NationStates

Telconi wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Under a system that ran on direct democracy instead of the electoral college, it's likely neither would have won the nomination.
Also, still salty about her loss? Isn't she supposed to not be relevant any more?

She's only relevant to Democrat Republican talking points.

Maineiacs wrote:

Telconi wrote:
She's only relevant to Democrat Republican talking points.

FTFY

Telconi wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
I literally thought you were making this up until a quick Google search confirmed that this is true...

Well, Trump did say at one point that maybe he doesn't need a Chief of Staff so, it looks like he may not get one.

He should have taken the job IMO.

Zurkerx wrote:

Telconi wrote:
He should have taken the job IMO.

And inherit the god awful mess that Trump and his administration is in? I don't blame him, and even I wouldn't be that desperate.

Knask wrote:The National Enquirer's parent company has admitted to prosecutors that it made the $150,000 payment in "concert with" the Trump campaign in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election.

"AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election."

Maineiacs wrote:

Telconi wrote:
She's only relevant to Democrat Republican talking points.

FTFY

Proctopeo wrote:

Maineiacs wrote:

FTFY

Vass is the strangest Republican I've ever met, then.

Maineiacs wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
afaiC, the international ranking of democracies can kiss our ass. The United States is not a democracy, it's a Federalist Republic.

I'm really getting tired of this meme the Right keeps rehashing that the fact that we're not a Direct Democracy means that we aren't any type of Democracy at all.

Tarsonis wrote:

Maineiacs wrote:

I'm really getting tired of this meme the Right keeps rehashing that the fact that we're not a Direct Democracy means that we aren't any type of Democracy at all.

By definition we are not. A Democracy and a Republic can both be by direct vote or by representation. The difference is in a Democracy Majority rules, and in a Republic there are legal parameters to what the majority can rule on. I.e there are fundamental laws not subject to majority rule like civil rights etc. We are Republic, we have a constitution of laws that override the Majority Rule.

We’re also not a true republic either because our Constitution can be amended by super majority, thus were classified as a Democratic Republic.

The point of that meme though is that it doesn’t matter that Clinton won the PV. What matters is the Law and the Law states that the EC determines who the President is. By the EC, Trump won the presidency, legally and fair.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
By definition we are not. A Democracy and a Republic can both be by direct vote or by representation. The difference is in a Democracy Majority rules, and in a Republic there are legal parameters to what the majority can rule on. I.e there are fundamental laws not subject to majority rule like civil rights etc. We are Republic, we have a constitution of laws that override the Majority Rule.

We’re also not a true republic either because our Constitution can be amended by super majority, thus were classified as a Democratic Republic.

The point of that meme though is that it doesn’t matter that Clinton won the PV. What matters is the Law and the Law states that the EC determines who the President is. By the EC, Trump won the presidency, legally and fair.

I understand this but personally I feel like the selection process for the president shouldn’t be a complicated system that I’ve never been able to understand

Vassenor wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
If recent events are anything to go by, I presume that's Antifa's fault for rioting against democracy.

Or maybe PETA for liberating domesticated animals to heaven. Although the horse cooperated with Trump, and Trump is Hitler, and Hitler is in hell, so we know the horse must have gone there too.

>rioting against democracy

I shouldn't have to remind you that under a democratic system Clinton would've won given that she got the most actual votes.

Valrifell wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I understand this but personally I feel like the selection process for the president shouldn’t be a complicated system that I’ve never been able to understand

Could be worse, we could have a system akin to the Venetian Republic or the Holy Roman Empire

*shudders*

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
By definition we are not. A Democracy and a Republic can both be by direct vote or by representation. The difference is in a Democracy Majority rules, and in a Republic there are legal parameters to what the majority can rule on. I.e there are fundamental laws not subject to majority rule like civil rights etc. We are Republic, we have a constitution of laws that override the Majority Rule.

We’re also not a true republic either because our Constitution can be amended by super majority, thus were classified as a Democratic Republic.

The point of that meme though is that it doesn’t matter that Clinton won the PV. What matters is the Law and the Law states that the EC determines who the President is. By the EC, Trump won the presidency, legally and fair.

I understand this but personally I feel like the selection process for the president shouldn’t be a complicated system that I’ve never been able to understand

Tarsonis wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I understand this but personally I feel like the selection process for the president shouldn’t be a complicated system that I’ve never been able to understand

I mean I'm not sure what to say about that other than it's pretty simple:

EC Votes apportioned to states per number of congressional districts in each state.
Winner takes all Electoral votes at the state level (with the exceptions of ME and NE who split)
Electors cast votes in what's all but a ceremonial election in December.
First to 270 wins the Presidency.

