NBC poll: Voters split between Clinton and Trump in November

[Whispering 18,865]

5 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Yes, I've heard this before it just doesn't really satisfy me. If in 2000 Al Gore won most of the votes he should've been president. He got 500K more votes (I think) than Bush. 

It's like saying those 500K votes don't mean **** while 5 electoral votes do (which is why Bush won). 

If you go strictly by popular vote, you will wipe out a system of balances, one that protects the representation of smaller populated states (or entire areas of the country that are more densely populated) and that of minority groups. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

All of this talk of democracy. 

Lebanon has a confessional democracy where representatives are assigned based on religion. Aren't we unique.  

The American system is like a dream compared to ours.

[MonsterOfSpain 8,331]

7 minutes ago, Whispering said:

It was if you consider that smaller states should have some say in their nominee. The smaller states still have less impact, but going by the popular vote woukd completely wipe out states with smaller populations. They deserve to have their voices heard and deemed as important...that was the thinking behind the way the government was created, anyhow. It's the same thinking as to why we have a fairly balanced Senate and then a proportional House of Representatives. There needs to be a balance between states with big populations, state representation, and the minority vote having a voice. 

I don't agree... that system is not balanced at all, the only system that's balanced at 100% is 1 person - 1 vote. If you give more seats to the smaller states then that proportion is altered and the most populated states are affected. In Spain we use the same system and for example, a seat from the smallest province accounts for 12k votes while you need more than 100k votes to get a seat in the most populated one.

[Morphine Prince 109,998]

6 minutes ago, Whispering said:

If you go strictly by popular vote, you will wipe out a system of balances, one that protects the representation of smaller populated states (or entire areas of the country that are more densely populated) and that of minority groups. 

Well, this is a good point. Using the 2000 election as an example again, Bush won in 30 states, Gore in 20 and D.C. 

Bush won in many states with small populations: 

 

Still not convinced by this system though. 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, MonsterOfSpain said:

I don't agree... that system is not balanced at all, the only system that's balanced at 100% is 1 person - 1 vote. If you give more seats to the smaller states then that proportion is altered and the most populated states are affected. In Spain we use the same system and for example, a seat from the smallest province accounts for 12k votes while you need more than 100k votes to get a seat in the most populated one.

Simply put, don't compare the United States of America to Spain.

[MonsterOfSpain 8,331]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Don't compare the United States of America to Spain.

The electoral system is pretty much the same, USA is divided into 50 states while Spain is divided into 50 provinces.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, MonsterOfSpain said:

The electoral system is pretty much the same, USA is divided into 50 states while Spain is divided into 50 provinces.

No.

States are far more distinct than provinces, with their own statutes, justices, systems, and laws (united under the Federal of course). They warrant different inspection and considerations.

Edit: Statues 

[LeoFameMonster 1,592]

So what happens if Bernie becomes Clintion's vice president....

 

[Morphine Prince 109,998]

Ok but I totally derailed this thread lmao. Nothing to do with the OP. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

The fact that people are ok with this is beyond me. The popular vote should decide who the candidate is in the primary.

Also the electoral college... there are arguments against that too.

What is your opinion on this? 

If you don't like this, set up a meeting with your local gov't official. If those are party rules then get involved with your local party and do something about it. You don't throw an election because you don't like the rules. That's the same thing most of us don't like about people who whine on the internet about injustice but can't get that donut out of their mouths long enough to go out and do something about it. Throwing an election is the most disgusting and quite possibly the most lazy way to make a statement. At the end of the day it won't help anyone and will do the most damage to Bernie supporters whose political views are not in anyway supported by the Republican Party or Donald Trump. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Ok but I totally derailed this thread lmao. Nothing to do with the OP. 

[Whispering 18,865]

19 minutes ago, MonsterOfSpain said:

I don't agree... that system is not balanced at all, the only system that's balanced at 100% is 1 person - 1 vote. If you give more seats to the smaller states then that proportion is altered and the most populated states are affected. In Spain we use the same system and for example, a seat from the smallest province accounts for 12k votes while you need more than 100k votes to get a seat in the most populated one.

The problem here is you are comparing Spain to the US, which really doesn't make sense. There are fifty states in the US to consider...states with their own distinct governments with differing sets of laws. There has to be a balance created between the states and the national government. 

The US has close to 300 million more people than Spain and is divided into fifty states that are given equal and proportional representation. Spain is basically the size of Texas. The people in Texas aren't going to be the same as the people in New York or North Dakota. There will be some differences throughout a state, but nothing like going to another state thousands of miles away. 

[Whispering 18,865]

8 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Ok but I totally derailed this thread lmao. Nothing to do with the OP. 

Lol, it is an interesting discussion, though. I don't know that I feel one way or the other about it, except for I would be concerned that the states with smaller populations and minorities wouldn't have the voice that they have now...and I don't think we need to go in the other direction as a country. 

[Whispering 18,865]

11 minutes ago, LeoFameMonster said:

So what happens if Bernie becomes Clintion's vice president....

 

He won't. Just like Clinton would not be his. 

[LeoFameMonster 1,592]

4 minutes ago, Whispering said:

He won't. Just like Clinton would not be his. 

Really... even if it means ensuring a Trump loss