Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[Galloism]

why has your opinion changed after the elections?

Sorry for no quoting but my mobile phone has some problems -_-

It hasn't.

[Stormwrath]

No, she cannot win in the elector's election, since the Republicans would be stupid to vote a possible obstructionist to their bills.

To those who think the Electoral College is broken and all, two reasons why I think your statements are bollocks: 1. You wouldn't say that if the candidate you want has won, and 2. You don't offer any viable replacements in place of the Electoral College that will balance the interests of all blocs of the voting citizenry as well as that of stability in government.

[Galloism]

No, she cannot win in the elector's election, since the Republicans would be stupid to vote a possible obstructionist to their bills.

To those who think the Electoral College is broken and all, two reasons why I think your statements are bollocks: 1. You wouldn't say that if the candidate you want has won, and

Again, and I've posted a link about half a dozen times now, we've been arguing for abolishment for years.

2. You don't offer any viable replacements in place of the Electoral College that will balance the interests of all blocs of the voting citizenry as well as that of stability in government.

It's called the senate.

[Vassenor]

No, she cannot win in the elector's election, since the Republicans would be stupid to vote a possible obstructionist to their bills.

To those who think the Electoral College is broken and all, two reasons why I think your statements are bollocks: 1. You wouldn't say that if the candidate you want has won, and 2. You don't offer any viable replacements in place of the Electoral College that will balance the interests of all blocs of the voting citizenry as well as that of stability in government.

You mean like how Trump stopped screaming about how the election was rigged and how a candidate winning the EC without winning the popular vote should be cause for revolution as soon as it benefited him?

[Stormwrath]

No, she cannot win in the elector's election, since the Republicans would be stupid to vote a possible obstructionist to their bills.

To those who think the Electoral College is broken and all, two reasons why I think your statements are bollocks: 1. You wouldn't say that if the candidate you want has won, and 2. You don't offer any viable replacements in place of the Electoral College that will balance the interests of all blocs of the voting citizenry as well as that of stability in government.

You mean like how Trump stopped screaming about how the election was rigged and how a candidate winning the EC without winning the popular vote should be cause for revolution as soon as it benefited him?

Tbf, that's Trump, not his supporters. Though you can lump them with him.

Again, and I've posted a link about half a dozen times now, we've been arguing for abolishment for years.

Okay then. Is it just for abolishing it or for replacing it with something else? Bcoz that's the thing most people overlook when trying to abolish something.

It's called the senate.

If they vote on it, then the representation problem will get worse, since only two Senators represent each state irregardless of population size.

[Galloism]

You mean like how Trump stopped screaming about how the election was rigged and how a candidate winning the EC without winning the popular vote should be cause for revolution as soon as it benefited him?

Tbf, that's Trump, not his supporters. Though you can lump them with him.

Again, and I've posted a link about half a dozen times now, we've been arguing for abolishment for years.

Okay then. Is it just for abolishing it or for replacing it with something else? Bcoz that's the thing most people overlook when trying to abolish something.

Personally, I like instant runoff preference voting.

It's called the senate.

If they vote on it, then the representation problem will get worse, since only two Senators represent each state irregardless of population size.

Which is how lower population states are protected from higher population states.

[Stormwrath]

Personally, I like instant runoff preference voting.

First-past-the-post? I guess you guys could go for that, though personally I'd go for Mixed Proportional Representation.

Which is how lower population states are protected from higher population states.

Aye, but it presents the problem of an undue bias on the part of the Senate, since the ruling party would vote the President from their party. Will the members be from the incumbent Senate or the next Senate?

[Galloism]

Personally, I like instant runoff preference voting.

First-past-the-post? I guess you guys could go for that, though personally I'd go for Mixed Proportional Representation.

For president? You going to surgically fuse the candidates at different ratios?

Which is how lower population states are protected from higher population states.

Aye, but it presents the problem of an undue bias on the part of the Senate, since the ruling party would vote the President from their party. Will the members be from the incumbent Senate or the next Senate?