(Used to be way more complicated when Electors could vote any way they wanted, but most if not all states have passed laws requiring Electors to abide by popular vote of each state.)

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
I mean I'm not sure what to say about that other than it's pretty simple:

EC Votes apportioned to states per number of congressional districts in each state.
Winner takes all Electoral votes at the state level (with the exceptions of ME and NE who split)
Electors cast votes in what's all but a ceremonial election in December.
First to 270 wins the Presidency.

(Used to be way more complicated when Electors could vote any way they wanted, but most if not all states have passed laws requiring Electors to abide by popular vote of each state.)

I appreciate that you underestimated my stupidity but I have no clue what that means

Thuzbekistan wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I appreciate that you underestimated my stupidity but I have no clue what that means

Ah, there are very good videos on the matter. I do wish to remind you that ignorance of a system is not sound reason to throw it out.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Thuzbekistan wrote:Ah, there are very good videos on the matter. I do wish to remind you that ignorance of a system is not sound reason to throw it out.

All I’m saying is it seems more fair for people to actually know how the hell the system works

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
I mean I'm not sure what to say about that other than it's pretty simple:

EC Votes apportioned to states per number of congressional districts in each state.
Winner takes all Electoral votes at the state level (with the exceptions of ME and NE who split)
Electors cast votes in what's all but a ceremonial election in December.
First to 270 wins the Presidency.

(Used to be way more complicated when Electors could vote any way they wanted, but most if not all states have passed laws requiring Electors to abide by popular vote of each state.)

I appreciate that you underestimated my stupidity but I have no clue what that means

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Thuzbekistan wrote:Ah, there are very good videos on the matter. I do wish to remind you that ignorance of a system is not sound reason to throw it out.

All I’m saying is it seems more fair for people to actually know how the hell the system works

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
By definition we are not. A Democracy and a Republic can both be by direct vote or by representation. The difference is in a Democracy Majority rules, and in a Republic there are legal parameters to what the majority can rule on. I.e there are fundamental laws not subject to majority rule like civil rights etc. We are Republic, we have a constitution of laws that override the Majority Rule.

We’re also not a true republic either because our Constitution can be amended by super majority, thus were classified as a Democratic Republic.

The point of that meme though is that it doesn’t matter that Clinton won the PV. What matters is the Law and the Law states that the EC determines who the President is. By the EC, Trump won the presidency, legally and fair.

I understand this but personally I feel like the selection process for the president shouldn’t be a complicated system that I’ve never been able to understand

Tarsonis wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I appreciate that you underestimated my stupidity but I have no clue what that means

Okay quick and dirty version.

Each state has X amount of votes in the Electoral College, where X= the number of Seats in both The House and the Senate (DC just gets 3, because amendments)
I.e CA has 55 electoral votes (53 Congresspersons and 2 senators)
The Candidate that wins the popular vote in each states receives said Electoral Votes.
i.e Hillary won the popular vote in California, and thus received said 55 Electoral Votes.
Trump won Texas and received 38 electoral votes, (36 congresspersons and 2 senators)
The first candidate to win enough states, so that they receive at least 270 electoral votes, is the next president.

Trump won 30 States for a total of 306 Electoral Votes.
Clinton won 20 States and DC, for a total of 232 votes.
Trump wins.

Better?

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:Okay quick and dirty version.

Each state has X amount of votes in the Electoral College, where X= the number of Seats in both The House and the Senate (DC just gets 3, because amendments)
I.e CA has 55 electoral votes (53 Congresspersons and 2 senators)
The Candidate that wins the popular vote in each states receives said Electoral Votes.
i.e Hillary won the popular vote in California, and thus received said 55 Electoral Votes.
Trump won Texas and received 38 electoral votes, (36 congresspersons and 2 senators)
The first candidate to win enough states, so that they receive at least 270 electoral votes, is the next president.

Trump won 30 States for a total of 306 Electoral Votes.
Clinton won 20 States and DC, for a total of 232 votes.
Trump wins.

Better?

So more states voted for trump but more people voted for Hillary

Gran Virginia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:So more states voted for trump but more people voted for Hillary

Yes, more states, but what actually matters is more electors.

Thuzbekistan wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:All I’m saying is it seems more fair for people to actually know how the hell the system works

https://youtu.be/OUS9mM8Xbbw

There ya go.