A new poll shows an astonishing 52% of Republicans incorrectly think Trump won the popular vote - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51557410]Basic theory is, that to make decisions like here in form of voting to pick their representatives in their best interests people should be informed. Otherwise the choices made are basically random and have diminished odds to serve the people's bbest interests. One of the most important arguments for representative democracy is that people elect representatives to spend time to get intimately familiar with policy issues to make the best decisions. But still, to pick representatives that serve them well to begin with, voting public must be informed about the world, the system they vote for and policies they promote. Thus, educated public is a necessity for functional democracy. Public must be informed to keep the system serving their interests and hold it accountable. This survey indicates that Trump supporters are much less informed about the system they just voted through than Hillary's supporters. This means that Trump's supporters are less aware of facts and thus more susceptible to be swayed by rhetoric, weakening their ability to evaluate how to get the system to work in their own best interests and hold it accountable. TL;DR - Trump supporters know less about politics and are more misled than Hillary supporters.[/QUOTE] This poll doesn't prove that, this is how you have interpreted it. [QUOTE] Amid the speculation on whether the electoral college will refuse to make Donald Trump president, many Trump opponents are pinning their hopes on one glaring fact: Hillary Clinton’s sizable win in the popular vote. [/QUOTE] It's the year of the sore loser.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51556524]The poll was done between the 6th and 12th of December so nope.[/QUOTE] So 52% of republicans stopped giving a fuck once they won the elections. [editline]20th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;51557164]I don't even have the energy to properly respond to this shit anymore. Here.[/QUOTE] This argument is flawed in the fact that it uses intersectionalism as a starting point. explaining human needs and desires or even trying to divide "fairness" through the minority checklist they have is a flawed, unmeasurable and inconsistent method, making sure rural regions get at least some attention from politicians has nothing to do with minority status but with practical campaign limitations... a candidate cannot be everywhere at once, thus without the electoral college in play supposedly rural states (not just counties, states) would get far less political influence even though they could economically contribute just as much to the union as more populous states, taking away most of their benefit of being in the union. Im against the electoral collage since its not democratic, but even i have to admit your argumentation is horse shit.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51557495]This poll doesn't prove that, this is how you have interpreted it.[/QUOTE] The poll question: “In last month’s election, Donald Trump won the majority of votes in the electoral college. Who do you think won the most popular votes?” The poll matters because it is an [B]indicator[/B] of an issue. It is a fact that Clinton won the popular vote. Those reporting that Trump won are objectively wrong. The voting results, both EC and popular have been well reported. Yet somehow there's a massive partisan split, either Trump supporters don't bother reading numbers, are unaware what popular vote means or have been convinced otherwise by less reliable media. The end result is that they are misinformed about an important facet of voting and results, which [B]necessarily[/B] means weaker understanding of the whole system. That reflects into how strong Trump's mandate is perceived to be.

trump won the popular vote by a landslide if you un-cuck the election results

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51557506]So 52% of republicans stopped giving a fuck once they won the elections. [editline]20th December 2016[/editline] This argument is flawed in the fact that it uses intersectionalism as a starting point. explaining human needs and desires or even trying to divide "fairness" through the minority checklist they have is a flawed, unmeasurable and inconsistent method, making sure rural regions get at least some attention from politicians has nothing to do with minority status but with practical campaign limitations... a candidate cannot be everywhere at once, thus without the electoral college in play supposedly rural states (not just counties, states) would get far less political influence even though they could economically contribute just as much to the union as more populous states, taking away most of their benefit of being in the union. Im against the electoral collage since its not democratic, but even i have to admit your argumentation is horse shit.[/QUOTE] No, your interpretation of the argument is horse shit. _Axel uses arbitrary groups to demonstrate absurdity of elevating rural population above others. To keep using trendy non-arguments, it seems him mentioning certain groups got you triggered too much to distinguish his position and instead get defensive. Without EC, rural population gets as much attention as any other arbitrary group in the issues based on weight of their votes.

