Hillary Clinton Beats Trump in Popular Vote /MOD WARNING

I am a diehard supporter of its repeal. Would do wonders for government. The founding fathers got it right the first time.

 

That's implied in the name, The United States of America, which was like a marriage of convenience.. It is a gathering of states with mutual interests but each with some local, though lessening, independence.

 

It is not the United Peoples of America is it?

 

It might eventually if at some point the electoral college and popular vote get completely out of whack, like a landslide winner (+5-10%) of the popular vote loses the electoral college and presidency

There is not any, if it can work in France, Portugal, Singapore and dozens of other democracies, it can work in the US

Which today essentially disenfranchises 90% of the population.

 

I'm not sold on the electoral college, but this is a republic not a democracy, if you want to be technical about it. It's not setup to merely express the wishes of the majority. Rather, it was deliberately set up to offset concerns about tyranny of the majority.

 

You know for a fact it's going to haunt the Trump brigade that at the end of the day...more Americans actually voted for Clinton over him. He got lucky with the electoral college though, so he won fair and square.

 

That's the problem. Doesn't matter what state they're in. The majority voted for someone else. The system is working as intended but it's not working for the people. Hilarity ensues. Prepare for the coming of the cheeto jesus.

I for one give him 100 days. If he acts to remove social progress, or moves against education, or acts against social and civil rights, I will no longer "work with" republicans.

And I'll never again vote democrat. Ever. This I me I wrote in for sanders, but the democrats have proven they against really not worthy.

 

[/QUOTE]
electoral college lines dont move, its by state and dependent on population.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

Actually we started as the united States of America

 

One has nothing to do with the other and you will never get 3/5's of the states to approve an amendment to change it.

We are not them and they are not us.

Does nothing of the sort, their only franchisement is at the good graces of their state legislature and only within their state.

- - - Updated - - -

No luck about it THAT'S HOW YOU WIN.

 

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT >>>
She did not get more then 50% of votes.

 

Never say never

The point was direction election works perfectly fine in dozens of first-rate democracies, your convoluted explanation why it can't work in the US notwithstanding

This is disenfranchisement, your vote within your state of Alabama is meaningless, the vote of your peer in PA or FL actually elects the president.

 

Which part of "Constitutional Republic" confuses you?

 

the electoral college serves two purposes-one is no longer applicable. According to Yale Sterling Professor of Constitutional Law-Akhil Reed Amar-the electoral college allowed Va to have more electoral votes than PA (the two major states in 1790) because Va had lots of slaves but PA had more voters. That reason no longer exists

the other reason has much more valid purposes. To keep the big states from being all that counts

the USA was never intended to be a pure democracy and a pure democracy is evil

 

Actually that is not true.... Let me explain.
Pew, eligible voters 2016

According to Pew Research there are 226 Million (rounded) eligible voters.
Hillary received 59.9 Million votes (rounded)... or 59.9/226 = 26.5% of eligible voters. Take that in for a second... she couldn't even get a third of eligible voters to support her.

Add up bothHillary and Trumps votes and you get 119.5 Million votes (rounded) or 119.5/226 = 52.9% of eligible voters between them... quite a sad turnout and a loud commentary on how most Americans felt about them.

Another fun fact... One I saw coming, voter turnout was much lower than last election (2012), which was less than the one before (200. If you look at the 2012 Election Mitt Romney had over 60 million Votes, more than either candidate got this time and he lost by about 5 million.

 

I like voting set up like a corporation. the more shares you own-the more you have at stake and the more votes you get

the more taxes you pay the federal government, the more votes you get. Veterans would get credit for service, and those wounded or disabled an exemption since some of them are not going to be able to work through no fault of their own.

 

Well said!

 

Agreed, but it's normally a Democratic stronghold. Trump's Rust Belt strategy worked perfectly, along with Hillary's comments about coal jobs, xenophobics and what not. Sanders is still going on about it. They don't know how to be true patriotic Americans to this country.

 

Don't hold your breath, why would 3/5 of the states give all the electoral power to about 4?

Which are not us, neither the system nor the size nor the political philosophy why would we want to become them? And there are many countries where the citizens do not elect the prime minister, their representatives from their various districts do.

You are franchised within your state IF your state legislature decides to let you have a vote. My vote has NOTHING to do with anyone's vote in any other state nor does there's have any bearing on mine.

But if you believe otherwise then point me to where in the constitution you are granted this right to vote in a national election.

 

You're confusing state elections with national elections. That said, I am for one person, one vote. Even if it meant that vile, evil wombat won last night.

 

Hildi may have won over 50% of the vote Trump won 100% of the presidency.

 

What national election?

 

40 (4/5) states effectively don't participate in elections. People vote but the vote is completely symbolic. But don't take my word for it, look at how much time and money presidential candidates spend campaigning in New York or Texas or your own Alabama - 0 minutes and $0. Why do you think their votes are completely and utterly ignored?

As long as you no longer claim that direct elections cause election problems and crises, which was the only point I brought other countries up, that's all that matters. Direct elections work perfectly fine as the experience of all these countries demonstrate.

When your vote does not affect the outcome in the slightest, it's de-facto disenfranchisement no matter how many convoluted explanations and technicalities you can come up with. And the votes of like 90% of the American citizens residing in 40 states don't matter one iota and have zero effect on election results The remaining 10 states and 10% of the population get to decide the election.

 

when people go to the polls and vote for their favorite candidate, they are voting for their candidate to win the backing of their state. Whoever garners the most votes in the state&#8212;no matter if they get a plurality, a small majority, or every single vote&#8212;wins all of the state&#8217;s electoral votes. Now why would you support a system where the big cities control the most votes? This is a county by county red/blue

 

I'm a proponent of one person, one vote, because the electoral college disenfranchises third parties. The two parties are a large part of the reason for the current state of our country.