Hillary won the popular vote by over 150,000 votes.
185 replies, posted
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51341450]Because that farmer in bumfuck no where is producing food.
Because a country of over 50 states shouldn't be decided by one.
Because he has a greater effect on his state than you[/QUOTE]
Okay, but take a country totaling 100 people in 3 states. If fifty-two people live in one state and twenty-four in each of the others, shouldn't the people in the first state be worth the same as those in the little states? Even if it means the little states get drowned out? More people live in the big states and their votes should be fully equal to those in little states because every vote should count for the same.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51341513]I think we shouldn't have any banned sources. Banning sources is kinda really fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
nah it's a completely reasonable thing to do. dishonest outlets that pass themselves as truthful have no place in a forum filled with impressionable teenagers
[QUOTE=SirJon;51341513]I think we shouldn't have any banned sources. Banning sources is kinda really fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but FP is not a democracy. :/
[QUOTE=MissZoey;51341562]Okay, but take a country totaling 100 people in 3 states. If fifty-two people live in one state and twenty-four in each of the others, shouldn't the people in the first state be worth the same as those in the little states? Even if it means the little states get drowned out? More people live in the big states and their votes should be fully equal to those in little states because every vote should count for the same.[/QUOTE]
This just demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how democracy does and should work in the united states, because each person needs representation pertinent to their own state in the house. If it was proportional representation, as you think is the glittering beacon of pure democracy, there would actually be a huge skew in the number of people being represented by candidates who reflect their views. (i.e the existence of california and new york would fuck a lot of people in low population red states like Montana).
The same 'this isn't democracy' bullshit comes out of every losing side every time a decision is made. Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and blaming the system that literally gave you the right to have a say.
[QUOTE=simkas;51341532]That's not how democracy works. In a democracy, everyone's votes are supposed to be completely equal no matter what. Trying to point out that some people's votes are more important than others is just bullshit elitism.[/QUOTE]
You're not a democracy you're a republic, and you're a republic as a result of incidents from a non republic America. The system was designed to protect minorities in the American political system, not just non-white people, political minorities. Groups that although they have less numbers, still have the responsibility of managing an entire state. Groups that don't have the same resources as you. The system was put in place and is kept in place to prevent states with an unbalanced portion of the population, GDP, or natural resources of the United States creating a political oligarchy. It's not elitism it's actually the opposite, the system is in place to prevent America from becoming a battle between the elite states and the worse off states, to prevent civil wars, to keep balance in the nation.
Sometimes this system has bad side effects, but to suggest removing the protections for lower states because you don't like who won the presidency is absolute lunacy.
[editline]9th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=MissZoey;51341562]Okay, but take a country totaling 100 people in 3 states. If fifty-two people live in one state and twenty-four in each of the others, shouldn't the people in the first state be worth the same as those in the little states? Even if it means the little states get drowned out? More people live in the big states and their votes should be fully equal to those in little states because every vote should count for the same.[/QUOTE]
No. and that's not the way the american system is balanced at all. Does new hampshire have as many votes as cali?
[editline]9th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51341334]The only people who this protects at the moment are the white middle class. Last i checked they were a majority demographic. Clearly its not working as intended.[/QUOTE]
Not all minorities have colored skin, and "white middle class" people can be a minority in a political sense depending on their placment.
You are being racist
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51341570]I agree, but FP is not a democracy. :/[/QUOTE]
and neither is the US, apparently
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51341305]150,000 is a drop of water in the ocean. Do you know how many votes were cast...[/QUOTE]
Google says it's 240,000 in Clinton's favor, but even if it was 150,000 . . . . .
Florida's "drop of water" difference was just 120,000. If Clinton won Florida, the electoral vote count would actually be in her favor 257 - 250 Clinton - Trump (to be decided by the college, most likely in favor of Clinton) instead of 228 - 279 Clinton - Trump.
Both Trump and Clinton spent a lot of campaign time late election in NY soo
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51341658]Imagine saying political minorites are protected and their voice are heard in America
A country where two independents had to hijack the 2 official (TM) parties to get their voice heard because otherwise it would be literally impossible
How blind are you, America is a place where candidates battle for elite states already. Thoseelite states arent Cali and NY but it is Florida and Pennysylvania and Michigan, have you ever seen Trump going after NY or Cali or Vermont? They have [B]-0-[/B] representation and you call this fair.
Learn some mathematics, you are so convinced this is the best for USA you cant see how it is the exact same thing you calim it would be otherwise but in reverse[/QUOTE]
cali has 55 electoral votes. that's not 0 representation by any standard for one state to have nearly 1/5 of the vote needed for a win
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51341439][media]https://twitter.com/HuffingtonPost/status/795663593689808896[/media][/QUOTE]
I like how it doesn't even add up to 100%
[QUOTE=i_speel_good;51341685]I like how it doesn't even add up to 100%[/QUOTE]
Because they're not the only candidates?
[QUOTE=Cabbage;51341589]This just demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how democracy does and should work in the united states, because each person needs representation pertinent to their own state in the house. If it was proportional representation, as you think is the glittering beacon of pure democracy, there would actually be a huge skew in the number of people being represented by candidates who reflect their views. (i.e the existence of california and new york would fuck a lot of people in low population red states like Montana).
[B]The same 'this isn't democracy' bullshit comes out of every losing side every time a decision is made. [/B][/QUOTE]
Except this has been said for literally years on end. It isn't just because we lost this time, it's because it's a bunch of bullshit.