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51557824]The poll question: “In last month’s election, Donald Trump won the majority of votes in the electoral college. Who do you think won the most popular votes?” The poll matters because it is an [B]indicator[/B] of an issue. It is a fact that Clinton won the popular vote. Those reporting that Trump won are objectively wrong. The voting results, both EC and popular have been well reported. Yet somehow there's a massive partisan split, either Trump supporters don't bother reading numbers, are unaware what popular vote means or have been convinced otherwise by less reliable media. The end result is that they are misinformed about an important facet of voting and results, which [B]necessarily[/B] means weaker understanding of the whole system. That reflects into how strong Trump's mandate is perceived to be.[/QUOTE] The fact that they answered that they believed Trump won the popular vote proves nothing, they might not necessarily be answering correctly. Even if they are genuinely wrong it doesn't prove that they know less politically than the next guy, it has no correlation at all.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51557506]This argument is flawed in the fact that it uses intersectionalism as a starting point. explaining human needs and desires or even trying to divide "fairness" through the minority checklist they have is a flawed, unmeasurable and inconsistent method, making sure rural regions get at least some attention from politicians has nothing to do with minority status but with practical campaign limitations... a candidate cannot be everywhere at once, thus without the electoral college in play supposedly rural states (not just counties, states) would get far less political influence even though they could economically contribute just as much to the union as more populous states, taking away most of their benefit of being in the union. Im against the electoral collage since its not democratic, but even i have to admit your argumentation is horse shit.[/QUOTE] Dude, did you read the post or not? You know what reductio ad absurdum is, right? I start by assuming what I want to disprove (that being outnumbered warrants power compensation) and take it to its logical nonsensical conclusion. It is completely relevant to the post I was replying to, the fact that you bring up an entirely different argument doesn't make mine horseshit, perhaps you should ensure you understand what you're reading before making such accusations. As for your argument, ignoring the fact that "a candidate can't be everywhere at once" is rendered irrelevant by the ushering of the internet era, the idea that small states would give more than they receive is ridiculous. How can you claim they "could contribute just as much as the more populous states"? Vermont could contribute the same amount to the American economy as California? Besides, it's not as if the electoral college yielded power to the least populated states in practice. You just have a handful of swing states which are the ones that get all the attention.

All systems are corruptible, popular vote or representative voting. Both systems have their pros and cons and neither are better than the other, namely because of the corruption factor: humans. Capitalism was doing great for us.. until corruption. The world is shit and there is no permanent solution.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51559057]All systems are corruptible, popular vote or representative voting. Both systems have their pros and cons and neither are better than the other, namely because of the corruption factor: humans. Capitalism was doing great for us.. until corruption. The world is shit and there is no permanent solution.[/QUOTE] Just because both are flawed to a degree doesn't mean that one isn't better than the other. I've yet to see a valid advantage the electoral college would have over the popular vote.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51558230]The fact that they answered that they believed Trump won the popular vote proves nothing, they might not necessarily be answering correctly. Even if they are genuinely wrong it doesn't prove that they know less politically than the next guy, it has no correlation at all.[/QUOTE] you heard it here first people ! not knowing about politics doesn't mean you don't know about politics ! war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc oh god you're joking i cant believe it

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51558230]The fact that they answered that they believed Trump won the popular vote proves nothing, they might not necessarily be answering correctly. Even if they are genuinely wrong it doesn't prove that they know less politically than the next guy, it has no correlation at all.[/QUOTE] I think it shows a pretty basic lack of interest in politics, but I think the more important point is the media divide - I doubt Democrats are better at following politics to the tune of almost 50%. This fact simply hasn't been reported much in conservative media, while it has probably been on 24/7 in the liberal media. You can probably find a different issue where you have the same divide but with opposite values. That doesn't make it less concerning, though, people shouldn't be kept from getting exposed to simple facts simply because of their choice of channel.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51558230]The fact that they answered that they believed Trump won the popular vote proves nothing, they might not necessarily be answering correctly. Even if they are genuinely wrong it doesn't prove that they know less politically than the next guy, it has no correlation at all.[/QUOTE] [B]Denial[/B] 1. An assertion of untruth. 2. Refusal to believe a problem exists. 3. A defense mechanism involving a refusal to accept the truth of a phenomenon or prospect.

