Interesting standpoint, can you elaborate why you believe this rather than telling us that is what happened and that is how YOU like it over and over? wait no, I meant to write Firk you, what the hell happened up in this post?
Wow, man, I don't remember that. I'll take your word for it (again though, my understanding is that the people that did that and felt like that were a small minority, but that doesn't change what those people did). I agree with pretty much all of that. But yeah, at least in terms of the mainstream media (I don't feel like calling it news anymore, 'cause it's become so corrupt ), the left gets held up more often as being morally superior to the right. So... Maybe a big part of what's going on now just feels like a kind of sweet vengeance to people on the right? I can't blame them for that, honestly. Lol. No. I get the humor, but... That really isn't a valuable argument (but IS often used in propaganda in dictatorships!)... It happens all of the time everywhere now, to the point where you could say EVERYONE is "they/those people", so... it's kinda moot. Actually, it's becoming more and more clear that it may have been Trump that won the popular vote, not Clinton. "I believe a minority spread out over a large area should win over a majority concentrated in a small one. which it did through the electoral college making this so." The argument for it is fairly logical, but not always reasonable in reality ('sigh', as are many ideas): 1] In theory, people in a concentrated area will be more likely to have the same ideas than people spread over a larger area. 2] The people spread over a larger area are usually the ones supporting the ones in the concentrated area (like farming and other necessary industries). 3] The people spread over a larger area, in theory, will have everyone's best interests in mind (due to having a larger variety of ideas and the average being more moderate/compassionate). 4] The people spread over a larger area, in theory, will be more inclined to vote in such a way as to put the majority's interests first (such as sustainable food for the concentrated people). All of that is a lot of theory, that makes a great deal of logical sense, but sadly the world rarely works that way. That's part of why the government in the US is so complicated.
I notice that you are not Ragic but you made a good answer and I know the logic behind not having just the concentrated rule that is a problem your fptp system keeps having, I also think 3 and 4 are not as theorized.
Oh no no. I thought by this: that you meant that those things actually do happen (most of the time at least). I meant that I think that those things don't happen as often as the theory might suggest (they do happen frequently, but not enough to be reliable).
The whole red herring about "hillary won the popular vote" is preposterous. There is no such "popular vote." There are states and each state gets a # of votes. This is our system. The EU conducts voting the same way as the U.S. electoral college. Look how Germany has 16% of the EU population, but only 8% of the vote - a factor of one half. Meanwhile, the smallest states have a fraction of 1 % of the population, yet command a full percent of the vote - a factor of TEN TIMES their population. Why would the EU adopt (in the 1970's) a system that's so "unfair," "obsolete," and "undemocratic"? Because the designers of the EU voting system, like the U.S. founding fathers, understand the importance of balancing power between population on one hand and sovereign territory, strategic importance, and geography on the other hand. (See Shapley–Shubik power index and Banzhaf power index for the theory behind why there's so much more than population density at play in a power/voting system) Without an EU electoral college, Germany's 82.54M population could fully control the following states (75.86M): Czech Rep. Hungary Sweden Austria Bulgaria Denmark Slovakia Finland Ireland Lithuania Latvia Slovenia Estonia Cyprus Luxembourg Malta Would this be fair? Is Germany really more important than all of these other countries combined? Hell no! And furthermore, would those countries want to be part of a system that valued them in such a way? I doubt it. These are reasons why we designed the U.S. system similarly. To balance power between population and other important considerations. Progressives, both domestic and foreign, decrying the U.S. Electoral college do so with the most dubious of motives and apparent hypocrisy. You ain't fooling anyone.
I 100% agree that this is NOT a left or right problem, but a "some humans are combo of rude and violent and tarded" situation. A few offensive, dumb and small marches in the sticks is different than small riots in the heart of many large cities. Ironically, all were deep blue cities.
Excellent facts! Very good points. I would like to make one correction. They are, indeed, fooling lots o' peeps. But not as many as they desire. Cheers.
The EU doesn't vote on this by having the entire population vote on things, which makes this point rather invalid. There's referendums, but those are scarce. The voting process in the EU is completely different than the US presidential voting system, hence why a popular vote issue is not an issue in the EU. There is no popular vote.
There is no popular vote in the US of A that determines the winner of a Presidential Election, and there never has been. "Horrifying" vid follows: Trump about not winning an Emmy, "I should've gotten it." Playing the game, and winning, on a level below AND above that which some can comprehend.
neither do we. you were saying? population density is not the end-all be-all for fairly allocating voting power. only simpletons or grifters suggest otherwise [edit] or i guess old school pure direct democracy types? like ancient greece style
Yet it's still different to some degree as you have the entire population voting on a single issue, which does not happen in the EU. I don't disagree with you on the popular vote thingy, I'm just saying that the comparison with the EU isn't entirely correct.
that's great that you see those things and read stuff into it but when we read stuff into things we "Just don't get it man."
Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which gives low-population states a disproportionate vote share. "If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily." -Trump The whole EC controversy strikes me as so sad and pathetic. Like just the saddest straw-grasping on the part of progressive losers to console themselves for their a$$-blasting.
Yes... and the rest of the formula is based on population. So, as I said, it DOES use population? Nah, I already demonstrated why this isn't the case a number of times. And even now, almost all campaigning happened in about 9 states, so it isn't much better under the EC. Nah, the EC is screwy, and has been screwy, even before this election, and most Americas have disliked it for awhile... until Trump won with it - and support has risen since: http://www.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-electoral-college-rises-sharply.aspx So it's actually the opposite of what you are saying. Historically it's been disliked on average, and now conservatives like it more. I personally think the criticisms of the EC are valid, and have articulated them numerous times. The most pressing of which is how it disenfranchises voters in many states - particularly places like Texas and California. And no, Clinton wouldn't have simply won if it was popular vote (anyone who thinks so is being silly), including for the disenfranchisement I mentioned there. ~ I do think there's merit to the EC in terms of States vs Federal - but that's about the only argument that makes sense to me. Most of the other arguments for EC or anti-PV are either false, afflicts both situation similarly, or no longer applies in the modern world. Also note that there's also the existence of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - which are states 10 states and DC which have that pledged to vote for the person winning the Popular Vote and at least 3 states are currently considering legislature in that vein. So while it's true there's no technical national popular vote in the Presidential election, it is a statistic that is tracked, reported, discussed, exists mathematically, and at least 10 states and DC actually do use it in how they determine their electors will vote. It's similar to say.. Baseball - while there's technically no Wins Above Replacement (WAR) prize to win, some people do consider it an important statistic when talking about the MVP award.
Quoting me and then changing 100% of what I said/shared is a fairly yuck move. Are you trying to get hired by the NYT?