The senate doesn't vote for president. The people do.

[Stormwrath]

Aye, but it presents the problem of an undue bias on the part of the Senate, since the ruling party would vote the President from their party. Will the members be from the incumbent Senate or the next Senate?

The senate doesn't vote for president. The people do.[/quote]
Oh, I see. Thought the Senate would be this new Electoral College replacement, so I assumed they'd fill the EC's role in the December meeting.

[Galloism]

Oh, I see. Thought the Senate would be this new Electoral College replacement, so I assumed they'd fill the EC's role in the December meeting.

No. vote of the people.

[Salandriagado]

Personally, I like instant runoff preference voting.

First-past-the-post? I guess you guys could go for that, though personally I'd go for Mixed Proportional Representation.

Which is how lower population states are protected from higher population states.

Aye, but it presents the problem of an undue bias on the part of the Senate, since the ruling party would vote the President from their party. Will the members be from the incumbent Senate or the next Senate?

Preference voting is explicitly not FPTP.

[Socialist Nordia]

No, she cannot win in the elector's election, since the Republicans would be stupid to vote a possible obstructionist to their bills.

To those who think the Electoral College is broken and all, two reasons why I think your statements are bollocks: 1. You wouldn't say that if the candidate you want has won, and 2. You don't offer any viable replacements in place of the Electoral College that will balance the interests of all blocs of the voting citizenry as well as that of stability in government.

1. I've hated the electoral college for years. Actually, Most people opposed the electoral college before this election.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150245/ameri ... -vote.aspx

2. As an alternative, I have long been a proponent of instant runoff voting. A candidate would then need at least 50%+1 to win, and third party voters wouldn't have to waste their votes.

[The Emerald Legion]

Oh, I see. Thought the Senate would be this new Electoral College replacement, so I assumed they'd fill the EC's role in the December meeting.

No. vote of the people.

So essentially,

- Coasts Decide House of Representatives.

- Coasts Decide Presidency.
- Presidency decides Supreme Court.

- Senate is equal.


Somehow, that doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

[Nazeroth]

No. vote of the people.

So essentially,

- Coasts Decide House of Representatives.

- Coasts Decide Presidency.
- Presidency decides Supreme Court.

- Senate is equal.


Somehow, that doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

cities hold large portions of the population, and are usually liberal or swing democratic(look at any map to see that most blue areas are many times urban and red is rural), so if they trash our Constitutional Republic and turn us into a Democracy, then we are subject to mob rule.

[Trotskylvania]

No. vote of the people.

So essentially,

- Coasts Decide House of Representatives.

- Coasts Decide Presidency.
- Presidency decides Supreme Court.

- Senate is equal.


Somehow, that doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

Sectional interests stopped being a major factor in national politics after the Civil War, and all but disappeared with the rise of the New Deal Coalition. Sectionalism has no factor in determining political stregnth on a national level. The Coasts don't control the House, and never have.

The Electoral College does nothing to actually protect minority interests. It only causes math errors in the national election, allowing someone to win yet two million more people voted for his challenger.

[Gauthier]

So essentially,

- Coasts Decide House of Representatives.

- Coasts Decide Presidency.
- Presidency decides Supreme Court.

- Senate is equal.


Somehow, that doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

cities hold large portions of the population, and are usually liberal or swing democratic(look at any map to see that most blue areas are many times urban and red is rural), so if they trash our Constitutional Republic and turn us into a Democracy, then we are subject to mob rule.

As opposed to the current setup with rural mob rule.

[Valrifell]

cities hold large portions of the population, and are usually liberal or swing democratic(look at any map to see that most blue areas are many times urban and red is rural), so if they trash our Constitutional Republic and turn us into a Democracy, then we are subject to mob rule.

As opposed to the current setup with rural mob rule.

For that rural voters would have to be a "mob". They are a minority. So, instead of allowing mob rule, it allows tyranny of minority. In ideal form anyway.