Why is it astounding that less than half of the victorious Republican voters haven't paid attention to the Democrats "consolation prize" in an election that [I]is not decided by the popular vote[/I]. The winner losing the popular vote is the exception, the opposite being the default assumption. But yeah, get started with superficial discussion #134765 on how the electoral college is "undemocratic" and needs to be radically transformed right now. Good luck passing the necessary amendments which I expect and hope are necessary because currently it is a horrible idea and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51560587]Why is it astounding that less than half of the victorious Republican voters haven't paid attention to the Democrats "consolation prize" in an election that [I]is not decided by the popular vote[/I]. [B]The winner losing the popular vote is the exception, the opposite being the default assumption.[/B] But yeah, get started with superficial discussion #134765 on how the electoral college is "undemocratic" and needs to be radically transformed right now. Good luck passing the necessary amendments which I expect and hope are necessary because currently it is a horrible idea and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE] That's the exact issue. Of course the default stance is to assume that winner gets more votes, thus being aware of the opposite requires one to have more than superficial awareness of election results. This means unawareness of the weak point in EC system, fostering false complacency to status quo and undermining calls for reform. As for superficial discussion, I see you're trying your damnedest at it, not even bothering to say [B]why[/B] you hold that opinion.

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51560674]That's the exact issue. Of course the default stance is to assume that winner gets more votes, thus being aware of the opposite requires one to have more than superficial awareness of election results. This means unawareness of the weak point in EC system, fostering false complacency to status quo and undermining calls for reform. As for superficial discussion, I see you're trying your damnedest at it, not even bothering to say [B]why[/B] you hold that opinion.[/QUOTE] The default stance is correct considering historical election results and a completely reasonable guess as to the outcome of what remains a fairly trivial poll. And it [I]is[/I] fairly trivial in that the legitimacy of the result isn't derived from a majority vote across the entirety of the United States, as many would uncritically assume superior or somehow morally just. To seriously discuss removing the electoral colleges requires discussion at a level that I've yet to see in Sensationalist Headlines but this thread isn't the proper place for it anyway. Every single thread about US elections can't be derailed into a broad discussion on whether to abolish the electoral college. Awareness is inherently good of course, it's just that this isn't anything new.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51560873]The default stance is correct considering historical election results and a completely reasonable guess as to the outcome of what remains a fairly trivial poll. And it [I]is[/I] fairly trivial in that the legitimacy of the result isn't derived from a majority vote across the entirety of the United States, as many would uncritically assume superior or somehow morally just. To seriously discuss removing the electoral colleges requires discussion at a level that I've yet to see in Sensationalist Headlines but this thread isn't the proper place for it anyway. Every single thread about US elections can't be derailed into a broad discussion on whether to abolish the electoral college. Awareness is inherently good of course, it's just that this isn't anything new.[/QUOTE] I agree this thread isn't the proper thread, but why don't you try to lift the discussion that has apparently been void of critical thought instead of just making a pretentious post about it. It's easy to pretend to be profound when you really put up nothing that can be seriously refuted.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51560915]I agree this thread isn't the proper thread, but why don't you try to lift the discussion that has apparently been void of critical thought instead of just making a pretentious post about it. It's easy to pretend to be profound when you really put up nothing that can be seriously refuted.[/QUOTE] It's a bit of a dilemma, isn't it. I did make the point that while awareness is good, the originally referenced poll isn't very surprising considering the the simple fact that it just plain uncommon. But also that the elect losing the popular vote isn't something the electoral college is meant to prevent.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51560928]It's a bit of a dilemma, isn't it. I did make the point that while awareness is good, the originally referenced poll isn't very surprising considering the the simple fact that it just plain uncommon. But also that the elect losing the popular vote isn't something the electoral college is meant to prevent.