Will there be mass protests / violence post-election day?

Well I tried, either live in disappointed ignorance the rest of your life, or pay a professional to teach you the basics of US government.

 

OK, here's the gist of your argument: "If the big places win, then the small places lose!" Well why in hell should the small places win over the big places?

"Coz if the small places lose, then the small places will lose!"

This a very interesting moment in history. We see a majority transitioning into a minority. A whole new demographic is defending "the little guy."

 

I am not sure why you are so obsessed thinking Hillary was screwed out of the election. You completely understand the process of the EC. There was nothing overturned. Im not sure why you keep saying this.

The reality is Hillary was just as a crappy candidate as Trump and you still want to sit here and pretend she was the answer to America's problems.

You can hate the EC all you want and rabble on about there is no justification for the EC, however both Hillary and Trump campaigned on the EC methodology. If we had plurality voting system, both Hillary and Trump would have campaigned very different and would have different messages. The reality is all candidates pander to whatever group gets them the win.

Right now you sound like a bitter Rockets fan who is complaining you lose games because of the refs ... instead of accepting the truth... your team sucks.

 

/thread

 

This is simply an ad hominem attack: "You have feelings! So you can't say anything that is true!" Unless you're claiming that you yourself don't have feelings, your argument is either disingenuous or confused.

(And you're wrong in claiming that the Rockets suck.)

 

So why is surface area so important again?

 

I used the word "overturned" in a like-for-like response to bobby's use of the word "overruled", as in one state overruling all the other states. I politely asked for an example of this, and in turn I'm called ignorant.
It's the only time I said it, so I never 'kept saying it.' I'm perfectly aware that Trump won fair and square according to the rules we have now.

I have truly absolutely no idea where this ad hominem came from. Did you read my posts in this thread? The above has nothing to do with anything I've said.
I have repeatedly, patiently, and politely laid down logical arguments for a popular vote count in a national election for the executive office being more fair and just than the EC. I've never called names. I never even mentioned Hillary or Trump. When presented with fallacious arguments, I politely pointed them out and countered with my own arguments. Repeatedly. Most of my arguments have been completely ignored, and in turn I've been called biased, ignorant, and should just leave the country.

Agreed. Trump has said that if the election was determined by popular vote, he would have campaigned differently and still won. I believe him.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Here you have someone stubbornly but politely arguing a position based on sound arguments, no name calling, not even mentioning either candidate, and this is how y'all react?

It is entirely possible to argue the merits of a popular vote vs EC system- moral arguments, pragmatic arguments, all kinds of well reasoned arguments. It could even be fruitful, and both sides might even learn something even though we know nothing will change anytime soon. Hell, I have my own arguments in favor of the EC but we can't even get there because all I'm given are appeal to tradition fallacies.

 

tRUMP need protest. As in= ProTest. Exam prove he can do the job.

if tRUMP take test to be President- FAIL!!!!

Very Sad!

 

No "End Thread" -

Electoral College- good for a while.

But....

2x in 21st century- popular vote don't win President (don't matter R or D)- something wrong.

If EC winner don't get popular vote- then final vote goes to Congress.

Both Sides= Legitimate Argument

EC- has to be respected (ugh, incl. tRUMP)

But- just b/c something is rule doesn't mean always rule, esp. if don't make sense.

Otherwise....

Women- NO VOTE!

Black Americans- NO FREEDOM OR RIGHTS!

Children- BACK TO THE MINES!

Same-Sex Marriage- NO NO!

If no change- then we should go back to no term limits for President.

OBAMA- 3RD TERM!!!!

 

You no understand. You act like... once rule, always rule. Huh??? Most not saying "We don't accept tRUMP!" They say- "Rule no good."

Not as if you can't ever say rule is bad. Like abortion- right can say, "Very Bad!" They have right to say that.

You say, "You have to accept rule." Yes, in a way- we have to accept results b/c can't go back and change.

