Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[Occupied Deutschland]

The Senate is still only one half of one branch of the three.

It's not enough by far.

Once you figure out how to merge presidential candidates by vote percentage, I'm all ears.

Until then, only one person occupies the job over the whole nation. Why should residents in Wyoming get three votes for this one job while residents of California only get one?

Why should residents of Wyoming be perpetually represented by a head of state chosen for them by the residents of California?
Why do we even bother with this whole federal system in the first place? Why have different state laws rather than a national consensus on the laws? Why have a Senate giving disproportionate representation to residents of Wyoming and the Dakotas?

[Lost heros]

Oh please. The electoral college hasn't been about the representatives in a long time. It's about the votes the states get, which is partially determined by land.

Not really. It's determined by population and senatorial representation. Representing both aspects of Congressional federal representation system that was established in one office (the Presidency).

Senatorial representation is determined by lines drawn on land. I'm in no way against the Senate, as it does serve to protect the interests of smaller states. However, the president is the president of the nation as such the people of the nation should choose him or her.

[Kravanica]

So you don't want the majority of the Union to have meaningful political opinions, instead we should just give to the big fat states and let the US crumble.

How Democratic.

The senate continues to stubbornly persist in existence.

And that's a bad thing because...

[Occupied Deutschland]

And decline in relevance.
It would also seem more appropriate that the head of state for the US, the quintessential symbolic head of the country, not be a perpetual puppet of New York and Los Angeles and the minority report from Chicago...And I mean the latter in the sci-fi novel, dystopian future sense not the 'Chicago has a lot of minorities' sense, though I have gotten a good chuckle from the pun.

The senate is hugely relevant. Do you even know what the senate does regarding presidential appointments?

Sit on them, largely.
They also spend a good deal of time condemning/applauding the President's executive orders and activities, or filing suit against those which violate the Constitution of the US. See: Imperial Presidency for why the wisecrack of declining relevance is, well, relevant.

Though, honestly, the latter point was the primary focus of my response.

[Galloism]

Once you figure out how to merge presidential candidates by vote percentage, I'm all ears.

Until then, only one person occupies the job over the whole nation. Why should residents in Wyoming get three votes for this one job while residents of California only get one?

Why should residents of Wyoming be perpetually represented by a head of state chosen for them by the residents of California?

They won't. California does not make up a majority of the population, and all residents thereof do not vote in lockstep anyway.

Why do we even bother with this whole federal system in the first place?

It works pretty ok. Needs some tweaking, but pretty good.

Why have different state laws rather than a national consensus on the laws?

I like the notion of "laboratories of democracy". Allows us to test things on a smaller scale.

Why have a Senate giving disproportionate representation to residents of Wyoming and the Dakotas?

To make sure the interests of the majority don't run over the minority. Conversely, the house makes sure the interests of the minority don't run over the majority.

Hence, two methods.

[Galloism]

The senate continues to stubbornly persist in existence.

And that's a bad thing because...

It's not. I'm being funny.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Why should residents of Wyoming be perpetually represented by a head of state chosen for them by the residents of California?

They won't. California does not make up a majority of the population, and all residents thereof do not vote in lockstep anyway.

Your breaking your own metaphor, since by this reasoning I could've simply countered with a 'residents of Wyoming don't get three votes for President' and been correct.
But alright, why should residents of Wyoming be perpetually represented by a head of state chosen for them by the residents of California, New York, and Illinois, with minor contributions from other urban areas around the country

It works pretty ok. Needs some tweaking, but pretty good.

Agreed.
We should expand the Electoral College to hold judgement over more federal decisions, honestly.

I like the notion of "laboratories of democracy". Allows us to test things on a smaller scale.

So you are in favor of popular mandate being dismissed in some cases in favor of state interests.
Not much of a 'one man, one vote' position.

To make sure the interests of the majority don't run over the minority. Conversely, the house makes sure the interests of the minority don't run over the majority.

Hence, two methods.

And hence the President being elected in a combination of those methods. Neither elected by Senators alone, nor a popular mandate as those in the House are elected by.
Why, it's almost like an entirely different branch of government!

[Galloism]

They won't. California does not make up a majority of the population, and all residents thereof do not vote in lockstep anyway.

Your breaking your own metaphor, since by this reasoning I could've simply countered with a 'residents of Wyoming don't get three votes for President' and been correct.

Only technically, not practically.

However, you knew I was speaking practically, as in, "the way the math works out".

But alright, why should residents of Wyoming be perpetually represented by a head of state chosen for them by the residents of California, New York, and Illinois, with minor contributions from other urban areas around the country

It's not. It's chosen by all people equally, regardless of geographic location.

It works pretty ok. Needs some tweaking, but pretty good.