[/QUOTE] You did. Let me keep it at saying that while it's dumb to assume "uncritically" (as with most things, I'd dare say) that a majority vote is the most legitimate, it's also irrational to assume that having a majority vote doesn't give a system more legitimacy in the eyes of the people. If we kept having elections where the EC goes against the majority vote, do you think people would see the US democracy as more or less legitimate? I'd bet on the latter. And this is pure speculation, but I think the fact that Republicans are less aware of the EC vote/popular vote split both because of media bubbles as I mentioned earlier, but also probably because people assume - as you said yourself - that if they won, they got the popular vote. I'd say that isn't because they consciously thought about it, and decided it was likely, but rather because they kinda assumed that that must be the case, but that is of course speculation. There are of course many more points to be made, but what I should've really wrote is that if you decide on something "uncritically", it doesn't matter whether you decided that the majority vote is legitimate or that the EC is. The EC isn't more legitimate simply because it is the system currently in use, it has to stand on its own merits. Edit: Also, I think most people are aware that the EC isn't meant to always appoint the winner of the popular vote, it's the system that enables the opposite to happen after all.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51560873]The default stance is correct considering historical election results and a completely reasonable guess as to the outcome of what remains a fairly trivial poll. And it [I]is[/I] fairly trivial in that the legitimacy of the result isn't derived from a majority vote across the entirety of the United States, as many would uncritically assume superior or somehow morally just. To seriously discuss removing the electoral colleges requires discussion at a level that I've yet to see in Sensationalist Headlines but this thread isn't the proper place for it anyway. Every single thread about US elections can't be derailed into a broad discussion on whether to abolish the electoral college.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51560928]It's a bit of a dilemma, isn't it. I did make the point that while awareness is good, the originally referenced poll isn't very surprising considering the the simple fact that it just plain uncommon. But also that the elect losing the popular vote isn't something the electoral college is meant to prevent.[/QUOTE] You can either 1) Up your argument to level others are providing 2) Follow your own advice and stop bringing it up again 3) Appear ridiculous I know what the current practice and law is, and the discussion isn't going to change it this term. But there's a case to be made whether this is the best practice and its alternatives, and for that the current state of the law is not a valid argument. The key points of the poll are the factors of education and deep partisan split. Whereby awareness is good yet in short supply, it seems to be shockingly unevenly divided among the electorate. One conclusion here is that one side has more to catch up than the other.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51560991]You did. Let me keep it at saying that while it's dumb to assume "uncritically" (as with most things, I'd dare say) that a majority vote is the most legitimate, it's also irrational to assume that having a majority vote doesn't give a system more legitimacy in the eyes of the people. If we kept having elections where the EC goes against the majority vote, do you think people would see the US democracy as more or less legitimate? I'd bet on the latter. And this is pure speculation, but I think the fact that Republicans are less aware of the EC vote/popular vote split both because of media bubbles as I mentioned earlier, but also probably because people assume - as you said yourself - that if they won, they got the popular vote. I'd say that isn't because they consciously thought about it, and decided it was likely, but rather because they kinda assumed that that must be the case, but that is of course speculation. There are of course many more points to be made, but what I should've really wrote is that if you decide on something "uncritically", it doesn't matter whether you decided that the majority vote is legitimate or that the EC is. The EC isn't more legitimate simply because it is the system currently in use, it has to stand on its own merits. Edit: Also, I think most people are aware that the EC isn't meant to always appoint the winner of the popular vote, it's the system that enables the opposite to happen after all.[/QUOTE] You make some valid points and yes - it is desirable that the election system can be objectively, morally justified - as with everything else that concerns state and it's ultimate infringement on rights of the individual. However, as the electoral college has been in use successfully for 200 years I do think that, in the context of a political discussion, the "burden of proof" lies on those proposing to abolish it in favor of some other system. [QUOTE=Vlevs;51561122]You can either 1) Up your argument to level others are providing 2) Follow your own advice and stop bringing it up again 3) Appear ridiculous I know what the current practice and law is, and the discussion isn't going to change it this term. But there's a case to be made whether this is the best practice and its alternatives, and for that the current state of the law is not a valid argument. The key points of the poll are the factors of education and deep partisan split. Whereby awareness is good yet in short supply, it seems to be shockingly unevenly divided among the electorate. One conclusion here is that one side has more to catch up than the other.[/QUOTE] Taken to the extreme this means that any thread warrants deep, metaphysical discussion. There has to be some kind of framing. I've made a case as to why the 52% figure isn't "astounding". You've made relevant points that relate to the article as well. Note that my first post wasn't a replying to you specifically, rather it was aimed at post like [QUOTE=AnnieOakley;51547442]A winner takes all system is bad in a democratic republic.