Yeah, I get (the sentiment) that people in low population states should have a larger say because some policies might affect them more or whatever. But why the fuck should they have a larger say in foreign policy? Or social policies? Or on climate change? Why are these concerns less valid than some farmer's in bumfuck nowhere?
This is a bad way to deal with things - local interests should be represented through local representation, not by those people having a larger say in the federal government. The electoral college creates more problems than simply this as well - voter apathy, campaigning only in swing states etc. It doesn't even succeed in what it sets out to do; instead of all the big states getting all the attention, now it's just all the swing states.
[quote]Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and blaming the system that literally gave you the right to have a say.[/quote]
"Stop complaining about an outdated system because once it was better than nothing!"
[QUOTE=i_speel_good;51341685]I like how it doesn't even add up to 100%[/QUOTE]
people do vote third party y'know
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;51341353]This time however the problem is the tyranny of the minority on the majority.
Why should my vote as a Californian be worth less than the vote of some random farmer whose whole subsistence is in the town in bumfuck Nebraska?[/QUOTE]
Because the intent of the system is not to only represent individuals but also states.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51341684]cali has 55 electoral votes. that's not 0 representation by any standard for one state to have nearly 1/5 of the vote needed for a win[/QUOTE]
Which is why it would be better if it was directly popular vote, that way red voters in a blue state, or blue voters in a red state, would actually matter, instead of CA just being guaranteed 55 votes for the Democrat.
I thought the whole point of a democracy is that the people decide who they want as president. The fact that the founding fathers didn't trust the american people to vote correctly, so they vote on voters is insulting and undemocratic.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51341540]Facepunch doesn't have the right to freedom of speech or press.
And its intent is to keep out flame wars, trolling and incredibly incendiary topics that will result in mass bans - because that's what extremely, obviously biased sources in SH do.
Sensationalist Headlines name is a parody of banned sources, not an invitation.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I wasn't saying it was. Doesn't make it any less fucking stupid.
Facepunch certified sources™ just screams echo chamber to me
[QUOTE=SirJon;51341779]Yeah I wasn't saying it was. Doesn't make it any less fucking stupid.
Facepunch certified sources™ just screams echo chamber to me[/QUOTE]
Facepunch isn't a newspaper. Don't like the news, go to another site. Just the way it is.
[QUOTE=MILKE;51341751]I thought the whole point of a democracy is that the people decide who they want as president. The fact that the founding fathers didn't trust the american people to vote correctly, so they vote on voters is insulting and undemocratic.[/QUOTE]
don't you know the founding fathers were perfect in every way and could see the future (i also heard they could fly)?
[QUOTE=MILKE;51341751]I thought the whole point of a democracy is that the people decide who they want as president. The fact that the founding fathers didn't trust the american people to vote correctly, so they vote on voters is insulting and undemocratic.[/QUOTE]
The founders hated democracy.
That is why we're a republic.
Why is this so lost on so many people?
[QUOTE=SirJon;51341779]Yeah I wasn't saying it was. Doesn't make it any less fucking stupid.
Facepunch certified sources™ just screams echo chamber to me[/QUOTE]
the reason why those sources are banned is because they have a massive history of falsifying information and giving out bullshit after bullshit. there are tons of sources that aren't banned, so it certainly is no echo chamber.
I mean it's still a pretty terrible system don't get me wrong. It would be better if states weren't winner-takes-all and if the government was proportional rather than just electing a president.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;51341732]Which is why it would be better if it was directly popular vote, that way red voters in a blue state, or blue voters in a red state, would actually matter, instead of CA just being guaranteed 55 votes for the Democrat.[/QUOTE]
because that would create an imbalance in the election cycle and would mean political candidates would only really focus on appealing to those 5 big states as non of the others would matter.
it wouldn't solve your problem it would change why it happens
I find it hard to believe the sudden uproar about the electoral system [I]after[/I] the election has much to do with people having issues with it more than there issue with the fact that Clinton lost.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51341822]I find it hard to believe the sudden uproar about the electoral system [I]after[/I] the election has much to do with people having issues with it more than there issue with the fact that Clinton lost.[/QUOTE]
sure there's been a recent (and obvious) surge. but anyone who thinks the electoral college got nothing but love this past decade hasn't been following politics for very long
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51341307]We democrats need ti stand together and try our damnedest to get the electoral college abolished. Write your representative. Pass out flyers. Protest outside your town hall. Spread the word to every American[/QUOTE]
Direct democracy worked so well for brexit
I think trump supporters don't mind a bit that they won through this bullshit so anyone complaining about this obvious perversion of democracy is just going to be derided as a "sore loser"
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51341822]I find it hard to believe the sudden uproar about the electoral system [I]after[/I] the election has much to do with people having issues with it more than there issue with the fact that Clinton lost.[/QUOTE]
I saw a lot of posts criticizing the electoral college all through the run up to election but they never receieved much pushback simply because not many people thought the election would go this way. The chances of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the electoral were miniscule.
It also makes sense that you will see more posts critical of the electoral college the day after it does it's job than any other time of the year so it could be people genuinely unhappy with the setup.
This isn't the electoral college's job. The electoral college's [I]job[/I] was to function as representative democracy in a time when counting all the votes was impractical. That is no longer an issue. The electoral college voting counter to the popular vote is not representative democracy, it's oligarchy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.