• Hillary won the popular vote by over 150,000 votes.
    185 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wystan;51341328]This is really just excess Californians. The founding fathers designed the electoral college to protect the minorities against the majority, giving low population states value to contend with giant population centers. This was a fair win.[/QUOTE] Wait what? How does that make any sense? Just because you live in a place that has a higher population your vote is worth less than someone else's?
[QUOTE=V12US;51343928]The danger with banning unpopular sources is that when you lock yourself up in an echo chamber like that, you eventually start unquestionably believing everything you agree with and you will one day wake up to find that it was all bullshit.[/QUOTE] it's about banning verifiably misleading sources, not unpopular ones
[QUOTE=V12US;51343928]The danger with banning unpopular sources is that when you lock yourself up in an echo chamber like that, you eventually start unquestionably believing everything you agree with and you will one day wake up to find that it was all bullshit.[/QUOTE] I don't like it either. When you post a Russian article, most people here don't read it, they just jump at your throat for posting it and they make stupid comments like "Oh! Russian state news! Bias much?" As if US news aren't biased. This is how you get the big picture, you are supposed get news from [I]everywhere[/I]. There's a pretty good article about how the US media got it all wrong on bashing Trump non-stop on Sputnik, which could spur a decent discussion, but it can't be shared on FP, [I]b-because Russian bias herp derp[/I]. It has to stop. [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] The only thing I get from all this, is that browsing SH is not the best way to get news. I ended up resorting to Twitter instead.
It's quite peculiar seeing people talk about whether trump will accept his loss or not then when he wins we get people calling to drastically change how we do elections.
I like how many people complain that Trump has no business leading the country when he has no political experience and then turn around and complain that the electoral college sucks and that people should get direct say over the government despite also having no business leading the country How many of you are doing exactly what you predicted butthurt republicans would do if they didn't win?
There's a difference between individuals being upset about the results and complaining about legitimate issues when they're brought up and the nominee for President refusing to accept the result. The nominee has a responsibility to the nation to accept the result and concede defeat. Meanwhile individuals are allowed to be upset and protest all they want as long as it's peaceful. That is a false equivalence. For the record, if Clinton were say refusing to accept the result, I'd be absolutely scathing right now.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;51346404]I like how many people complain that Trump has no business leading the country when he has no political experience and then turn around and complain that the electoral college sucks and that people should get direct say over the government despite also having no business leading the country How many of you are doing exactly what you predicted butthurt republicans would do if they didn't win?[/QUOTE] It's more of an irony because Obama didn't win the majority vote, yet here he stands in the White House without complaint.
[QUOTE=Captain James;51346416]It's more of an irony because Obama didn't win the majority vote, yet here he stands in the White House without complaint.[/QUOTE] He [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008"]won[/URL] the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012"]popular vote[/URL] in both elections. Even if he didn't, however, I'd still oppose the Electoral College. It's just not democratic.
[QUOTE=Captain James;51346416]It's more of an irony because Obama didn't win the majority vote, yet here he stands in the White House without complaint.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012[/url] lmao [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51346419]He [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008"]won[/URL] the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012"]popular vote[/URL] in both elections. Even if he didn't, however, I'd still oppose the Electoral College. It's just not democratic.[/QUOTE] Rip, didn't see it.
[QUOTE=Chains!;51341318]150k is only 0.1% of the voting population.[/QUOTE] if people went apeshit after brexit passes with 1-2% of the vote god help america if Hillary won with that
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51346419]He [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008"]won[/URL] the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012"]popular vote[/URL] in both elections. Even if he didn't, however, I'd still oppose the Electoral College. It's just not democratic.[/QUOTE] The Electoral College isn't the only problem, though - if you look at this year's [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016"]election[/URL] the voter turnout seems significantly lower compared to past the past two and whilst that is true to a degree, if you look at the third party votes I believe the Libertarians got a bit over five million votes whilst the Greens didn't do terribly either which just kinda goes to show that people are getting to the point where they don't even care about pragmatic voting and willing to take a dive with the candidates they want. Alternative vote needs to be implemented across the nation really, I know one or two states are slowly trying to introduce it but it's not enough. We tried to implement it but our media's controlled by conservative shills (including an Australian billionaire, real patriotic eh?) and its opponents claimed it was harmful and would cost us too much money (because you can put a price on fair elections) or otherwise kept it out of sight and out of mind so people had no idea what it was about. [t]http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C31R5D/a-bus-shelter-advert-for-the-no-to-av-campaign-leading-up-to-the-alternative-C31R5D.jpg[/t][t]https://i.imgur.com/9OhEXdk.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Bazsil;51346404]I like how many people complain that Trump has no business leading the country when he has no political experience and then turn around and complain that the electoral college sucks and that people should get direct say over the government despite also having no business leading the country[/quote] This is completely nonsensical. The electoral college (with a few exceptions that have never changed an election afaik) always votes according to what their state voted. They're in all practicality a proxy for the popular vote, but they're one that introduces a bunch of (systematic) representational problems. The people do for all purposes have direct say when it comes who should become president, the electoral college simply adds a skew. People actually having direct control over the government would include abolishing Congress and have the people pass laws by popular vote - something else entirely, and not anything most people are arguing for. And if you can't see the difference between people having the power to vote on [I]who[/I] should be running the country, and Trump who will [I]actually[/I] be running it, this is gonna be a really long discussion.
