• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Popular Vote is Irrelevant

Adramelek

Adramelek

Setian
Premium Member
Onyx said:
I think people miss the entire point of the electoral college, which in its current embodiment, serves the purpose of preventing large cities from controlling the entire country. @Adramelek is correct in his assessment.

People are just butt-hurt that Trump won. The EC has served plenty of Democrats very well in the past, probably more than Republicans actually. I have pretty liberal views, and don't particularly care for Frump, but give me a break.
Click to expand...

Hail my friend! I have a strong sense that it may very well be more than 24 years that another democrat will ever be elected president of the United States. They can thank their own failed policies both foreign and domestic, and the past 8 years of the disaster that is the Obama administration.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Adramelek said:
They can thank the failed policies both foreign and domestic of that party, and the past 8 years of the disaster that is the Obama administration.
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself that.

BTW, it is the individual who decides what's relevant to him/her.
 
Monk Of Reason

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Onyx said:
Perhaps in our modern age we could let the EC go. But I would do so with caution.
Click to expand...
Why? Are you arfraid that only a small portion of the population would get all the attention of the candidates and ignore the rest of the country? Kinda like we already do with swing states?
 
Parchment

Parchment

Active Member
Brickjectivity said:
A little chaos and unpredictability in the election is probably good. One thing we do not need is a completely predictable outcome every time.
Click to expand...

If the outcome of any election does not go the way it is supposed to then WE as the voters should demand a recount.
 
Onyx

Onyx

Active Member
Premium Member
Monk Of Reason said:
Why? Are you arfraid that only a small portion of the population would get all the attention of the candidates and ignore the rest of the country? Kinda like we already do with swing states?
Click to expand...
Swing states work great for Democrats also except when they lose. Again, give me a break.
 
Adramelek

Adramelek

Setian
Premium Member
metis said:
Keep telling yourself that.

BTW, it is the individual who decides what's relevant to him/her.
Click to expand...

Sure, the individual decides their own political philosophy, but it is real world results of manifest political and economic policies that either result in success or failure in the lives of a nation's people, and that nation's standing in the world.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't need to see anymore of Milly Cyrus....oh you said tweaking not twerking. Sorry about that
 
Monk Of Reason

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Onyx said:
Swing states work great for Democrats also except when they lose. Again, give me a break.
Click to expand...
I am not a democrat so I don't care about that portion. I just think its silly that we have an archaic system set in place to preform a function that it no longer provides.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Adramelek said:
Sure, the individual decides their own political philosophy, but it is real world results of manifest political and economic policies that either result in success or failure in the lives of a nation's people, and that nation's standing in the world.
Click to expand...
But that has nothing to do with the OP and that which is being discussed, as what's good or bad for a country is not what the OP is about.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Watchmen said:
My point stands.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You in effect said this statement of mine, "The fact is the majority of the active electorate was not duped by Trump.", logically implies something along the lines of this statement, "The fact is the majority of the active electorate would not have been duped by Trump if the popular vote was what mattered (and not the electoral college)." But it's clearly hogwash to say that the former statement logically implies the latter. Your point does not stand.

Do you think the popular vote would have been the same if we didn't have the electorate system?
Click to expand...

My guess is that it would not be the same. Who would have won is an open question. I agree -- up to a point -- with your reasoning in the OP. But that speculation logically does nothing to change the fact that a majority of the electorate in 2016 was not duped by Trump. That fact has no impact on the constitutional legitimacy of Trump's election, but it does suggest that the majority of the electorate doesn't support Trump, and that his political standing may be in question.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Watchmen said:
I didn't get that. I'm simply asking a question.
Click to expand...
If Trump and Clinton had used different strategies for the campaign, then their results would have been different. Who would've wound up ahead? I don't know.

My point earlier is that you telling us, effectively, that under different rules, Trump would have done a better job commanding the will of the people doesn't change the fact that in the last election, he didn't do as good a job as Clinton at commanding the will of the people.

Your response (again, effectively) of "of course! The rules are set up to encourage candidates to win electoral college votes, not popular support!" does nothing to convince me that the rules shouldn't be set up to encourage popular support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top