Broken system: Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: jonnywhite

I like a good debate or good conversation so don't take anything the wrong way. But I spent years learning about America politics and the machinery of American politics and government and after all those years in come to believe that the electoral is a broken system, when more Americans vote for a certain candidate and that candidate loses then I believe that is truly unamerican and that there is something completely wrong with that system. In every other aspect of American politics it doesn't work like that

Actually, on a federal level it does.

The President represents the federal government, the President is picked by the states. Each state has a number of votes equal to their congressional representation. As a compromise to balance the populous areas against the less populous ones each state has a minimum of 3 votes representing their 2 senators and minimum of 1 representative.

Senators don't represent the people, their represent their state in Congress. Being the United States, all states have equal representation (the same idea as sovereignty that all nations have equal standing before each other). However, the people are represented in the house, and those districts vary.

It's a balance essentially between urban and rural, and it's quite well done. My only complaint about the system is that we've moved closer and closer to a direct democracy over the years, and I think that's the wrong direction. Instead we should abstract it further between the people and Congress.

Essentially, I think that we should elect the people that elect our House/President, and let the state go back to appointing Senators.

To do the opposite, is to move closer to mob rule. And the wisdom of crowds doesn't suggest people are all that capable of governing in that fashion.

originally posted by: SignalMal

originally posted by: sprtpilot
Nope, the system is exactly correct, we live in a representative republic, quite ingenious.
Prevents mob rule don't you know?

It's debatable if that's best. I'm on the fence with this one.

Why should a very few populous areas be able to dictate to the entire country? Think about it.

Well, would you define a "very few" as more than a dozen metro areas? I'm pretty sure rural and urban is split close to 50/50, and there's a hell of a lot more than a dozen urban areas in the US.

Me thinks you exaggerate to prove a point.

This is not the United State of America...It is the United STATES of America...50 Sovereign States...Every State gets a part in the election process...Not just the States with the major metropolitan areas...

originally posted by: LockNLoad

originally posted by: imjack


An individual electing a state worth of electorate votes isn't democracy. Expressing the fact this single person can override the entire state vote is not democracy.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, unless you are trying to say that an individual 'elector' can override an entire State's vote???

It's happened over 80 times.

a reply to: gladtobehere

And wheeeeeeere were all the Hillary Supporters as I tried to say over and over again that the US' election system was fundamentally broken?

Oh.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

they are all protesting lol...

originally posted by: sprtpilot
Nope, the system is exactly correct, we live in a representative republic, quite ingenious.
Prevents mob rule don't you know?
Why should a very few populous areas be able to dictate to the entire country? Think about it.

We have this in the UK, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland typically.vote very differently than England but it usually goes the way England wants. I think the way you guys do it makes more sense. I think you'll find its only those who backed the losing candidate that are.complainojg about the way the US system works...

a reply to: Davg80

After the system they protected gave them a result they did not like. I would wager the other side would be reacting exactly the same (or very similarly) had things occurred in reverse.

Anyone who did not speak out against or at the very least acknowledge the ridiculousness of the United States' electoral system (while being aware of it) has no (proverbial) right to speak out against it now.

Simple.
Clean.
Fact.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: LockNLoad

originally posted by: imjack


An individual electing a state worth of electorate votes isn't democracy. Expressing the fact this single person can override the entire state vote is not democracy.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, unless you are trying to say that an individual 'elector' can override an entire State's vote???

It's happened over 80 times.

Are you talking about faithless electors??? If not please provide me a link to source information as to what you are talking about.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The system isn't broke sorry bout your illogical pointless rant. If anything the system needs some clarification on representation, as in the amount of electoral votes given to each state based on their representation. But as far as broke, nope not broke only thing broke here is the ones who are hung up on the facts!

a reply to: Floridagoat

illogical

Right.

hung up on the facts

What?

So the rant is both illogical and hung up on the facts? They seem like they would be mutually exclusive.

