Do Voters Share the Blame for Trump?

[Revoltingest]

Ya, I have read that before more than once. At any rate, it certainly does not work like that, now does it? As the Electoral College just votes along with the popular vote of the state. It was a giant flop, it does not work. All it does is give some voters more voting power based on what state they live in.

In theory, they could go against the popular vote.
But it might take a candidate even more objectionable
than even Trump.
Hey, if the Democrat Party can't find anyone better than
Biden or Hillary redux, the could nominate me. A test.

 

[Nous]

No, my great grandfather Jaques Cortelyou arrived in New Amsterdam (now NY) in 1650. For over 350 years, my family have not been immigrants.

So you still can't identify a single advantage to the country that has resulted from electing the president by the electoral system. Correct?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you still can't identify a single advantage to the country that has resulted from electing the president by the electoral system. Correct?

I can.

Spoiler: One advantage

Oh, come on....you know I had to go there after your post.

 

[Cooky]

So you still can't identify a single advantage to the country that has resulted from electing the president by the electoral system. Correct?

No, but I can see how changing it to the popular vote will inevitably change the country's future. Something I'm not willing to go along with.

Imagine a country like Venezuela with the greatest nuclear arsenal in the world. It is a potential scenario for the U.S. to become something similar within a 200 year timeframe, if current trends are allowed to continue, and the popular vote will only help it become a reality IMO.

 

[Cooky]

Or perhaps a national division is in our future. Nobody ever said 'change' has to be good. Yet progressives charge toward it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or perhaps a national division is in our future. Nobody ever said 'change' has to be good. Yet progressives charge toward it.

More division is a kind of progress.

 

[Cooky]

More division is a kind of progress.

It surely is. For those who want a weaker, less interesting America IMO.

 

[Revoltingest]

It surely is. For those who want a weaker, less interesting America IMO.

Less interesting?
Au contraire, we live in very interesting times.

 

[Nous]

I can.

Spoiler: One advantage

Oh, come on....you know I had to go there after your post.

You would have still had that photo of Clinton making a funny face if the president were elected by national popular vote. You might have had even more such pics.

 

[Revoltingest]

You would have still had that photo of Clinton making a funny face if the president were elected by national popular vote. You might have had even more such pics.

With a popular vote, candidates would campaign with a different strategy.
We don't know that she'd have a plurality in that alternative.

 

[Nous]

No, but I can see how changing it to the popular vote will inevitably change the country's future. Something I'm not willing to go along with.

Imagine a country like Venezuela with the greatest nuclear arsenal in the world. It is a potential scenario for the U.S. to become something similar within a 200 year timeframe, if current trends are allowed to continue, and the popular vote will only help it become a reality IMO.

What you believe you are "seeing" is a gross delusion.

The candidate who did not get the national popular vote got the office 5 times in the history of the US. Obviously none of those occasions prevented the US from becoming Venezuela. The US cannot Venezuela. Let go of those delusions.

 

[Nous]

With a popular vote, candidates would campaign with a different strategy.
We don't know that she'd have a plurality in that alternative.

There would likely have been higher voter turnout if the election were by national popular vote, since under the current system in most states voters already know who will get their state's electoral votes. This higher voter turnout would have plausibly more closely reflected the majority of pre-election polls.

 

[Revoltingest]

There would likely have been higher voter turnout if the election were by national popular vote, since under the current system in most states voters already know who will get their state's electoral votes. This higher voter turnout would have plausibly more closely reflected the majority of pre-election polls.

Higher voter turnout.....hmmm.....
Adding in the votes of those who didn't care enuf to vote before.
Yeah...that'll fix things.

 

[Nous]

Higher voter turnout.....hmmm.....
Adding in the votes of those who didn't care enuf to vote before.
Yeah...that'll fix things.

There's little reason to engage in useless speculations. The best information we have on the 2016 election if it had been by national popular vote is how people did vote.

 

[esmith]

The President represents the Country, the Congress represents the people.
Therefore the President should be chosen by a majority of the Country and not by a majority of the people.
The Country consist of 50 States and the District of Columbia.
I would prefer to see the President elected by the States and the District of Columbia, in which whomever gets the majority of the 51 votes (each vote is based on who win the majority in each State and DC.
Since the Electoral College is the closest to this I say we leave it alone.

 

[metis]

People are real, states are entirely artificial creations subject to change or even elimination, so I go in the direction of just having the "real" represented.

 

[esmith]

People are real, states are entirely artificial creations subject to change or even elimination, so I go in the direction of just having the "real" represented.

Do you agree or disagree with the concept that the President represents the Country and the Congress represents the people?

Is not the Senate a check on the idea of majority rule?
But a body that takes into consideration the ideals represented by the diversity of the population of each State.

 

[youknowme]

People are real, states are entirely artificial creations subject to change or even elimination, so I go in the direction of just having the "real" represented.

I also noticed that the Constitutions starts as "We the People [...]", and not "We the arbitrary lines drawn on a map..."

 

[esmith]

I also noticed that the Constitutions starts as "We the People [...]", and not "We the arbitrary lines drawn on a map..."

If you read farther it would say "of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union"

 

[youknowme]

If you read farther it would say "of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union"

Ya I read that, a hundred times over and then some more, and what better why to form a more perfect union than by making it so that voting is a fair process, but I guess you are against fair voting.