More than half of arrested anti-Trump protesters didn't vote - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51372254]Moreover, it's insulting to Venezuelans. They [I]want[/I] democracy, the anti-Trump protesters are going around denouncing it, when Trump won fair and square.[/QUOTE] i like how you say this is about democracy even though Trump lost the popular vote. You supported the Brexit decision. You're a hypocrite for not denouncing Trumps victory.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51381702]i like how you say this is about democracy even though Trump lost the popular vote. You supported the Brexit decision. You're a hypocrite for not denouncing Trumps victory.[/QUOTE] how is denouncing the system that's been in place for decades now the right thing? the system has always been the popular vote is simply that, a popularity contest. the electoral college is the real decision maker. the two aren't tied together, and never have been. electoral voters can declare to vote for one candidate, and swap their choice on election day if they feel like changing their mind, there's no law saying they must honor any sort of pledge or anything. just because you're the preferred choice of the people doesn't mean you're the best choice for the country. idk about you, but i sure as shit wouldn't want someone who fucked up handling classified material and lied about it under oath to handle even more classified material, while starting a war with russia at the same time. if anything with the EC is an issue, it's that almost every state runs on a winner-take-all system, as opposed to splitting electoral votes by districts.

[QUOTE=Pops;51383419]if anything with the EC is an issue, it's that almost every state runs on a winner-take-all system, as opposed to splitting electoral votes by districts.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't a statewide quota system work better? If it's via district (which is still winner-takes-all - per district), then you can still have every EC vote in that state go towards one party, as long as that party won a plurality in every district. If it's a quota system, a candidate that wins say 60% of the votes across the state would receive roughly 60% of that state's EC votes. Another issue with going via district is it would introduce gerrymandering into Presidential elections, keeping in mind that the Republicans have won as many seats as they have in the House thanks to it (but of course, the Democrats aren't innocent either).

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51372190]They're also polluting social media with misinformation. [media]https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/797586215268536320[/media] You know you dun goofed when BuzzFeed -of all sites- debunks a pic.[/QUOTE] You'd have to be dangerously stupid to think that is what Los Angeles looks like.

[QUOTE=Komodoh;51372834]One of these days you Facepunch kids will stop making assumptions to push your world views. You guys [B]REALLY[/B] need to argue based on what people actually say over desperately making up unrelated situations where you can hopefully make them contradict themselves. This is Debate 101, step it up.[/QUOTE] the idea of someone claiming to know anything about debating while using ad-hominem is causing me to have a seizure

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51384561]the idea of someone claiming to know anything about debating while using ad-hominem is causing me to have a seizure[/QUOTE] Beat me to the punch (not that I agree that SH is a proper place for debates), but wrapping an argument (or in this case, a statement) up with the very fallacy you're pointing out is a phenomenal way to look like a dipshit.

If you want people to vote then you should construct a system where their vote actually matters. Oregon has gone blue since 1988.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;51384729]If you want people to vote then you should construct a system where their vote actually matters. Oregon has gone blue since 1988.[/QUOTE] The Presidential election isn't the only election that happens on general election day. You're an American, you should absolutely know that. People who live in Oregon also voted for the US Congress and Senate, state house and Senate, Governor and other state figures, in municipal elections, and for seven ballot initiatives. But I mean, if there are people here who don't recognise that the election was more than just the Presidency, I suppose it's not unreasonable to guess that many of those arrested were also too silly to know just how many things they could have cast a vote for. But they instead decided to throw away their democratic right to vote, and somehow feel vindicated enough to protest the result of that vote?

So do you not disagree with the notion that people feel disenfranchised by the system when it comes to the highest office in the land? Local and state politics are given very little attention compared to the presidency. You can chastise voters until you're blue in the face but it hasn't worked and it's not going to work. You need to make the system more accommodating if you want people to vote. Of course with a Republican majority that's never going to happen since they tend to lose elections where turnout is high.