Trump 2016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

If a certain people get to decide the votes cause they live in a highly populated area thats not really a fair represenatation of democracy imo. It does work in Sweden as Eldalllan pointed out but as a country like USA its not so sucessfull for popular vote only. Some people get screwed over just cause they live in low pop area.

---

This explanation doesn't make any sense. It's not "certain people" deciding the election with a popular vote. It's all people. About 50% of Americans live in big cities and about 50% of Americans live in suburban/rural America. There's also the fact that the media exists to spread candidates messages and also the Internet, which covers just about every American.

I still don't have an explanation of how inflating anyone's voting power over other people's voting power is a fairer system then everyone's voting power being exactly the same.

There is no explanation; the college is outdated and doesn't work anymore. The popular votes of 2000 and 2016 prove it needs to be abolished. A popular vote may not be the BEST system, but it's certainly been proven to be better than the college.

While California may possess a larger voting block, the will of the people they represent is at max the 38 million people within their own state and cannot speak beyond those borders for the will of Ohioans. We're not some homogenized state like the European countries. A collection of separate individual states with their own congress and sets of laws joined together with the presumption of representation granted to their state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

There is no explanation; the college is outdated and doesn't work anymore. The popular votes of 2000 and 2016 prove it needs to be abolished. A popular vote may not be the BEST system, but it's certainly been proven to be better than the college.

---

Aye the Electoral College system is bat**** insane and needs to be abolished.and yes popular vote. preferably single transferable vote,to allow people to vote for the candidate they want rather than vote against whatever is running against the candidate they don't want without actually helping to put that other candidate in power.

Just the fact that the electors aren't by law required to vote for the candidate their state elected is another reason it needs to go, so technically Trump isn't the president elect until the electors have voted.

Although I think that somewhat skewing the voting power away from urban areas is a good thing to prevent the ever increasing urbanization from making cities the only ground worth fighting over.

If we went with a popular vote instead of the Electoral College, then CA, and the states with the larger presence of population would drown out the voices of the rest of the world. If we were to get rid of the electoral college, then why don't we go back to when only Landowners voted, or only men aged 30 and up who were white for that matter. It would be JUST as fair...

The angry masses have spoken and the riotous behavior right now is being staged by George Soros and the media elite. There are many false flags flying right now calling hatred by Trumpers and by Clintonites as well. Guess what, the system was not made to be fair.

when I say world I meant country, sorry..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greendragon2000

If we went with a popular vote instead of the Electoral College, then CA, and the states with the larger presence of population would drown out the voices of the rest of the world. If we were to get rid of the electoral college, then why don't we go back to when only Landowners voted, or only men aged 30 and up who were white for that matter. It would be JUST as fair...

The angry masses have spoken and the riotous behavior right now is being staged by George Soros and the media elite. There are many false flags flying right now calling hatred by Trumpers and by Clintonites as well. Guess what, the system was not made to be fair.

---

By angry masses you mean then 20-odd% of the country that voted for Trump, instead of the slightly higher percentage that voted for Clinton?

Your argument still doesn't make any sense. More people should mean more voting power. If population is clustered in urban areas, what is wrong with letting the urban areas decide? You haven't answered that question (because there isn't a good answer, really).

More to the point, the idea that the EC stops a demagogue clearly isn't the case this year. The founding fathers would be disgusted with everything Trump represents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noobium

If population is clustered in urban areas, what is wrong with letting the urban areas decide? You haven't answered that question (because there isn't a good answer, really).

---

National stability. If you design the system so that the only way people outside the urban areas feel that the only way they can make their voice heard is through force of arms then you'll eventually have an uprising. The urban centres will always have more weight through other channels so having the system somewhat weighted against them(not talking by the massive differences the electoral college currently makes theoretically possible) is possibly necessary to maintain longterm stability in the system(which should be the goal of any nation).
While I'd ideally like a STV system where everybody has the same impact and the absurd two-party system is abolished I think that it'd end in unrest sooner or later if you just let the urban centres dominate the rural areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noobium

More to the point, the idea that the EC stops a demagogue clearly isn't the case this year.

---

We havne't seen that yet but if they actually do step in and elect Hillary then there'd really be hell to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noobium

The founding fathers would be disgusted with everything Trump represents.

---

Not so sure about that, more than a few of them were slave owners and whatnot. So I'm not all that convinced that their ethics & morals would mix with particularly well with the modern world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

This explanation doesn't make any sense. It's not "certain people" deciding the election with a popular vote. It's all people. About 50% of Americans live in big cities and about 50% of Americans live in suburban/rural America. There's also the fact that the media exists to spread candidates messages and also the Internet, which covers just about every American.

I still don't have an explanation of how inflating anyone's voting power over other people's voting power is a fairer system then everyone's voting power being exactly the same.

---

Why are you pulling numbers out of you arse? About 80% of USA population lives in urban areas.

You fail to see reality as it and live in that fantasy of yours. PEople in cities are more likely to vote, people in cities are more likely to vote similiar just check New York. People in cities votes for what its best for them and doesnt give a **** about what happens in rural USA. People in rural USA are spread out, not as organised, probably opinions are different depending on the area etc. The people in the rural areas gets punished cause they are more divided.

It's worth noting I said big cities, not Urban areas. By big cities I mean like major cities with millions of people in them. And it was a statistic I heard somewhere, but for the life of me I can't remember where so maybe I did pull it out of my ass, idk lol

Anyway, you just described is a government system that fails to get a grasp on reality and wants to live in fantasy land where rural people are completely detached from society and so they need a "handicap" to help get their voices heard. Living in a rural area myself I can confirm that that's completely and utterly bull****. It might have been the case in 1852, but it's not the case anymore. Case in point Ferguson, Missouri. They most certainly made their voices heard (whether you liked it or not) on a national level.

People can absolutely organize and get their voices heard. Less likely to register to vote? Stop with your bull**** excuses, go register, and then go vote. Hell, in some places you don't even need to register before and you can register the same day as you vote. Employers are legally required to give you a break to go out and vote on election day.

We aren't traveling by horse and buggy anymore. You don't need a day of travel to get to your polling station and a day of travel to return home. You don't need to pad the stats for any legitimate reason any more. We live in a time when there is absolutely no reason that you can't get out and vote nor get your voices heard. So let's stop pretending like we do

Anyone watch the walking dead? I love how they capture the spirit of the Democrat party in the character Negan.

Nah, but I heard about this lovely Klan meeting that gave some great insight into the Republican party.

Back to the bridge with ye

Oh come on Democrats want to take 50% of your stuff and all the guns. If you don't hand it over you will be jailed and if you resist being arrested killed. That is Democrats to a tee where do you think he got inspiration from. ;)

No. Despite what fox news reports Democrats have no intention of taking your precious guns away.

Proof: the nra promised twice that electing Obama would result in your guns being taken away and sure enough, everyone still has their guns and the 2nd amendment is still in existence.

I know, it's all very shocking indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

No. Despite what fox news reports Democrats have no intention of taking your precious guns away.

Proof: the nra promised twice that electing Obama would result in your guns being taken away and sure enough, everyone still has their guns and the 2nd amendment is still in existence.

I know, it's all very shocking indeed.

---

Big difference is supreme Court would never allow it currently. But if Crooked Hillary had a chance to put 3 liberals on the bench you could kiss all gun rights goodbye.