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kyle902;51547445]Which is really stupid[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51547447]Which is fucking retarded. That's not how republics work.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51561982]You make some valid points and yes - it is desirable that the election system can be objectively, morally justified - as with everything else that concerns state and it's ultimate infringement on rights of the individual. However, as the electoral college has been in use successfully for 200 years I do think that, in the context of a political discussion, the "burden of proof" lies on those proposing to abolish it in favor of some other system.[/QUOTE] Define "successfully". Personally I would consider a vote that results in the opposite of what the majority wants happening a failure. It's not like it's the first time this happened either. Not to mention the massive amounts of voter disenfranchisement that results from there being no point in voting depending on your location. I genuinely fail to see why the burden of proof lies on the system that is demonstrably more representative in every single way. There are also countless democracies around the world which are healthy and well and don't use an Electoral College. By all accounts, the burden of proof lies rather on that one special system that is almost exclusively used in the US and presents no apparent advantage.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51562165]Define "successfully".[/QUOTE] The fact that's it survived for more than 200 years, during which the country that employs it has prospered immensely, is a strong indicator of success. The United States has a longer history of independent, democratic rule than any other country that exists today. This makes for a very strong case for a conservative approach to changing it, don't you think? [QUOTE=_Axel;51562165]Personally I would consider a vote that results in the opposite of what the majority wants happening a failure. It's not like it's the first time this happened either. Not to mention the massive amounts of voter disenfranchisement that results from there being no point in voting depending on your location. I genuinely fail to see why the burden of proof lies on the system that is demonstrably more representative in every single way. There are also countless democracies around the world which are healthy and well and don't use an Electoral College. By all accounts, the burden of proof lies rather on that one special system that is almost exclusively used in the US and presents no apparent advantage.[/QUOTE] You're assuming that representation based on population alone is good as a default, when it isn't necessarily the case. The United States is still structured as a union of states with high degree of independence. The electoral college represents states rather than individuals. Should states with low population contribute vast amounts of territory and natural resources with no guarantee of representation? Does maintaining higher populations automatically entitle you to more influence? It's not so simple for a country as large and diverse as The United States and comparisons to smaller, homogenous unitary states may not be appropriate.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51562362]The fact that's it survived for more than 200 years, during which the country that employs it has prospered immensely, is a strong indicator of success. The United States has a longer history of independent, democratic rule than any other country that exists today. This makes for a very strong case for a conservative approach to changing it, don't you think?[/quote] I don't think so, no. Just because the US were among the first democratic republics in the world and managed to remain somewhat stable since -just like the numerous other democratic republics born after them which didn't use an electoral college system- doesn't mean that their system is inherently superior for some reason. It simply means that it's good enough to not plunge the country in a civil war -and even then you'd have to shorten your 200 years of civil peace to about 150, which would actually put it behind some European republics- Could you mention any historical precedence where a country which used a direct voting system for their presidential election had major issues crop out that wouldn't in an electoral college system? [Quote]You're assuming that representation based on population alone is good as a default, when it isn't necessarily the case. The United States is still structured as a union of states with high degree of independence. The electoral college represents states rather than individuals. Should states with low population contribute vast amounts of territory and natural resources with no guarantee of representation? Does maintaining higher populations automatically entitle you to more influence? It's not so simple for a country as large and diverse as The United States and comparisons to smaller, homogenous unitary states may not be appropriate.