The Popular Vote is Irrelevant

[Watchmen]

The popular vote is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with how the "game" is played. It's like a baseball team losing a game then complaining that they had more hits. If the game was to win the popular vote then both camps would have campaigned differently, and we have no idea what the result would have been. For example, if it was about the popular vote, do you think Trump would have ignored California during the general? I don't think so. No one can say with any certainty what the popular vote would have been.

 

[Adramelek]

Further more the U.S. was not meant to be a pure democracy, it is a representative republic.

 

[bobhikes]

The popular vote is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with how the "game" is played. It's like a baseball team losing a game then complaining that they had more hits. If the game was to win the popular vote then both camps would have campaigned differently, and we have no idea what the result would have been. For example, if it was about the popular vote, do you think Trump would have ignored California during the general? I don't think so. No one can say with any certainty what the popular vote would have been.

The popular vote is not irrelevant. It is very much an indication of the popular support for the winning candidate. It will sway how the President is treated by certain people. If he can get his approval rating up in the polls as he takes over office, then it will probably become less relevant. It will always be a part of any judgement he gets. He and his supports shouldn't care. It does not effect the outcome and he needs to concentrate on the work ahead. Ultimately he will be judged by what he does in office.

 

[Parchment]

Spoiler

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Further more the U.S. was not meant to be a pure democracy, it is a representative republic.

Very true. This has nothing to do with the popular vote for officals however.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The popular vote is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with how the "game" is played. It's like a baseball team losing a game then complaining that they had more hits. If the game was to win the popular vote then both camps would have campaigned differently, and we have no idea what the result would have been. For example, if it was about the popular vote, do you think Trump would have ignored California during the general? I don't think so. No one can say with any certainty what the popular vote would have been.

The popular vote is an indication of the will of the people. If the election result aligns with the will of the people, then this is an indication that the process was fair and that the people are properly represented.

If the candidates followed the rules and the result ended up skewed, then - as you suggest - it could mean that one candidate was better at strategizing (gaming?) within the current system. This doesn't mean that the candidate did anything wrong, but it does suggest that the rules could use some tweaking for next time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Further more the U.S. was not meant to be a pure democracy, it is a representative republic.

The electoral college system was set up to give slave states more power to block abolitionist legislation while also not giving slaves any say in the system.

 

[Parchment]

It is like a number of people playing a game for hundreds of years and then when that one person screams foul when they lose we are all supposed to pay attention.

 

[Revoltingest]

The electoral college system was set up to give slave states more power to block abolitionist legislation while also not giving slaves any say in the system.

Have any slaves complained about the election?
But if we're to invoke history, remember that Hillary
belongs to the party which protected slavery.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We do need to fix all the gerrymandered lines though. I suggest requiring the use of an algorithm that uses only straight lines, with a limited number of turns and only 30,60 and 90 degree angles except on state boundaries.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have any slaves complained about the election?
But if we're to invoke history, remember that Hillary
belongs to the party which protected slavery.

It changed its ways since then. The electoral college still exists.

 

[Lyndon]

Now its the Trump supporters that are the whiners, the lost the popular vote fair and square and all they can do is whine about it!!

 

[Watchmen]

Further more the U.S. was not meant to be a pure democracy, it is a representative republic.

True dat.

 

[Parchment]

Have any slaves complained about the election?
But if we're to invoke history, remember that Hillary
belongs to the party which protected slavery.

Have any slaves complained about the election?

Do not underestimate the power of the Negroe slaves:

 

[Sunstone]

The popular vote is irrelevant to who won the election, but the fact Trump lost the popular vote is relevant evidence that the majority of the American electorate weren't duped by him.

 

[Revoltingest]

It changed its ways since then. The electoral college still exists.

And it governs our elections.
It just isn't reasonable for Hillary voters to complain about the rules just because she lost.
Here real problems lay in being uninspiring, hawkish, bigoted, incompetent & corrupt.
At least we dodged that bullet.

Btw, each candidate only received about 1/4 of votes from eligible voters.
Thus 3/4 of voters didn't want either one in office.
She can hardly lay claim to their wanting her.

 

[Watchmen]

The popular vote is not irrelevant. It is very much an indication of the popular support for the winning candidate.

Wrong. It does not accurately reflect support or lack thereof because the popular vote isn't how one wins the presidency. Again, if it was popular vote, Trump would have spent time in California and the numbers could have been very different. There are a ton of people in blue states who didn't vote for Trump and a number of people in red states who didn't vote for Hillary. We don't know what the true "popular" sentiment is. And don't believe the polls. They were proven disastrously wrong in election night.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The popular vote is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with how the "game" is played. It's like a baseball team losing a game then complaining that they had more hits. If the game was to win the popular vote then both camps would have campaigned differently, and we have no idea what the result would have been. For example, if it was about the popular vote, do you think Trump would have ignored California during the general? I don't think so. No one can say with any certainty what the popular vote would have been.

I think you're speaking to a different issue than the people talking about the popular vote are. There's a strategic question ("what sort of result should we be trying to achieve?") and a tactical question ("what rules should we put in place so that result will happen?").

As I touched on in my first post, I think most people would say that the desired result is something like "the will of the people should be reflected in who is chosen President." Is this your position as well?

Assuming your answer is "yes", do you agree that the popular vote is a decent measure of the will of the people?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It just isn't reasonable for Hillary voters to complain about the rules just because she lost.

Why do you think they're complaining *just* for that reason?

Edit: would it also be fair to say that Trump supporters aren't complaining about this undemocratic result because they benefit from it?

 

[Watchmen]

Now its the Trump supporters that are the whiners, the lost the popular vote fair and square and all they can do is whine about it!!

Wrong. The popular vote is irrelevant. Why? Because it would have been different had the rules called for a popular vote. Maybe Trump still would have won. Maybe Hillary would have won. The point is, no one knows. Not sure how you take that as whining.