time I did, it was for Ross Perot. I voted for him because I liked him, he had sense, and he actually seemed to have enough momentum to stand some kind of chance. I don't know how in the HELL the opposition managed to brand him as crazy, because at the time, he had more brains than any of them. What happened to his sanity after he lost twice notwithstanding, he was certainly sane when he was running. He also put some spark in what was, until then, a process that was painfully boring.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Socialist Nordia wrote:That's bullshit, everyone always hates the electoral college, I've called for it to be abolished consistently for years.

I like for reasons that others havery explained quite well. Everyone does not hate it.

We get it, people shouldn't matter states are the all-holy deciders of elections and such.

Socialist Nordia wrote:

The Shady Looking Vukmiri Delegates wrote:Happened to Gore and it happened now, and it will probably happen in the future. The system is broken but no one is going to fix it, that's the way it's going to be.

"Sorry dems, your votes don't matter and now we're locked into the presidency because the electoral college skews our way and we're also locked into congress because we gerrymandered the hell out of everything and your vote doesn't really matter anymore, but just deal with it, too bad for you."

If it bothers you that much, don't bitch about it on an online forum, work towards getting a Constitutional amendment passed.

United States of Natan wrote:Hillary is nowhere near as bad as trump.

Subjective

If she had won, she'd appoint to the court a justice who'd protect rights.

Not all of them. She's pretty consistently been anti-2A and 4A

Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade,

I'm incredibly doubtful Roe v Wade is going anywhere.

Gun control will also be stopped

Good fucking riddance. Me and other people are already working hard on strengthening gun rights under the new administration.

as will gay marriage.

I'm also doubtful about this one because it would destroy any hope of re-election and badly hurt the GOP. But if it becomes an issue I'll fight against changes on that front.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Socialist Nordia wrote:"Sorry dems, your votes don't matter and now we're locked into the presidency because the electoral college skews our way and we're also locked into congress because we gerrymandered the hell out of everything and your vote doesn't really matter anymore, but just deal with it, too bad for you."

If it bothers you that much, don't bitch about it on an online forum, work towards getting a Constitutional amendment passed.

Oh trust me, people are trying.

United States of Natan wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I don't necessarily see Trump as even worse than her. Really they're about on the same level of shitiness for me personally, they both have a few good points and a whole lot of bad points.

That point of view is incredibly dangerous. Hillary is nowhere near as bad as trump. And even so, this is about more than just the candidates. If she had won, she'd appoint to the court a justice who'd protect rights. Trump's appointee will only take them away. Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade, because trump's gonna get rid of that. Gun control will also be stopped, as will gay marriage. Basically everything we've worked for. And unfortunately, who knows how long it will be before we can get them back?

You do know he is AGAINST gun control? Not everyone has the same priorities as you. And gay marriage will not be stopped, at most be sent back to the states, where most states will still have it.

If you really truly support third party candidates start small. Start with your state and local elections. Elect Indies, Greens, Constitutionalists, and Libertarians to your city council or for Sheriff, elect dog catchers, judges, treasurers, coroners, county executives. Vote for them in the General Assembly, elect them for Auditor and Attorney General... help them build an actual base of power from where they can raise funds for larger races and earn actual experience in leadership, get them into the state senate, then the Governor's office. After that onward to Congress and the Senate. You may never live to see a third party president but you can set the foundation for a third party to begin stepping up and having an actual solid shot at the executive.

In the meantime swallow your pride and vote for the candidate most close to your beliefs that can actually win. Don't waste your votes on Presidential Candidates that have zero chance of winning the biggest elections in the country. To change the system in that way we need to change the way we vote.

I don't think that third party voters deserve a lot of blame but the people who wasted votes on a dead gorilla really need to re-evaluate their priorities.

United States of Natan wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I don't necessarily see Trump as even worse than her. Really they're about on the same level of shitiness for me personally, they both have a few good points and a whole lot of bad points.

Gun control will also be stopped,

Why do you say it like it's a bad things, hallelujah that a politician isn't trying to covertly change an ammendment for once.

The Shady Looking Vukmiri Delegates wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
No, they always had The State of JonTron on there side.

The system is widely hated by most. It's just that the hate is mostly silent in between election cycles.



You have a point.

You say that like I know what a Jontron is, please elaborate.

You don't know JonTron?

He is a very funny Youtuber with millions of views on youtube, currently living in the State of California.

Srsy, You should watch him.

Socialist Nordia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
I like for reasons that others havery explained quite well. Everyone does not hate it.

We get it, people shouldn't matter states are the all-holy deciders of elections and such.

People do matter, because you choose your state's government. People do need to remember that president is not the only election that matters however.