Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[San Lumen]

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.

So land area matters more than vote total? My vote in New York should count less than someone on a farm upstate?

[San Lumen]

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.

and i disagree with it as a violation of one man one vote.

[Valrifell]

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.

The 3/5ths compromise was also in the Constitution. Didn't make it right or fair.

[The East Marches]

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

The 3/5ths compromise was also in the Constitution. Didn't make it right or fair.

By your opinion.

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

and i disagree with it as a violation of one man one vote.

Guess you ought to get to work on changing it then.

[Galloism]

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.

To be honest, two houses with different methods like that? I approve. It keeps both the minority and minority from running over each other.

However, if, in the governor's race, rural people effectively have three votes to each urban one is fucked up.

[Venerable Bede]

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.

By that thought, the Senate does as well, since each state has equal representation.

[San Lumen]

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.

To be honest, two houses with different methods like that? I approve. It keeps both the minority and minority from running over each other.

However, if, in the governor's race, rural people effectively have three votes to each urban one is fucked up.

In doesnt matter what elected office. Every vote should count equally.

[The Emerald Legion]

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.

How does dividing up the nation and holding separate elections for those divided parts violate one man one vote?

Everyone get's one vote. How those votes apply is another story.

[Venerable Bede]

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

So land area matters more than vote total? My vote in New York should count less than someone on a farm upstate?

Yes, if you have a lot of people with aligned interests that are influenced by urban concerns. More people having a particular concern, doesn't make it fair to give that concern total and absolute dominance over the concerns of the minority.

[Shonburg]

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. Not an argument/not "true"

2. Not an argument/not "true"

3. Not an argument/not "true"

4. Radical Islamic Terrorism is a serious global problem that makes good, law abiding peaceful Muslims look bad. There, said it for you,

5.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/01/BO_percchange.png&w=1484

[The Northern Elemental Frontier]

If such a thing were to ever happen, the United States would turn from a Democracy, to an Oligarchy where the college would be in power, and they could merely choose who the president is without care for the common man and their vote.

Don't be retarded and do not encourage a permanent change of how the United States political climate forever by removing the power of the common mans voting rights just because of one election.

[Valrifell]

The 3/5ths compromise was also in the Constitution. Didn't make it right or fair.

By your opinion.

And by the opinion of the majority of people. Opinions shift and people change, this argument might not hold water in a few years or months.

Hell, from what I know, it already doesn't hold water because a majority of people don't like the EC.

[San Lumen]

So land area matters more than vote total? My vote in New York should count less than someone on a farm upstate?

Yes, if you have a lot of people with aligned interests that are influenced by urban concerns. More people having a particular concern, doesn't make it fair to give that concern total and absolute dominance over the concerns of the minority.

Well when we did that prior to Reynolds v Sims urban centers where shafted out of their fair share of representation and their concerns often got ignored by the legislature. If you lived in my city you'd be fine with your vote counting less and the person who got the most votes statewide not winning because their opponent got more land area?

[Grand Britannia]

If such a thing were to ever happen, the United States would turn from a Democracy, to an Oligarchy where the college would be in power, and they could merely choose who the president is without care for the common man and their vote.

They can do that already

those if we wanna make them electoral princes im cool with that

By your opinion.

And by the opinion of the majority of people. Opinions shift and people change, this argument might not hold water in a few years or months.

Hell, from what I know, it already doesn't hold water because a majority of people don't like the EC.

No I think illegal voters and losers don't like the EC.

[San Lumen]

If such a thing were to ever happen, the United States would turn from a Democracy, to an Oligarchy where the college would be in power, and they could merely choose who the president is without care for the common man and their vote.

Don't be retarded and do not encourage a permanent change of how the United States political climate forever by removing the power of the common mans voting rights just because of one election.

Thats not what would happen. It would be electoral college doing the job it was designed to do.

[Scarcopa]

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.

Here's a replacement, why not use the Alternative vote. Here is a vid explaining it fairly well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

[Venerable Bede]

Yes, if you have a lot of people with aligned interests that are influenced by urban concerns. More people having a particular concern, doesn't make it fair to give that concern total and absolute dominance over the concerns of the minority.