System~
Is~
Broken~

Well, I suppose it isn't actually broken, it does what it's supposed to - divide and conquer the people of the country - very well, but it's not good for democracy or accurate representation of the populace's desires.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

It divides and conquers? Obviously you live in an alternate reality where everything is judged by your minuscule opinion and paraded as fact. Oh well the old saying still applies.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The system is broke the system is broke....

It's a setup....it's a setup....

Hey chicken little the Sky is falling.....the sky is falling....

/sigh

This is strange to me. How can you say that Hillary won the popular vote when Michigan and Arizona haven't even been accurately reported yet? Trump is winning in both counts but the final numbers aren't officially reported yet. What will you say if Trump ends up ahead in both? Will you demand a recount? The results are the results and we all have to live with them whether we like them or not. a reply to: gladtobehere

The system isn't broken. We have the electoral college because the founders believed the common man to be too ignorant to vote. Not to mention the fact that, in reality, we are citizens of our states first, which are united into a federtion with other states. The system is designed for each state (which elsewhere in the world, tends to be a word used for "nation") goes all in on a candidate.

It cannot be broken when it works just like its supposed to. We are not a single unit as a nation, at least not by design. We are a federation of states. The "popular vote" is irrelevant, federalist nonsense.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The system isn't broken. We have the electoral college because the founders believed the common man to be too ignorant to vote.

Hmmm, that's not how it appears to have been sold to people. Where did you get this reasoning from?

It cannot be broken when it works just like its supposed to. We are not a single unit as a nation, at least not by design. We are a federation of states. The "popular vote" is irrelevant, federalist nonsense.

When I say it's "broken" I mean it does not accurately reflect the will of the people. I'm not sure if you're trying to be cheeky or legit with this reasoning, but it doesn't make much sense. A person voting as an individual within a state for a federal election makes him an individual first.

originally posted by: SignalMal

Hmmm, that's not how it appears to have been sold to people. Where did you get this reasoning from?

www.minnpost.com...

The Framers were a fairly aristocratic bunch, many of whom had mixed feelings about “democracy,” which they sometimes regarded as mob rule. Although the preamble begins with “We, the people,” and guarantees a “republican form of government” to all of the states, the word “democracy” is not mentioned in the text of the Constitution.

When the Framers used the word themselves it was often a pejorative term. On the convention’s first day, delegate Edmund Randolph of Virginia warned that “none of the [state] constitutions have provided sufficient checks against democracy.”

They feared the democracy, and really were only giving lip service to it. In all honesty, that is correct. A democracy is 3 wolves voting to eat the sheep. Great if you're a wolf....terrible if you're a sheep. And this was seen as an intrinsic "wrench in the works" of our Republic.

When I say it's "broken" I mean it does not accurately reflect the will of the people. I'm not sure if you're trying to be cheeky or legit with this reasoning, but it doesn't make much sense. A person voting as an individual within a state for a federal election makes him an individual first.

This all boils down to if you are a federalist, or an anti-federalist. I, myself, am an anti-federalist. I don't think the US public should be voting directly in a federal election. We should be voting on representatives to handle this.

As a rural citizen, I have to say that it would bother me greatly to see the big cities in the US continue to flex their muscle over me.

Yet amazingly,the system wasn't"Broken"the two times Obama won?Suddenly there's a problem?

a reply to: TDawg61

The disconnect between popular and electoral vote is driving this. And, honestly, its root is in the ignorance of the public. Which is the fault of our schools. People believe we are a democracy, for crying out loud. And its taught in school.

We are a federation of states. a "state" is a nation in common parlance. So, the "United States" is, essentially, akin to "European Union". We were never meant to lose our individual identities.

I just posted this in another post, but the popular vote still has not been decided. Not all of the votes has been reported and some news channels have not called two states yet. If you go over to CNN and look at the popular vote tab on the map, you will see they project Trump as the winner of the popular vote as well. Popular Vote CNN

Broken system: Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election..

That's not a broken system.

That system works like its suppose to work.

A minority of states with higher populations can't hold the rest of the country hostage.

Trump carried MORE states.

Ip so Facto. THE WINNER.