Agreed.
We should expand the Electoral College to hold judgement over more federal decisions, honestly.

Arguably, only if you return it to its theoretical original function (which never actually worked), an elected official chosen for his/her judgement and part of a deliberative body to elect the president.

Essentially, actually have 50 state elections for electoral college members, and no national candidates.

Even then it is suspicious, but at least it would match original intent, unlike now.

I like the notion of "laboratories of democracy". Allows us to test things on a smaller scale.

So you are in favor of popular mandate being dismissed in some cases in favor of state interests.
Not much of a 'one man, one vote' position.

No, I'm ok with states passing laws for their borders, provided it doesn't conflict with federal law. In a similar way, I'm ok with counties passing laws for their borders, provided they don't conflict with state or federal law, and cities passing laws for their borders, provided they don't conflict with county, state, or federal law.

To make sure the interests of the majority don't run over the minority. Conversely, the house makes sure the interests of the minority don't run over the majority.

Hence, two methods.

And hence the President being elected in a combination of those methods. Neither elected by Senators alone, nor a popular mandate as those in the House are elected by.
Why, it's almost like an entirely different branch of government!

Except you can't have a conglomeration of interests in the presidency, unlike the senate or the house.

Unless you want to do a presidential committee, but I think that might only complicate things more.

[San Lumen]

Once you figure out how to merge presidential candidates by vote percentage, I'm all ears.

Until then, only one person occupies the job over the whole nation. Why should residents in Wyoming get three votes for this one job while residents of California only get one?

Why should residents of Wyoming be perpetually represented by a head of state chosen for them by the residents of California?
Why do we even bother with this whole federal system in the first place? Why have different state laws rather than a national consensus on the laws? Why have a Senate giving disproportionate representation to residents of Wyoming and the Dakotas?

So lets make the votes for urban voters count less then rural voters too in statewide office. land area after all means more than population. State legislatures used to do that before the Reynolds V sims decision. You disagree with it? My city should get shafted out if its fair share of representation because we outvote them in statewide elections in the state legislature?

[Gun Manufacturers]

If at election period Clinton, Trump, Stein and Johnson were at around 25 % in an imaginary scenario for which of them would you vote?

I'm not american so it doesn't counts really but i would be with Stein.

I'd vote the same way I voted in the real election, for Gary Johnson.

[Albangary]

Can you libtards just shut up about saying that Hillary Clinton can become president? Just expect the fact that Trump became the president-elect? Can you stop being sore losers? Can you stop making up shit? Don't you realize that the United States went through 8 horrendous years of Obama? Can you stop say that Trump is "unfit" to be president?

Here are some things that are true about the Democratic Party that the Democrats won't admit to:

1. Liars

2. Cheaters

3. Stealers

4. The refusal to say Radical Islamic Terrorism

5. And Obama put the United States almost $20 trillion dollars in national debt

[Hurtful Thoughts]

If at election period Clinton, Trump, Stein and Johnson were at around 25 % in an imaginary scenario for which of them would you vote?

I'm not american so it doesn't counts really but i would be with Stein.

I'd vote the same way I voted in the real election, for Gary Johnson.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure I got stuck on a Greyhound bus with him, for 16 hours... Y'know, talking of how the war in Iraq is a lie, US gov't totally did 9/11, and such.

Which was enough for him to lose my vote of confidence. And I had such high hopes for the guy.

[The East Marches]

Why should residents of Wyoming be perpetually represented by a head of state chosen for them by the residents of California?
Why do we even bother with this whole federal system in the first place? Why have different state laws rather than a national consensus on the laws? Why have a Senate giving disproportionate representation to residents of Wyoming and the Dakotas?

So lets make the votes for urban voters count less then rural voters too in statewide office. land area after all means more than population. State legislatures used to do that before the Reynolds V sims decision. You disagree with it? My city should get shafted out if its fair share of representation because we outvote them in statewide elections in the state legislature?

*sighs* A man can dream. Alas we must respect the decision of the Supreme Court as good citizens.

[San Lumen]

So lets make the votes for urban voters count less then rural voters too in statewide office. land area after all means more than population. State legislatures used to do that before the Reynolds V sims decision. You disagree with it? My city should get shafted out if its fair share of representation because we outvote them in statewide elections in the state legislature?

*sighs* A man can dream. Alas we must respect the decision of the Supreme Court as good citizens.

Are you being serious? you disagree with one man one vote?

[The East Marches]

*sighs* A man can dream. Alas we must respect the decision of the Supreme Court as good citizens.

Are you being serious? you disagree with one man one vote?

I rather liked the system my State had previously. It prevented Chicago from overriding everything with our own state senate. Federalism at the state level so to speak.