HOWEVER....

Accept rule b/c it's a rule? No. Accept a rule if it makes sense. Even as is, EC unfairly give more weight to WY resident than CA resident.

If EC, then make more proportional.

Again, should be best 2 out of 3:

1. Popular

2. Electoral College

3. Congressional Vote

We pissed not just b/c it's tRUMP that won - but b/c 2x now, more people want a Presidential candidate they don't get. Will of the people? Ahhh, hmmm.... well...... not really.

 

The argument for the electoral college is that it serves as a balance between protecting the voice of the states and protecting the voice of the people. That is why the number of electors is based on the sum of the number of representatives (voice of the people) and the number of senators (voice of the states). If states were not a thing, with different laws, different funding from the federal government, etc., then it would make sense to go off of the popular vote. Instead, we have a constitutional republic and the rights of the states and the people are important.

 

"Serves as a balance" What does that even mean? You think 100 balances with 438? DC is not even a state, with no senator. DC is not represented in one of your magic numbers (100). I challenge you to justify whatever "balance" you're talking about.

You believe the people have the right to a voice, and the states have a "balancing" right to a voice. Now, the states are comprised of people, people whose voice is expressed through the 438. Then the 50 states, whose people have already had their voice heard through the 438--the 50 states should have their own voice equal to that of 135,000,000 people, because . . . Why?

Senators and congressmen are elected by popular vote. That's OK with you? You don't want the counties to have voices in electoral colleges because because . . .

Wyoming is equal to California in the senate, even though CA is 66 times larger. Does that not satisfy your states' rights fetish?

 

Good luck to you but I'm afraid no matter how well you spell it out to them, they simply aren't going to understand. At this point, I gave up even trying to talk sense into them.

 

Thank you for making a quality argument and the best explanation I've read! Your compatriots have something to learn from you.

A counterpoint, for the sake of discussion: in the USA we have many, many elections- municipal, state, federal, with different rules and regulations. Since the election of the chief executive is a federal election for the president of the entire nation, wouldn't it make more sense for all voices of individual citizens of the nation to be weighted equally? The smaller states have great power within the legislative branch already.

 

Numerous quality posts in this thread, Nolen, including this one, and I agree with all of them. Kudos!

 

Your posts are really funny but this is the funniest yet! I had a good laugh. Thanks.

 

It means that the people are given a voice generally proportionate to their population in the house, and the electoral college reflects that. The states are all given an even voice in the senate, and the electoral college reflects that. One balances the other.

Obviously the voice of the people is weighed more heavily than the voice of the states. The electoral college simply allows both to be considered.

You are correct, it is not.

As you say, DC is not a state. Thus its people are represented, but there is no state voice to represent.

The justification is in the face that this is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. We recognize that though we are one nation, that nation is comprised of 50 sovereign states. The states should thus have an input, as states, in who leads the executive branch of the federal government. Thus should the states have a voice. The government is also one of, by, and for the people, and so the people have a greater voice than the states. It is the two in combination that is used to determine who will be President, because each interest is worthy of protection.

The states don't have a voice equal to that of 135,000,000 people, they have a voice worth 1/4.38 of the entire population. As for the why, see above.

Senators are elected by statewide popular vote, while congress members are elected by the voters only within their district. Thus the congressional delegation sent to Washington from each state is comprised of some people that reflect the will of their state in it's entirety and others that represent districts within that state (much like the balance struck by the electoral college reduced to state level).

Wyoming is equal to California in the senate but less than 2% of California in the house. The interests of small states balanced against the interest of larger states. That is the purpose of our form of government as compared to a direct democracy.

 

Which is more representative of America? The 15% or the 85%

 

The will of the people? Hmmm....

The will of the insects? Yes.

The will of the soil? Yes!!!

You been to Wyoming? Nothing. Nobody.

(South Dakota good though. Deadwood- oohh!!! TY, Calamity Jane! Hickok! Lakota!)