[/QUOTE] Once you start using arguments like these you set up precedence that will completely defeat the point of there being a democratic election in the first place. If things like territory allocations, natural resources or economic growth were to be taken into account when it comes to the power balance of states within the union, then by using the same logic rich states which contribute a lot to the union's economy like California should see their voting power per capita increase when compared to poorly performing states like the Rust Belt. Is that your idea of how cooperation between the states should function? It's not like electoral votes as they're currently set up adequately reward states based on their contribution anyway -just like they don't protect minorities from the majority- so this whole idea is kind of a moot point. Saying that the electoral college's role is to ensure that states get properly represented in relation to their contribution to the union is an argument that falls apart if you actually look at it. The only system that would make sense is for the federal government to represent the citizens through the states. The electoral college is inconsistent with itself from numerous points of view.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51559081]you heard it here first people ! not knowing about politics doesn't mean you don't know about politics ! war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc oh god you're joking i cant believe it[/QUOTE] A poll asking people who obviously voted for Trump whether after he won the election that they thought he had won the popular vote does not prove that these people don't know about politics. As the article states: [QUOTE] We choose facts to be consistent with our prior beliefs. In this case, Republicans are more likely to endorse erroneous claims about Trump’s victory because it aligns with their partisanship. [/QUOTE] This isn't just the case for Trump voters it's a human condition. This forum is living proof of this condition that people will only accept facts that are consistent with their narrative.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51562856]I don't think so, no. Just because the US were among the first democratic republics in the world and managed to remain somewhat stable since -just like the numerous other democratic republics born after them which didn't use an electoral college system- doesn't mean that their system is inherently superior for some reason. It simply means that it's good enough to not plunge the country in a civil war -and even then you'd have to shorten your 200 years of civil peace to about 150, which would actually put it behind some European republics- [B]Could you mention any historical precedence where a country which used a direct voting system for their presidential election had major issues crop out that wouldn't in an electoral college system?[/B][/quote] It would be difficult to make that connection specifically. I'm just making the point that it's worked longer than any other system and that changes need to be carefully thought out. The civil war is an obvious strain but ultimatly a democratic republic was maintained, correct? [quote]Once you start using arguments like these you set up precedence that will completely defeat the point of there being a democratic election in the first place. If things like territory allocations, natural resources or economic growth were to be taken into account when it comes to the power balance of states within the union, then by using the same logic rich states which contribute a lot to the union's economy like California should see their voting power per capita increase when compared to poorly performing states like the Rust Belt. Is that your idea of how cooperation between the states should function? It's not like electoral votes as they're currently set up adequately reward states based on their contribution anyway -just like they don't protect minorities from the majority- so this whole idea is kind of a moot point.[/QUOTE] This is relevant and becomes more relevant as the size of the federal government increases. I'm not saying the current system is perfect but that it's better than a proportional vote. [quote]Saying that the electoral college's role is to ensure that states get properly represented in relation to their contribution to the union is an argument that falls apart if you actually look at it. The only system that would make sense is for the federal government to represent the citizens through the states. The electoral college is inconsistent with itself from numerous points of view.[/QUOTE] I will also make the argument that the United States has the best constitution in the history of the world. Perhaps it, more than the electoral college specifically, is the foremost reason for the stability and peaceful transition of power in the country were it was ratified. I'm not an expert on the subject but to it seems that enforcing a majority vote entails a major change in state independence and would require major amendments to the constitution. The most realistic and "safest" way to ensure a majority vote is to work within the current system akin to what the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact"]National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[/URL] is trying to achieve.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51561982]You make some valid points and yes - it is desirable that the election system can be objectively, morally justified - as with everything else that concerns state and it's ultimate infringement on rights of the individual. However, as the electoral college has been in use successfully for 200 years I do think that, in the context of a political discussion, the "burden of proof" lies on those proposing to abolish it in favor of some other system.