Hillary set to receive the second most votes ever in US history

[reysus 1,064]

2 minutes ago, The Fame Joanne said:

But why should the vote from people who live in those cities count less? That would be undemokratic. If every vote counts the same, the system is the fairest

Yeah it is 'undemocratic'. In case you weren't aware, the US isn't a pure democracy, so the election process has no reason to be, either. If you cared so much about democracy then we should just toss the entire legislative branch. Get rid of Obama too, as executive orders are the opposite of democracy.

All I'm saying is that pure democracy isn't always the best idea.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

16 minutes ago, reysus said:

But it does. Just one example, Obama mandated ethanol made from corn to be included in gasoline in order to garner midwest support when he was running. Corn farmers in the midwest who own their own farmland were loaded as a result for the increased demand for corn, and they definitely liked the Dems for that boost.

But that's not gonna be the case with everyone. That would actually be unfair for other candidates. If you don't have the political position related to the state to do that then it's unfair for you. The current president would always have a huge advantage.

[Supersonic 49,376]

4 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

"Not showing up to the polls becomes a crime"  

I agree with some of the stuff in your post but this has me at loss for words. 

It's a crime in Australia btw. Not saying it's good or bad, just that there are well-developed countries that do employ such systems.

@Luc I would also like to add to your list, that prisoners and parolee's should be allowed to vote! Currently 8 million people are not allowed to vote because of being on parole or prison, and as we all know the USA overproportionally jails Black and Latinx people.

[Morphine Prince 109,981]

I wasn't old enough to remember but were people all up in arms in 2000 when Al Gore lost? 

[reysus 1,064]

2 minutes ago, Spyro said:

Politicians still don't pay attention to those states.

To quote wikipedia: "These maps show the amount of attention given by the campaigns to the close states. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period."

 

 

Interesting graphic, but I never claimed that the electoral college is a perfect system. And as the map shows, more states are represented than there would be if the system was based purely on popular vote. And like I said in another post, swing states can change, so over time more states will be addressed as well.

[Spyro 8,438]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

I wasn't old enough to remember but were people all up in arms in 2000 when Al Gore lost? 

Yes

 

If this is what happens with Gore winning by 500k, God can only know what will happen during Trumps inauguration when he loses by (projected) 2M votes.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

I wasn't old enough to remember but were people all up in arms in 2000 when Al Gore lost? 

 

 

[Supersonic 49,376]

4 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

I wasn't old enough to remember but were people all up in arms in 2000 when Al Gore lost? 

Forget this post, I was proven wrong

[reysus 1,064]

5 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

But that's not gonna be the case with everyone. That would actually be unfair for other candidates. If you don't have the political position related to the state to do that then it's unfair for you. The current president would always have a huge advantage.

Obama also ran on the ethanol issue in 2008.

[Spyro 8,438]

4 minutes ago, reysus said:

Interesting graphic, but I never claimed that the electoral college is a perfect system. And as the map shows, more states are represented than there would be if the system was based purely on popular vote. And like I said in another post, swing states can change, so over time more states will be addressed as well.

I agree that no matter what system we use will be perfect...  but the fact is that the U.S. has such weirdly spaced population that it's impossible to help address everyones issues at once.  I disagree with the bolded part, because, while true, then the swing states today could become "non-swing" states in the future and give the same treatment non-swing states today are treated.  So now you're back at square one...

[The Fame Joanne 5,985]

6 minutes ago, reysus said:

Yeah it is 'undemocratic'. In case you weren't aware, the US isn't a pure democracy, so the election process has no reason to be, either. If you cared so much about democracy then we should just toss the entire legislative branch. Get rid of Obama too, as executive orders are the opposite of democracy.

All I'm saying is that pure democracy isn't always the best idea.

I know that your system isn't really democratic. That's what I'm critizising. I don't see why people in small cities should have more power. In my country every vote counts the same

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

50 minutes ago, reysus said:

How is it a "joke"? Without it, NYC, Chicago, and LA would control the entire country. The smaller states are just as important to this country (they are Americans too) and their struggles need to be addressed. Trust me, I live in Illinois, and the fact that politicians only care about Chicago has created huge division and inequality in the state. I don't want that to happen to the whole country.

Your argument is invalid. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE. 

[reysus 1,064]

Just now, Gagaloo92 said:

Your argument is invalid. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE. 

Nice counterargument. Very insightful.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

Just now, reysus said:

Obama also ran on the ethanol issue in 2008.

Yeah and he was the senator of Illinois. What is Trump supposed to do? Give special prices to stay in one of the Trump hotels? It's unfair for other candidates who don't have a current political position.

[reysus 1,064]

1 minute ago, DrewStevens said:

Yeah and he was the senator of Illinois. What is Trump supposed to do? Give special prices to stay in one of the Trump hotels? It's unfair for other candidates who don't have a current political position.

Trump told the rust belt that he wouldn't let any more of their jobs go to Mexico or China (again I'm not arguing the validity of any of his statements). His lack of previous political positions didn't matter. He told Ohio and Michigan voters what the wanted to hear just as Obama told Illinois and Iowa voters what they wanted to hear.