How exactly will the rural people be ignored if they get the same vote?
Or do you just think they are in an elite class that deserves more say?
Not if he goes ahead with the isolationist policies. You'll remain a country everyone fears and gives a wide berth to due to your military might.
A world leader you'll not be when he pulls US out of NATO and abandons Japan to fend for themselves.
The States agree because Republicans are in control and it seems the EC is the only way they win any presidential election nowadays.I have addressed this above. We are complex and large country.
As I have said, if the States agree that the President should be elected by a simple pluraity of votes, they can amend the Constitution.
In this particular case, Trump did not expect to win. Hillary certainly did not expect to lose.
He won marginaly in many swing states.
The analysis of what happened and why will go on for a long time.
Your military might and being the worlds police is a big factor in most commodities being settled in USD. If countries start moving away from that, the Fed can no longer print as they please.Sanders had little time for Nato too. I agree with both of them.
We are not the world's policemen.
We need to first take care of our own people first.
The States agree because Republicans are in control and it seems the EC is the only way they win any presidential election nowadays.
How many popular votes have they won in the last 7? ONE!
Yes, the fact remains that the majority are silenced once again.was not this and Gore the only ones were the Electrol college did not agree with the popular vote?
correct me if I am wrong.
Your military might and being the worlds police is a big factor in most commodities being settled in USD. If countries start moving away from that, the Fed can no longer print as they please.
was not this and Gore the only ones were the Electrol college did not agree with the popular vote?
correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, the fact remains that the majority are silenced once again.
1876,1888
When Trump is done with ruining the world, hopefully the next Dem president will have the support he needs to get rid of the EC.
President has never been elected by any other means other than the electoral college. Each person gets their vote which goes towards sending an elector, sort of like voting for a member of the House to represent your district.Because Californian get a fraction of the vote compared to someone from the rural states.
What happened to one man one vote?
The US if it wants can be self sufficient for the most part. I am totally against us using our military in overthrowing legitamately elected regimes as we have done before. Killing millions over the years.
This is the path we need to move away from.
It's called an educated guess. There's a reason why most people in the world did not want to see him elected.can you share your crystal ball with us?
I exaggerated with the 100s part.President has never been elected by any other means other than the electoral college. Each person gets their vote which goes towards sending an elector, sort of like voting for a member of the House to represent your district.
Aside from the two electors each state gets based on the number of senators each state has, the rest of the electoral votes each state gets is based on the number of Reps they have in the House.
The seats in congress are decided by state population. They are reapportioned every 10 years. So California's 55 electoral votes are not really out of line.
The suggestion that they should have 100's when there are only 538 electors would actually give them disportunate power compared to the size of their population.
yes it was a stupid statementI exaggerated with the 100s part.
It's called an educated guess. There's a reason why most people in the world did not want to see him elected.
As for the next time the Dems swing into power, hopefully they now understand they should no longer play nice.
In fairness, most people in the world should worry about their presidents and leave the American elections to the Americans. The POTUS job is to work for the American people, not for the people of the world.
We're not asking for electoral votes, we're voicing opinions on the choice of executive for the most influential and powerful nation on the planet.In fairness, most people in the world should worry about their presidents and leave the American elections to the Americans. The POTUS job is to work for the American people, not for the people of the world.
And the majority of American people have been silenced yet again.In fairness, most people in the world should worry about their presidents and leave the American elections to the Americans. The POTUS job is to work for the American people, not for the people of the world.
The 2008 recession shows how much US issues effects the rest of the World.
We're not asking for electoral votes, we're voicing opinions on the choice of executive for the most influential and powerful nation on the planet.
And the majority of American people have been silenced yet again.
Fair enough. My point was that people around the world looking at these election in a selfish way, looking at how can it benefit their countries, forgetting that the elections should benefit the American people first.
I respect the electoral college. I believe that if half of the people that protest would have actually got out to vote, the outcome of this election would have been different. I don't think that people have been silenced. I just think that Trump's supporters believed that their vote counts, whether lots of Hillary sympathizers / anti-Trump protesters simply didn't bother to vote, or thought that Hillary got this in the bag and their vote won't matter.
The protests have been mostly happening in places Clinton won comfortably.
I'm not suggesting overturning the EC now, even if most of the world will prefer a Hillary presidency. But it should be reviewed in the future as it appears a very outdated idea.I respect the electoral college. I believe that if half of the people that protest would have actually got out to vote, the outcome of this election would have been different. I don't think that people have been silenced. I just think that Trump's supporters believed that their vote counts, whether lots of Hillary sympathizers / anti-Trump protesters simply didn't bother to vote, or thought that Hillary got this in the bag and their vote won't matter.
I'm not suggesting overturning the EC now, even if most of the world will prefer a Hillary presidency. But it should be reviewed in the future as it appears a very outdated idea.
This system has caused the election of 2 people who received fewer votes in the last 16years, very much against the fundamental concept of democracy.It's a system that works though. Any other way would give significantly more power to single states like California. What people in California want has little to no bearing on what people around the rest of the country want. Moving is the fastest way to actually remove the voice of voters.
There's 50 states in America, so what if some are smaller, they should still be represented politically.
If you hold a complete minority view in a democracy, you are effectively living in a dictatorship. That is an important reason for why many countries in the world weigh the votes. It is generally done geographically, but one can make the case for other, relevant decompositions.
This system has caused the election of 2 people who received fewer votes in the last 16years, very much against the fundamental concept of democracy.
Like I've pointed out, California has about 12% of the US population, so you won't be seeing Calicentric policies, but a popular vote will let everyone have their equal say.
Yep they'll change it all; no lobbyists grappling power in DC, no more $1b elections....not even droning kids....oh waitWhen Trump is done with ruining the world, hopefully the next Dem president will have the support he needs to get rid of the EC.
But the smaller states do not deserve as great a say as Cali & NY, it's almost like FIFA valuing SAN Marino as much as GermanyBut take the states map for example. This election it's what 32ish red states? It's pretty clear that if sheer number of votes was the deciding factor a majority of states wouldn't get what they want. I understand where your coming from, but for the case of America changing the system removes way too much power from smaller states.
For more examples of the havoc these types of systems cause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2009_(Tamil_Nadu)
42% vs 39%, but seats are 27:12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
44% to 44.8% but the inority party gets majority seats (321-295)
There is no silencing involved. If one person gets one vote....that's it. Nothing more or less. I find the silencing argument especially mad because you have an actual case of a majority of people who wishes are disobeyed here: literally more voters are unhappy with this election's outcome than are happy.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan_Legislative_Assembly_election,_2013
Votes: 46%-34%. Seats 163-21.
