Had Hillary been elected would she be doing as bad as Trump?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

A cursory Google search turned up nothing.

Indeed. You have to actually put in a search... and then NOT skip the parts you don't care for...

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If the evidences for such ties were really so numerous, wouldn't they show up on the first page? You could always provide some of them, you know.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Better than trumpnazi. I'd have reluctantly cast a vote for him, had he actually won the primaries-- but that was very unlikely-- he wasn't a Democrat, after all.

But in truth, he was never a serious contender-- he was a foil, to get trumpEm in office.

There's a fair piece of info suggesting Sanders also had ties to Russia...

Maybe he isn't a dem, but trump isn't a pub.

Honestly it seems like many if not most are sick of the establishment on both sides. A non dem dem is probably what they needed.

 

[tytlyf]

Honestly it seems like many if not most are sick of the establishment on both sides. A non dem dem is probably what they needed.

Both sides? Don't compare the 2 parties, they're not even close to being the same. Democrats don't have a problem with their elected officials. Now the republican party is completely divided though. Freedom caucus, RINO's, establishment, etc.
Part of the problem is conservatives believe the republican establishment media. For instance, the NRA supports the establishment and they convince people to vote establishment because "if you don't, the 2A will be eliminiated."

It's always scare tactics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Democrats don't have a problem with their elected officials.

Some do. I know a few people who are upset over "superdelegates" and what they see as a lack of transparency in fundraising.

And there are enough people who think that Sanders should have been the candidate that the term "BernieBro" is still a thing.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Some do. I know a few people who are upset over "superdelegates" and what they see as a lack of transparency in fundraising.

And there are enough people who think that Sanders should have been the candidate that the term "BernieBro" is still a thing.

I am definitely upset Clinton got picked over Sanders. It is almost as dumb as the Republicans picking Trump. Sanders was clearly the better choice.

But, he does have a point that in general Dems are more untied than Reps.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Both sides? Don't compare the 2 parties, they're not even close to being the same. Democrats don't have a problem with their elected officials. Now the republican party is completely divided though. Freedom caucus, RINO's, establishment, etc.
Part of the problem is conservatives believe the republican establishment media. For instance, the NRA supports the establishment and they convince people to vote establishment because "if you don't, the 2A will be eliminiated."

It's always scare tactics.

Yes, both sides..as evidenced by the Dems strongest candidate losing to a circus act.

 

[tytlyf]

Yes, both sides..as evidenced by the Dems strongest candidate losing to a circus act.

She received more votes than Trump. The only way she lost is because of the outdated electoral college system (and the propaganda convincing people 'on the fence' to vote against Clinton)
Clinton was the responsible choice. I said that long before the election, now you see why.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

She received more votes than Trump. The only way she lost is because of the outdated electoral college system (and the propaganda convincing people 'on the fence' to vote against Clinton)
Clinton was the responsible choice. I said that long before the election, now you see why.

So you think California and new York calling the shots for the entire country is a good idea then?

 

[Falvlun]

So you think California and new York calling the shots for the entire country is a good idea then?

Let's do the math!
The population of the US is 321.4 million.

Population of California is 39.14 mil. The population of New York is 19.8 mil. Add them together you get ~59 million.

That means California and New York account for 18.35% of the vote.

That doesn't look like 51% to me. Not even close.

Not to mention, New York is the third largest state by population. What is the second largest? Texas, at 27.5 million.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Let's do the math!
The population of the US is 321.4 million.

Population of California is 39.14 mil. The population of New York is 19.8 mil. Add them together you get ~59 million.

That means California and New York account for 18.35% of the vote.

That doesn't look like 51% to me. Not even close.

Not to mention, New York is the third largest state by population. What is the second largest? Texas, at 27.5 million.

Touche.

Still you end up in a position, even moreso than now, where some states have a ton of power and others next to none.

Even so, you are speculating about who /would/ have won had your country had a different form of government.(democracy vs republic)

I like Pat Robertson's odds in a theocracy. What say you?

 

[Falvlun]

Touche.

Still you end up in a position, even moreso than now, where some states have a ton of power and others next to none.

I can see how the power might shift but I'm not sure how it makes it worse.

Assuming that a popular vote does give the more populated states greater power, at least there's a reasonable argument for why that is. Everyone's vote should be worth the same, and since 1 person = 1 vote, places with more people will have bigger sway on the outcome. That might not be ideal but it makes sense.

As opposed to now, Ohio has an outsized influence on the election, and the votes in Wyoming are worth 3-4 times those of California. That power concentration doesn't make sense. It's an irrational outcome of our current system.