In practice, the EC is the Oligarchy of Swing States.

[The Emerald Legion]

Sectional interests stopped being a major factor in national politics after the Civil War, and all but disappeared with the rise of the New Deal Coalition. Sectionalism has no factor in determining political stregnth on a national level. The Coasts don't control the House, and never have.

The Electoral College does nothing to actually protect minority interests. It only causes math errors in the national election, allowing someone to win yet two million more people voted for his challenger.

Have they though? Why is it that our politics are dominated by social policies? People don't think of "Reviving industries." as politics, the first thing that comes to mind is abortion, Gay rights, and the other hot button issues that are almost entirely social in nature.

This election has shown that quite a few people in the rust belt don't give a damn. They just want their jobs back.

If that doesn't speak to a fundamental regional divide to you, it certainly does to me.

It doesn't cause math errors, treating the election like it's a single national election is what causes math errors.

It's 50 different elections to appoint the electors for the 1 national election.

[G-Tech Corporation]

So essentially,

- Coasts Decide House of Representatives.

- Coasts Decide Presidency.
- Presidency decides Supreme Court.

- Senate is equal.


Somehow, that doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

Sectional interests stopped being a major factor in national politics after the Civil War, and all but disappeared with the rise of the New Deal Coalition. Sectionalism has no factor in determining political stregnth on a national level. The Coasts don't control the House, and never have.

The Electoral College does nothing to actually protect minority interests. It only causes math errors in the national election, allowing someone to win yet two million more people voted for his challenger.

Let's be real though. Two million voters is about 0.6% of the electorate. Hell, if we allowed early voters to change their ballots, we'd probably see bigger swings than that. People keep on raging about 'muh popular majority', but the truth is that no candidate took that majority. If Johnson had dropped out, hell, he had four million votes. Maybe then Trump would have taken the popular vote. Realistically the election was a virtual tie, but Trump won the electorate vote.

[Ifreann]

Sectional interests stopped being a major factor in national politics after the Civil War, and all but disappeared with the rise of the New Deal Coalition. Sectionalism has no factor in determining political stregnth on a national level. The Coasts don't control the House, and never have.

The Electoral College does nothing to actually protect minority interests. It only causes math errors in the national election, allowing someone to win yet two million more people voted for his challenger.

Have they though? Why is it that our politics are dominated by social policies? People don't think of "Reviving industries." as politics, the first thing that comes to mind is abortion, Gay rights, and the other hot button issues that are almost entirely social in nature.

This election has shown that quite a few people in the rust belt don't give a damn. They just want their jobs back.

If that doesn't speak to a fundamental regional divide to you, it certainly does to me.

It doesn't cause math errors, treating the election like it's a single national election is what causes math errors.

It's 50 different elections to appoint the electors for the 1 national election.

51 elections.

[Lost heros]

No. vote of the people.

So essentially,

- Coasts Decide House of Representatives.

- Coasts Decide Presidency.
- Presidency decides Supreme Court.

- Senate is equal.


Somehow, that doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

Land shouldn't decide things. People should.

[G-Tech Corporation]

So essentially,

- Coasts Decide House of Representatives.

- Coasts Decide Presidency.
- Presidency decides Supreme Court.

- Senate is equal.


Somehow, that doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

Land shouldn't decide things. People should.

Actually, America disagrees.

[San Lumen]

So now Trump is threatening to lock Hillary up and going on twitter tirade about the recount. Something that is within Jill and Hillary's right as a candidates. So very Presidential. If the electoral college votes for this man on December 19th they are not only not doing their job it shows the EC is useless and should be abolished.

[Go-awaynia]

Finally, someone is not completely ignorant about the United States government. The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic. So in a manner the EC is a legitimate body of the government.

[San Lumen]

Finally, someone is not completely ignorant about the United States government. The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic. So in a manner the EC is a legitimate body of the government.

Yes and they should do their job and overturn the election in favor of the popular vote winner.