[/QUOTE] When I read your original post, I honestly hoped for some stronger arguments; "this system has worked successfully for 200 years" hinges on what "successful" looks like - is the US better off than other comparable countries (largely European) with other systems of voting? You also have to prove that it's [I]because[/I] and not [I]despite[/I] this system. Is it really likely that this arrangement provides better presidents than the popular vote (of course not [I]directly[/I] comparable as people will vote differently in different systems, but let's agree that at least these two probably wouldn't have gotten in) when it goes against it (looking at Bush and most likely Trump, I'd say no at least in recent years)? I'd go ahead and say that having either the EC or the AV or whatever won't mean [I]that[/I] much for the US' overall trajectory as a country - but especially with FPTP (which you by virtue of your argument is also endorsing), I'd say the negative effects on the quality of the US democracy have been pretty large. At the very least these systems are correlated in the US with laughably low turnout and massive bipartisanship. I'd consider those things negative, and in those respects I don't think you can say the EC has been successful. Edit: Basically what I'm saying is; I don't think the EC is likely particularly unhealthy when it comes to US' overall performance in the world (the senate and house probably has more to say in the end), but I think it's unhealthy when it comes people's trust in the system. The US exchanging the EC for the AV wouldn't fix everything overnight, at least.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51562927]A poll asking people who obviously voted for Trump whether after he won the election that they thought he had won the popular vote does not prove that these people don't know about politics. As the article states: This isn't just the case for Trump voters it's a human condition. This forum is living proof of this condition that people will only accept facts that are consistent with their narrative.[/QUOTE] i don't get the point you are trying to make. are you saying we are all devoid of critical thinking and information about the world we live, just like the majority of trump voters? you know if you aren't sure of something in a poll you can answer ''don't know'' and doing so would be a greater mark of intelligence than answering bullshit. i guess what you're saying is that anybody, on a given claim, will be as misinformed and believe false facts? well maybe some, but evidently with this poll and with any other social/economic issue, you must arrive at the conclusion that republicans in the US have it happen to them WAY more often than the it-happens to-everybody excuse can account for

This news actually really doesn't make me upset/frustrated. It's not really their interest to know this. They were told Trump won by our rules, they're happy, they go home.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51563186]It would be difficult to make that connection specifically. I'm just making the point that it's worked longer than any other system and that changes need to be carefully thought out.[/QUOTE] It's worked out longer than any other system because it's appeared earlier and is not completely unstable. Not because it's somehow more stable than other democratic republics around the world which appeared mere decades afterwards and did just as well. I don't see how that means that changing to the latter system would be risky. [Quote]The civil war is an obvious strain but ultimatly a democratic republic was maintained, correct?[/QUOTE] And so did numerous other democratic republics around the world. Where's the strong case for keeping that system really? It doesn't yield exceptional results by any stretch of the word. [Quote]This is relevant and becomes more relevant as the size of the federal government increases. I'm not saying the current system is perfect but that it's better than a proportional vote.[/QUOTE] But I've just shown you why it doesn't do what you claim it does? Whether it's relevant doesn't even matter when the system doesn't actually do shit about it. Some small states have large territories, some have close to none, some big states contribute more per capita than small states, some small states have no resources or economic growth. The relation between contribution and voting power is all over the place and the electoral college does nothing to change that if not worsen it. And if for some reason you [I]do[/I] think states voting power should be proportional to their contribution to the union, I suppose you would be fine with California getting even more votes than they would in a popular vote? Or with poorly performing states such as those in the Rust Belt getting their voting power reduced because they don't "contribute as much"? [Quote]I will also make the argument that the United States has the best constitution in the history of the world.[/QUOTE] Uh, says who? According to what criteria? [Quote]Perhaps it, more than the electoral college specifically, is the foremost reason for the stability and peaceful transition of power in the country were it was ratified.[/quote] You mean the same stability and peaceful transition of power as other democratic republics in Europe? Countries in which there hasn't been any civil war? [Quote]I'm not an expert on the subject but to it seems that enforcing a majority vote entails a major change in state independence and would require major amendments to the constitution. The most realistic and "safest" way to ensure a majority vote is to work within the current system akin to what the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact"]National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[/URL] is trying to achieve.[/QUOTE] Yeah when a shitty system is at the core of your constitution, it's hard to change it, that makes sense. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.