As far as the argument that a popular vote disenfranchises rural voters or more sparsely populated areas:
1) that's a hard argument to make if everyone's vote is equal, as it would be under a popular vote. Right now, the way we address this problem is by making the urban or California voter worth less. How is that fair?
2) this would only be for the Presidency. The rural voter still gets a disproportionate amount of representation in the House and the Senate. It makes sense for Congress to be a little scewed so that the less populated states don't get drowned out. However, why does this also need to happen for the Presidency? The President does not represent any specific state. He represents the nation. As such, the citizens of the country ought to be the ones electing him-- not states.

Even so, you are speculating about who /would/ have won had your country had a different form of government.(democracy vs republic)

I like Pat Robertson's odds in a theocracy. What say you?

I don't think I've speculated on that in this thread. I agree if we had a different system in place prior to the election, the method of campaigning and people's voting habits would be different, thus altering the popular vote. So we couldn't really say what would have been.

I don't understand your point regarding Pat and a theocracy.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I don't understand your point regarding Pat and a theocracy.

I figure if we are setting up a fantasy political league, we could use more candidates.

 

[tytlyf]

So you think California and new York calling the shots for the entire country is a good idea then?

No, I've stated that the outdated electoral college system is broken and not needed anymore. It should be a national contest, whoever gets the most votes wins. Most civilized countries do this.

 

[columbus]

So you think California and new York calling the shots for the entire country is a good idea then?

You imply that those big states are monolithic blocks of single issue voters. They are nothing of the sort. They are hugely diverse, better representing the country as a whole than tiny white states like Wyoming or Vermont.
There are probably twice as many conservative rural voters in California than Idaho. Their presidential votes don't count much either.

So many USA voters, who are not from battleground states like Ohio and Florida, are disenfranchised by the current system that the ignorance and apathy in this country is unsurprising to me. Make everybody's vote count is the best way to improve that I can think of.
Tom

 

[Falvlun]

You imply that those big states are monolithic blocks of single issue voters. They are nothing of the sort. They are hugely diverse, better representing the country as a whole than tiny white states like Wyoming or Vermont.
There are probably twice as many conservative rural voters in California than Idaho. Their presidential votes don't count much either.

So many USA voters, who are not from battleground states like Ohio and Florida, are disenfranchised by the current system that the ignorance and apathy in this country is unsurprising to me. Make everybody's vote count is the best way to improve that I can think of.
Tom

Exactly. This addresses another reason to go to a popular vote (or one in which the electoral votes are divided proportionately within a state rather than winner take all):

Our system encourages apathy in any state that isn't a battleground.

People belonging to the dominant party have less reason to vote because their guy will win regardless, and those belonging to the minority party have less reason to vote because their guy will lose regardless.

It's so perfectly set up to depress the vote that it nearly seems purposeful.

 

[columbus]

People belonging to the dominant party have less reason to vote because their guy will win regardless, and those belonging to the minority party have less reason to vote because their guy will lose regardless.

And also, people who find both of those parties odious and not representative are discouraged from setting up and promoting alternative parties by the extremely high bar set by the Demopublican Party.
Tom

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Maybe he isn't a dem, but trump isn't a pub.

Honestly it seems like many if not most are sick of the establishment on both sides. A non dem dem is probably what they needed.

I'm not sure what trumpGrabEm actually is-- I doubt he knows either.

I think he's the Party Of Trump-- and it has a membership of exactly 1: him, and no one else.

I'm just baffled that people think he's a competent businessman, though... 4? 6 bankruptcies?

One-- maybe 2? I can see-- shirt happens. But FOUR? Or more? That is a pattern, a habit-- deliberate behavior.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Some do. I know a few people who are upset over "superdelegates" and what they see as a lack of transparency in fundraising.

And there are enough people who think that Sanders should have been the candidate that the term "BernieBro" is still a thing.

That saddens me, that people are so blind to Sander's many-many flaws.

Obviously, the flaws were apparent to enough people, that he simply did not get sufficient votes-- so that's a plus.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So you think California and new York calling the shots for the entire country is a good idea then?

A meaningless statement, utterly devoid of logic.

If we eliminate the EC? We eliminate ALL or NOTHING votes that many small states currently enjoy.

The actual logic is this: I live in Oklahomer: It is more Red than any other state, bar-none.

Thus? All the GOP votes count 8 times as much as GOP votes in, say New York or California-- because ALL of the EC ALWAYS goes GOP. No exceptions.

Meanwhile, ALL Dem or Independent votes? Count for ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NOTHING. We non-GOP simply DO NOT GET TO VOTE AT ALL....!

Oh, sure, we can go through the motions... but it means nothing-- because the GOP gets ALL the state's EC.

THAT is the legacy of the very terrible EC.

If we eliminated it? THEN and ONLY THEN, would my vote (for POTUS) have meaning.

It would not matter WHICH state I voted in-- because it'd be a National Vote-- the states would have ZIP to do with it.

Which is how it should be-- states vote for Senate and House-- they are amply represented.