[QUOTE=VIOLATION_SNG;51343763]150k votes is not nothing lol imagine if those votes were concentrated in one of the nearly deadlocked swing states (e.g. Florida), it could have drastically changed the election in terms of electoral votes. Clinton lost by rougly 120k votes in Florida. if those votes were there Trump would not have reached 270 and in fact Clinton would have a higher number of electoral votes than him. even PA was a margin of 68k votes and michigan was decided by only a gap of 12k votes.[/QUOTE] Trump was going to get 306. He would have won even without Florida. People need to stop trying to 'fix' the system. The states have spoken.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;51346404]I like how many people complain that Trump has no business leading the country when he has no political experience and then turn around and complain that the electoral college sucks and that people should get direct say over the government despite also having no business leading the country[/QUOTE] Because the system's goal is to send more qualified people to represent you with a snapshot of popular opinion of the time used to figure out what representatives get sent. You'd still send representatives. Also, being a politician is not just the big ideological stuff that matters like gay marriage or abortions. There's a lot of day-to-day mundane stuff that is still important.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51346522]Trump was going to get 306. He would have won even without Florida. People need to stop trying to 'fix' the system. The states have spoken.[/QUOTE] Ignoring the Electoral College, there is a clear issue with the system in that people end up being forced to vote for one of the two big parties - alternative/preferential voting would help fix that.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;51346475](including an[B] Australian billionaire[/B], real patriotic eh?)[/QUOTE] Mr. Murdoch?
[QUOTE=plunger435;51346522]Trump was going to get 306. He would have won even without Florida. People need to stop trying to 'fix' the system. The states have spoken.[/QUOTE] so people should sit complacently and ignore any doubt they have in the system at all because "the states have spoken"? i'm not going to sit here and contest his victory but im also not going to sit here and act like the electoral college is a perfect system. it shouldn't matter how minuscule you think it is, when the losing candidate has 230k more people who voted for them yet the winner wins by a massive margin through the electoral college, there is obviously something wrong with the way things are done. there shouldn't be such a massive skew with popular and electoral college. has it ever even made sense in the modern day that a heavily contested state where the "majority" wins by a fraction of a percent should receive the entire weight of that states vote? does it make sense that if you're a republican voting in an overwhelmingly blue state like California that your vote is basically worthless? im not saying we have to abolish the electoral college, but there is obviously a problem, and there has been for for even over a century
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;51346696]Ignoring the Electoral College, there is a clear issue with the system in that people end up being forced to vote for one of the two big parties - alternative/preferential voting would help fix that.[/QUOTE] That actually happened in Maine on Tuesday. They passed a referendum that makes the voting in the state ranked. I don't know all the details, but it would allow voters to pick the order of preference instead of one or the other. That's the kind of system I would prefer. So you don't have to view voting third party as a "waste".
[QUOTE=VIOLATION_SNG;51347467]so people should sit complacently and ignore any doubt they have in the system at all because "the states have spoken"? [B]i'm not going to sit here and contest his victory [/B]but im also not going to sit here and act like the electoral college is a perfect system. it shouldn't matter how minuscule you think it is, when the losing candidate has 230k more people who voted for them yet the winner wins by a massive margin through the electoral college, there is obviously something wrong with the way things are done. [B]there shouldn't be such a massive skew with popular and electoral college. [/B] has it ever even made sense in the modern day that a heavily contested state where the "majority" wins by a fraction of a percent should receive the entire weight of that states vote? does it make sense that if you're a republican voting in an overwhelmingly blue state like California that your vote is basically worthless? im not saying we have to abolish the electoral college, but there is obviously a problem, and there has been for for even over a century[/QUOTE] That's exactly what you're doing, because no one here would be complaining if it was the other way around. Not to mention it wasn't a massive skew. Gore beat Bush by 500,000 in 2000 too.