Well when we did that prior to Reynolds v Sims urban centers where shafted out of their fair share of representation and their concerns often got ignored by the legislature. If you lived in my city you'd be fine with your vote counting less and the person who got the most votes statewide not winning because their opponent got more land area?

About as fine as you would be if Clinton won the electoral but lost the popular.

[Nazeroth]

there shouldn't be a popular vote because 1. We are a Constitutional Republic and 2. We need to justify the entirey of the american people, not just urban dwellers.

The vote must be determined by the majority of the nation not just individual votes.

We don't need cities dictating rural areas all the time, it's terrible in California because of this. San Fran and L.A dominate everyone and their rules are applied to everyone.

[San Lumen]

Well when we did that prior to Reynolds v Sims urban centers where shafted out of their fair share of representation and their concerns often got ignored by the legislature. If you lived in my city you'd be fine with your vote counting less and the person who got the most votes statewide not winning because their opponent got more land area?

About as fine as you would be if Clinton won the electoral but lost the popular.

Clinton is fit and qualified to be President Trump is not. And I'm sorry you think every vote shouldn't be equal and rural votes should count more than urban votes. That has racial undertones has large municipalities tend to have more non white voters who often vote Democratic.

[Venerable Bede]

If such a thing were to ever happen, the United States would turn from a Democracy, to an Oligarchy where the college would be in power, and they could merely choose who the president is without care for the common man and their vote.

Don't be retarded and do not encourage a permanent change of how the United States political climate forever by removing the power of the common mans voting rights just because of one election.

Thats not what would happen. It would be electoral college doing the job it was designed to do.

The EC is doing the job it was designed to do, which is what you're upset about.

[San Lumen]

there shouldn't be a popular vote because 1. We are a Constitutional Republic and 2. We need to justify the entirey of the american people, not just urban dwellers.

The vote must be determined by the majority of the nation not just individual votes.

We don't need cities dictating rural areas all the time, it's terrible in California because of this. San Fran and L.A dominate everyone and their rules are applied to everyone.

Whoever wins the most votes should be elected end of story. So San Francisco's votes and that of Los angeles should count less then someone in Northern California? How is that fair?

[San Lumen]

Thats not what would happen. It would be electoral college doing the job it was designed to do.

The EC is doing the job it was designed to do, which is what you're upset about.

It was not designed to be a rubber stamp. It was designed to prevent someone unqualified and unfit from becoming president. Its not fair or democratic that someone who wins the popular voter by over two million doesnt become president.

[Engleberg]

there shouldn't be a popular vote because 1. We are a Constitutional Republic and 2. We need to justify the entirey of the american people, not just urban dwellers.

The vote must be determined by the majority of the nation not just individual votes.

We don't need cities dictating rural areas all the time, it's terrible in California because of this. San Fran and L.A dominate everyone and their rules are applied to everyone.

Whoever wins the most votes should be elected end of story. So San Francisco's votes and that of Los angeles should count less then someone in Northern California? How is that fair?

What they are saying is that those two cities dominate the election because of their size. Because of that, not all of the state is represented in the vote.

[Venerable Bede]

Clinton is fit and qualified to be President Trump is not.

So in other words, if the electoral college gave her victory when the popular vote didn't, you would hardly by crying about "one man, one vote."

And I'm sorry you think every vote shouldn't be equal and rural votes should count more than urban votes. That has racial undertones has large municipalities tend to have more non white voters who often vote Democratic.

I'm not intimidated by accusations of racism being used as a boogeyman any more than I'd be intimated by accusations of "communist undertones" in supporting universal healthcare.

[Engleberg]

The EC is doing the job it was designed to do, which is what you're upset about.

It was not designed to be a rubber stamp. It was designed to prevent someone unqualified and unfit from becoming president. Its not fair or democratic that someone who wins the popular voter by over two million doesnt become president.

The nation has a constitution that has the EC. Just because YOU think they aren't qualified to be president doesn't mean they should not win.