[Shazbotdom]

Can you libtards just shut up about saying that Hillary Clinton can become president? Just expect the fact that Trump became the president-elect? Can you stop being sore losers? Can you stop making up shit? Don't you realize that the United States went through 8 horrendous years of Obama? Can you stop say that Trump is "unfit" to be president?

Here are some things that are true about the Democratic Party that the Democrats won't admit to:

1. Liars

2. Cheaters

3. Stealers

4. The refusal to say Radical Islamic Terrorism

5. And Obama put the United States almost $20 trillion dollars in national debt

1: Republicans lie, too.

2: Republicans have cheated the system, too.

3: Republicans have stolen, too.

4: Who gives a honest fuck?

5: And didn't Bush add to the National Deficit and, thus, the National Debt? The Debt has bee going up and up and up for more than 50 years, both Republicans and Democrats have added to it while saying that they will fix it and not add any more. And you expect a man who has filed for bankruptcy with his corporations 5 times in 20 years to do any better? Please. A Nation cannot file for Bankruptcy.

[San Lumen]

Are you being serious? you disagree with one man one vote?

I rather liked the system my State had previously. It prevented Chicago from overriding everything with our own state senate. Federalism at the state level so to speak.

So a vote in Chicago should count less than a vote in Springfield? Please tell me how that is fair!

[Valrifell]

Can you libtards just shut up about saying that Hillary Clinton can become president? Just expect the fact that Trump became the president-elect? Can you stop being sore losers? Can you stop making up shit? Don't you realize that the United States went through 8 horrendous years of Obama? Can you stop say that Trump is "unfit" to be president?

Here are some things that are true about the Democratic Party that the Democrats won't admit to:

1. Liars

2. Cheaters

3. Stealers

4. The refusal to say Radical Islamic Terrorism

5. And Obama put the United States almost $20 trillion dollars in national debt

5: And didn't Bush add to the National Deficit and, thus, the National Debt? The Debt has bee going up and up and up for more than 50 years, both Republicans and Democrats have added to it while saying that they will fix it and not add any more. And you expect a man who has filed for bankruptcy with his corporations 5 times in 20 years to do any better? Please. A Nation cannot file for Bankruptcy.

*Bill Clinton ran a surplus. Also, a nation can totally default, which is sorta similar in a few ways.

[Venerable Bede]

I rather liked the system my State had previously. It prevented Chicago from overriding everything with our own state senate. Federalism at the state level so to speak.

So a vote in Chicago should count less than a vote in Springfield? Please tell me how that is fair!

Prevents people who live outside urban environments from having their interests completely steamrolled by urban voters hundreds of miles away.

[The East Marches]

I rather liked the system my State had previously. It prevented Chicago from overriding everything with our own state senate. Federalism at the state level so to speak.

So a vote in Chicago should count less than a vote in Springfield? Please tell me how that is fair!

Fairness is a matter of perspective friendo. It was very fair to those of who didn't live in the city. The city could dominate the representatives section, the rest of the state had the senate. It forced compromise and reason.

[Valrifell]

So a vote in Chicago should count less than a vote in Springfield? Please tell me how that is fair!

Prevents people who live outside urban environments from having their interests completely steamrolled by urban voters hundreds of miles away.

But allows for people who live in urban environments get their interests steamrolled by rural voters hundreds of miles away.

[San Lumen]

So a vote in Chicago should count less than a vote in Springfield? Please tell me how that is fair!

Prevents people who live outside urban environments from having their interests completely steamrolled by urban voters hundreds of miles away.

So you dont believe in one man one vote? So if a state governor or other statewide official won the most votes statewide because they won the most populous counties like in my state but their opponent won more land area they should win? How is that fair?

[San Lumen]

So a vote in Chicago should count less than a vote in Springfield? Please tell me how that is fair!

Fairness is a matter of perspective friendo. It was very fair to those of who didn't live in the city. The city could dominate the representatives section, the rest of the state had the senate. It forced compromise and reason.

and that violates one man one vote.

[Venerable Bede]

Prevents people who live outside urban environments from having their interests completely steamrolled by urban voters hundreds of miles away.

So you dont believe in one man one vote? So if a state governor or other statewide official won the most votes statewide because they won the most populous counties like in my state but their opponent won more land area they should win? How is that fair?

Prevents people who live outside urban environments from having their interests completely steamrolled by urban voters hundreds of miles away.

[The East Marches]

Fairness is a matter of perspective friendo. It was very fair to those of who didn't live in the city. The city could dominate the representatives section, the rest of the state had the senate. It forced compromise and reason.

and that violates one man one vote.

By that thought, our electoral college does too. But it is in the Constitution and therefore totally allowed.