Just make voting for president a preferential system? You vote like in alternative vote and it's done on a state-by-state basis. Still keeps the electoral college while simultaneously fixing the problem that voting for a third party is a spoiler. Both sides stay happy. I reckon Clinton would have won the election if AV was mandatory given that most second-place votes would have been for her. She'd have taken Florida, PA, Wisconsin and Michigan if AV was there, assuming the majority of secondary votes went for her which is the most likely thing.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51347732]That's exactly what you're doing, because no one here would be complaining if it was the other way around. Not to mention it wasn't a massive skew. Gore beat Bush by 500,000 in 2000 too.[/QUOTE] I, and many other people have been against the electoral college for years. The person you're quoting does not call for the results of the election to be changed, he's just acknowledging that there are problems with something. You however are not even contesting that there [I]are[/I] problems, it seems like you're just telling him to shut up and ignore them.
[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] States aren't people. No state has a 100% vote for any one candidate or another. NONE. EVER. A fuckton of people are disenfranchised every single election because of this system.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51346419]He [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008"]won[/URL] the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012"]popular vote[/URL] in both elections. Even if he didn't, however, I'd still oppose the Electoral College. It's just not democratic.[/QUOTE] Mandela effect? I remember people kicking up a fuss about Romney having more actual votes. Must've been from before the finished counting just like this article is. CNN's already showing that Trump probably did get popular vote.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51347732]That's exactly what you're doing, because no one here would be complaining if it was the other way around. Not to mention it wasn't a massive skew. Gore beat Bush by 500,000 in 2000 too.[/QUOTE] I have not once said that trump did not win the presidency. I have no idea why you seem to be okay with the fact that we obviously have a flawed system though where one candidate can crush the other in the electoral college and lose (shouldn't matter by how many votes) by the popular vote. please don't make implications that I wouldn't be bothered if the situation was the same and the winning candidate was switched. I don't like either of these candidates and i have always disliked the electoral college system, only now there is much more of a reason to speak out about it again. i do appreciate that you ignored every other point I raised though only highlighting parts where you think I'm complaining about clinton losing don't really know why you think pointing out gore won the popular vote by more diminishes any of the fact that the same sort of thing happened this election either
The United States is a federal republic. How is this news? Of course the merits of the current system can be discussed but stop acting like it's automatically invalid just because the losing candidate can win the popular vote. That isn't the only aspect to consider. Interestingly and less discussed, the European Parliament doesn't count every vote equal either. Instead seats are applied with degressive proportionality. The EU does however enforce that MEPs must be elected on the basis of proportional representation for each member state. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality[/url]
[QUOTE=VIOLATION_SNG;51347822]I have not once said that trump did not win the presidency. I have no idea why you seem to be okay with the fact that we obviously have a flawed system though where one candidate can crush the other in the electoral college and lose (shouldn't matter by how many votes) by the popular vote. please don't make implications that I wouldn't be bothered if the situation was the same and the winning candidate was switched. I don't like either of these candidates and i have always disliked the electoral college system, only now there is much more of a reason to speak out about it again. i do appreciate that you ignored every other point I raised though only highlighting parts where you think I'm complaining about clinton losing don't really know why you think pointing out gore won the popular vote by more diminishes any of the fact that the same sort of thing happened this election either[/QUOTE] I don't believe for one second that people would be complaining this much if the roles were reversed, I've even pointed out on this forum that Clinton won the popular vote and Obama lost in the primaries only for people to ignore it because it's their candidate. If people actually care we'll see in two years when there's a chance to change it, but like every election it's going to be forgotten about in a month.
pretty sure I saw some people here pray for Clinton to actually rig the election when it was becoming clear that Trump wasn't gonna go down in a landslide
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;51347970]pretty sure I saw some people here pray for Clinton to actually rig the election when it was becoming clear that Trump wasn't gonna go down in a landslide[/QUOTE] Do you have posts or proof of that?
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=51334531#post51334531[/url] I don't know why it matters though
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;51347993][url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=51334531#post51334531[/url] I don't know why it matters though[/QUOTE] I am fairly sure he was being utterly sarcastic. The reason it matters is that making claims like that need to be backed up, otherwise they're just there to antagonise people and make them annoyed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.