Yuuri 21,636 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 In her 2016 memoir "What Happened," Hillary Clinton has been hugely critical of President Donald Trump. As we all know she lost the Electoral College, but had more than a 3 Million lead in the popular vote. But in an interview Monday with NPR's Terry Gross, Clinton raised that she might challenge the Electoral College's results. Interview in text: Gross: I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now? Clinton: No. I would not. I would say -- Gross: You're not going to rule it out? Clinton: No, I wouldn't rule it out. Video: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-trump/index.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
re di tutto 924 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Hillary 2020! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Well if she was cheated then of course she should challenge! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuuri 21,636 Posted September 22, 2017 Author Share Posted September 22, 2017 Just now, bleed dior said: Hillary 2020! Hillary 2018-2022 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeka 12,372 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Honestly, the electoral college was meant to prevent candidates like Trump from winning, but that was back when well... not today. We probably should change our way of voting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyanLights 15,576 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 This might sound ignorant, but I understand why we have the electoral college and it’s purpose back in the day but why not just have the actual candidate win? Like physical count up the millions of votes by the citizens and have that person win? Instead of this whole point system each state gets Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babel 41,637 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 32 minutes ago, bleed dior said: Hillary 2020! More like Hillary 1993-2016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumblebee 2,528 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 50 minutes ago, CyanLights said: This might sound ignorant, but I understand why we have the electoral college and it’s purpose back in the day but why not just have the actual candidate win? Like physical count up the millions of votes by the citizens and have that person win? Instead of this whole point system each state gets Because that very purpose of the electoral college back in the days still lives among the architects of the electoral systems nowadays. The US, UK an France parliament electoral systems were very much inspired and triggered by the French Revolution and they are anti-democratic in their very essence. When I call them anti-democratic I don't mean it in the negative way, I mean that they oppose the original Greek meaning of democracy which meant people's representation proportionally to their views. For example, Liberal Democrats in the UK received 2,700,000 of popular vote and got 12 seats in the parliament in 2017 election. Scottish nationalists party (I'm sorry I don't remember its name) got 900,000 votes and 35 seats In France, Le Pen finishes second or third in so many electoral districts, but because all the folk unite and vote against her party in the second round, she scarcely gets any seats at all despite her party massing millions of votes. In the USA, the Republican candidate is almost certainly doomed to lose the popular vote even if he/she wins the White House, because the gap between a democratic and a republican candidate in the blue states seems to be widening, while in the red states democrats are catching up with the republicans (Arizona, Georgia). This brings us to the notion that the designers of such electoral systems distrust the models of Greek democracy, where parties must be represented simply proportionally to the number of votes they receive nationwide, and presidents should win on popular vote, too. They are afraid to handle the ruling to the people because they still view people as "a crowd" and "mob" - and French Revolution, in their opinion, is the best example of what the power of majority will lead to - beheading of kings and rise of the new tyranny (Napoleon). While this system works in France, where it de-facto bans Le Pen party out of French Parliament, it also has a negative consequence: people start to have a feeling that they are not represented, and all the talk about the establishment begins, and then there are people who are trying to use such moods to win cheap public appeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyanLights 15,576 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, bumblebee said: Because that very purpose of the electoral college back in the days still lives among the architects of the electoral systems nowadays. The US, UK an France parliament electoral systems were very much inspired and triggered by the French Revolution and they are anti-democratic in their very essence. When I call them anti-democratic I don't mean it in the negative way, I mean that they oppose the original Greek meaning of democracy which meant people's representation proportionally to their views. For example, Liberal Democrats in the UK received 2,700,000 of popular vote and got 12 seats in the parliament in 2017 election. Scottish nationalists party (I'm sorry I don't remember its name) got 900,000 votes and 35 seats In France, Le Pen finishes second or third in so many electoral districts, but because all the folk unite and vote against her party in the second round, she scarcely gets any seats at all despite her party massing millions of votes. In the USA, the Republican candidate is almost certainly doomed to lose the popular vote even if he/she wins the White House, because the gap between a democratic and a republican candidate in the blue states seems to be widening, while in the red states democrats are catching up with the republicans (Arizona, Georgia). This brings us to the notion that the designers of such electoral systems distrust the models of Greek democracy, where parties must be represented simply proportionally to the number of votes they receive nationwide, and presidents should win on popular vote, too. They are afraid to handle the ruling to the people because they still view people as "a crowd" and "mob" - and French Revolution, in their opinion, is the best example of what the power of majority will lead to - beheadinf of kings and rise of the new tyranny (Napoleon). While this system works in France, where it de-facto bans Le Len party out of French Parliament, it also has a negative consequence: people start to have a feeling that they are not represented, and all the talk about the establishment begins, and then there are people who are trying to use such moods. Ahh understand, thank you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
re di tutto 924 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Triggered said: More like Hillary 1993-2016 Nobody laughed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chr 4,217 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 2 hours ago, bleed dior said: Hillary 2020! Oh hell no Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imnotyourbabe10 6,120 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Hillary.. EDIT: ...not trying to suppress her vocalization of "What Happened" just saying Dems and neoliberalism aren't working for progressives anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.