Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The President governs the states. The federal government was never intended to govern the people directly.
That is why states actually elect the President, in the electoral vote and not the people, in the popular vote.
States are sovereign entities, with there own constitutions to govern the people of the State.
Exactly. The popular vote only matters in your state so Dems have only themselves to blame for not getting the vote out nationwide like they did in California and NYC.
It will only de-legitimize our government to those who cannot accept loss. Democrats have been losing since 2010... over 1000 seats nationally, and they know it. What Democrats don't know is how to stop the bleeding. Moving further to left will shore up the base, but lose the moderates, i.e., Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
But to get back on point, the overwhelming, vast majority of elected Democrats are stunned, but they accept Clinton's loss. No one cares what the special snowflakes think.
Although I'm a Clinton supporter, I do agree that we have a need for the electoral college.
I also think that the numbers need to be changed to reflect the current population, however. The fact is that the voters in the middle of the country (and their electors) have a larger proportion of the electoral vote than they should. The electoral votes given to each state should be determined by their actual populations. I know it sounds nice to say that the coastal states should not have a bigger impact than, say, South Dakota, but that's where a huge percentage of the population lives.
Also, I wish more states would split their votes. It doesn't even matter if republicans in Vermont or democrats in Wyoming vote at all. Those are "blue" and "red" states, respectively. If the electoral votes were split, that would better represent the people in those states. (Yes, I do realize that that's up to the states themselves.)
All in all, I think the system needs a bit of tinkering to make it better represent the actual will of the people. It might not have made a difference this year, despite Clinton being more popular overall, but it's still worth looking into.
Which has precisely nothing to do with anything. The US is a republic, not a democracy. And liberals have the nerve to call Trump voters uneducated.
And the US is a representative democracy which is a term interchangeable with republic. The founding fathers disliked direct democracy so would likely disapprove of initiative and referendum though they might buy it as a check on the state government. There is no particular reason to think they would disapprove of the direct election of the President at this point. The basic electoral college argument is not active and is not needed.
Although I'm a Clinton supporter, I do agree that we have a need for the electoral college.
I also think that the numbers need to be changed to reflect the current population, however. The fact is that the voters in the middle of the country (and their electors) have a larger proportion of the electoral vote than they should. The electoral votes given to each state should be determined by their actual populations. I know it sounds nice to say that the coastal states should not have a bigger impact than, say, South Dakota, but that's where a huge percentage of the population lives.
Also, I wish more states would split their votes. It doesn't even matter if republicans in Vermont or democrats in Wyoming vote at all. Those are "blue" and "red" states, respectively. If the electoral votes were split, that would better represent the people in those states. (Yes, I do realize that that's up to the states themselves.)
All in all, I think the system needs a bit of tinkering to make it better represent the actual will of the people. It might not have made a difference this year, despite Clinton being more popular overall, but it's still worth looking into.
Again it is practically impossible to change any of the clauses that deal with state participation as the states that gain would have to agree...and they won't. Takes only 13 states with well less than 10% of the population to block any Constitutional change. It is a basic flaw in the Constitution.
False he did win white voters with a college degree 49-45, but he did lose overall voters with a college degree. From the exit polls
College Graduate Clinton 49 Trump 45
Post Graduate Clinton 58 Trump 37
Are you a college graduate
Yes
Clinton 52-43
No
Trump 52-44
How silly. Degrees in Basket Weaving & African American Studies are /= to Degrees in Engineering, Science, Law, and Medicine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
