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 disparity between popular votes and electoral college is a slap on the face of the democracy.
That kind of results are certainly killing votes' motivation. Some feared that their votes wouldn't count anyway.... well guess what? They were right, they wouldn't matter. How great is this system?
You're comparing apples and oranges. The current system in place in the United States is the Electoral College. As such, candidates for president craft their campaign to produce the best results from this system - not the popular vote. If the US were a pure democracy and there was no electoral college, the candidates would run their campaigns differently. It's not logical to assume that because a candidate received the most popular votes while campaigning in an Electoral College environment, they would have also received the most popular votes if there were no Electoral College - because they would have campaigned differently.
In the most recent election, Trump simply ran a better campaign for the system that's in place.
I have no strong feelings one way or another when it comes to the EC vs popular vote, but it's is disingenuous to claim that Clinton would have one the popular vote if there were no EC.
It's analogous to two people having a foot race. The rules say its a 50 yard dash, but one of the runners uses the same strategy one would use for a 1 mile race. Because they were pacing themselves, the lost the 50 yard dash, but won the 1 mile race. It's doesn't matter that they completed the 1 mile race faster, because the rules said it was a 50 yard dash. Its entirely possible that the person who won the 1 mile race could have won the 50 yard dash if they had used the right strategy - but it doesn't matter under the rules that were in place.
Last edited by YourWakeUpCall; 11-24-2016 at 08:23 AM..
You are correct, but you do not understand why. That is why you need to discover the reasoning behind the Electoral College. People here on CD have tried to show you but you refused to try and understand what it is they are saying. I used to be dead set against the EC, before I studied it further. Basically it is a method to balance out population density and the immense geography throughout the whole country.
In smaller terms, it is to prevent two people living on one acre of land from having control of one person living on 100 acres by himself, especially when that one person is using that land to benefit many more people within the country. If they didn't do that then the person that had the 100 acres would stop doing what he is doing and the whole country could collapse. That is a fairly simplistic description of the reason.
It does not do that. An utter fabrication. It supports small states not low population density. The majority of the small states live in urban areas. There are more rural people in CA and NY than in any of the small states. In fact either NY or CA has more rural people than 4 or 5 of the small states.
So no we do not support the small states for any reason except they tend to vote to the right.
Calling people who agree with you "more insightful", and saying everyone else uses sophistry to argue against what you say, will not win you friends on CD.
* both candidates were extremely unpopular in large portions of the country.
There is a reason they call this country "The United States". The government was set up as a "confederation" of various states, each with their own needs and character. What has kept this country great is that we can have a degree of control in our local area (state) and not be lorded over by someone in charge who lives 2000 miles away from you. Otherwise we may have had more civil wars than the one we have already gone through. Good thing it happened when arms technology was not too far advanced.
We rejected the confederation of states and went for the stronger federal version.
Read the preamble - "We the people" - not "We the States"
Thank God Trump won then. A Supreme Court that considers the original intent of the Constitution will declare that act unconstitutional. We had a time in our history when one group of states tried to force another group of states to bend to their way of thinking. I think it was back in the 1860s.
There is no Constitutional issue. It is State law. And it being State Law is Constitutionally protected.
Throwing numbers out like that without any basis in fact makes your argument emotional and weak. Please show us how 8% have vetoed 92%.
I can. It's called the EPA. But you probably agree with everything they have done. Especially when it comes to property rights.
Do your homework. The population of the 13 small states is less than 8% of the population. It takes 13 states to defeat a Constitutional amendment. I bet you can figure that out all by yourself.
And it need not be all 13. However any 13 have the right to veto and it will not require even 10% of the population to achieve that. So no it is not practical to change the Constitution on that sort of issue.
You mean it should be legal to poison your neighbors as you see fit? Check out asbestos. Or you claim the right to poison the adjoining river? How about those on the river in the adjoining state?
All sensible people would presumably be opposed to voter-id laws designed to address non-existent problems by creating barriers to voting for members of groups that have had a history of voting for parties other than the one pushing the voter-id laws.
That's just the usual liberal drivel. You can't even check into a motel 6 or cash a welfare check without an id.
That's just the usual liberal drivel. You can't even check into a motel 6 or cash a welfare check without an id.
RW garbage...there we can both play that game.
There are still no indication of ID less voting by those ineligible. The vast majority of the cases known involved people with ID.
And the vast majority of voter fraud involves absentee ballots. But the right appears to have no interest in these. Perhaps because they are believed to vote to the right?
That's just the usual liberal drivel. You can't even check into a motel 6 or cash a welfare check without an id.
If there's an opposition to something, see who's benefitting from it.
People without ID can't drive cars, get phone or electrical service, get welfare benefits, you basically can't live without an ID unless you're homeless.
Yet, somehow, presenting an ID to prove that you are who you say you are is a "voter suppression" ? This got to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard.
The forces opposing it are the same forces who benefit from voter fraud. Plain and simple.
I hope the Republicans use the opportunity they now have to institute a Federal Voter ID law. Stop the fraud once and for all. This will benefit every honest voter regardless of their political views.
Voter-ID laws are a solution looking for a problem. While plenty of examples of voter REGISTRATION fraud can be found, and since in most places voting in one election automatically qualifies you to vote in the next, there are plenty of names of people who have died recently still on the rolls. the simple facts are that actual voter fraud is incredibly rare, that most instances of it are carried out by crooked election officials, and that voter-impersonation fraud -- the only form that voter-ID laws can actually reach -- is the least common form of all.
Meanwhile these laws create burdens and barriers that in fact keep some students, poor and elderly people, and rural and inner-city minority voters from being able to get into the voting booth. That is EXACTLY what the Crooked GOP has intended all along. These laws work to their partisan advantage, which is the one and only reason why they push and support them.
Voter-ID laws are a solution looking for a problem. While plenty of examples of voter REGISTRATION fraud can be found, and since in most places voting in one election automatically qualifies you to vote in the next, there are plenty of names of people who have died recently still on the rolls. the simple facts are that actual voter fraud is incredibly rare, that most instances of it are carried out by crooked election officials, and that voter-impersonation fraud -- the only form that voter-ID laws can actually reach -- is the least common form of all.
Meanwhile these laws create burdens and barriers that in fact keep some students, poor and elderly people, and rural and inner-city minority voters from being able to get into the voting booth. That is EXACTLY what the Crooked GOP has intended all along. These laws work to their partisan advantage, which is the one and only reason why they push and support them.
These people have no problems getting their college IDs (students), welfare / foodstamps (poor) and social security / medicare benefits (elderly), all of which require some form of ID, do they? The absolute, vast majority of them drive, work, obtain utility services, or have some form of benefits. All of which require ID.
This has always been a very lame excuse, and you have just proven it once again.
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.
