Current Events > The electoral college gave you Bush, and now it gave you Trump

(+) Yeah! (+)

games_pot1 posted...

Just shows the importance of electoral college. Look if your person won you wouldnt be complaining. Overall this stuff is overtalked to the point of death, plus take into count that campaigning would have been treated differently as well. Either way, both parties knew the rules of the game before it started. Its like someone playing twister then saying "now that i lost, it's bs that the random spinner landed on blue." Once you switch it over then someone you want to win, loses the pop vote, but wins the elect... you'll be and we'll be back to square one.

fire_bolt posted...

games_pot1 posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

There is no rational defense for the electoral college in this age. I think it's time we start letting the candidate with the most votes win.

Fuck then everyone would go for Californias wants. In terms of everything, besides vacation, California is stupid as hell. Every comedy takes place in California or Miami, why is that..

This is blatantly false. Cali has roughly 10% of the EC vote and would have roughly 10% of the popular vote. Going with a standard election would actually make Cali control LESS of the election since their votes would be divided up rather than all going to one candidate

fire_bolt posted...

Sojy posted...

It's to make sure that candidates who only appeal to big cities don't get elected.

I wish this false narrative would fucking die. Big cities would have the exact same number of popular votes as they would EC votes. The only difference would be that areas with lower populations would actually see their votes COUNT all of a sudden

For instance, large cities in CA basically control all of CA's electoral votes. Under a standard election, rural areas would actually see better representation since their votes would go to the candidate of their choice rather than whoever the rest of the state decided should should be president.

---

games_pot1 posted...

Just shows the importance of electoral college. Look if your person won you wouldnt be complaining. Overall this stuff is overtalked to the point of death, plus take into count that campaigning would have been treated differently as well. Either way, both parties knew the rules of the game before it started. Its like someone playing twister then saying "now that i lost, it's bs that the random spinner landed on blue." Once you switch it over then someone you want to win, loses the pop vote, but wins the elect... you'll be and we'll be back to square one.

It shows that the system elected the worst possible choice twice, meaning the system is broken and should be changed. I'm not disputing the legitimacy of their victories, merely pleading for a change before the same mistake is made for a third time

Darklit_Minuet posted...

It shows that the system elected the worst possible choice twice, meaning the system is broken and should be changed. I'm not disputing the legitimacy of their victories, merely pleading for a change before the same mistake is made for a third time

Tbf I don't think it really matters if we elect someone terrible to POTUS as there are checks and balances and we should be able to survive 4 years. I would much rather the terrible choice gets elected by popular vote showing that this is what the people wanted than a system that allows losers of the popular vote to win.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

It shows that the system elected the worst possible choice twice, meaning the system is broken and should be changed. I'm not disputing the legitimacy of their victories, merely pleading for a change before the same mistake is made for a third time

Tbf I don't think it really matters if we elect someone terrible to POTUS as there are checks and balances and we should be able to survive 4 years. I would much rather the terrible choice gets elected by popular vote showing that this is what the people wanted than a system that allows losers of the popular vote to win.

Yeah, it's kinda funny. Originally, the EC system was designed to stop a demagogue with charisma but no skill or harmful intentions from winning the office. The theory was that even if the people voted en masse for someone destructive for the country, the EC had the power to check that election and put someone fit for office into the presidency. Hilariously, that is the exact opposite of what happened this election. The people voted for a tested politician and the EC instead put an unqualified reality show star into office. The irony may in fact be lethal
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

It shows that the system elected the worst possible choice twice,

Obama did everything Bush was hated for, so I guess the popular vote isn't any better?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

It shows that the system elected the worst possible choice twice,

Obama did everything Bush was hated for, so I guess the popular vote isn't any better?

Every Mal_Fet post: "But, Obama!"
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

It shows that the system elected the worst possible choice twice,

Obama did everything Bush was hated for, so I guess the popular vote isn't any better?

I mean, Obama isn't that good, but he didn't invade Iraq.

popular vote is an important thing to acquire but America was fucked either way

Clinton would've meant 2 years of infighting with a republican congress before 2018 saw more losses for Dems and Clinton gets destroyed in 2020

2016 as a whole was the buffer zone election for what party wins 2020. Trump won, so he's the sacrificial lamb for the rise of another 2-term Democrat. With multiple elections in hard-red districts being closer than they have any right to be less than a year after Trump's win, the writing for 2018/2020 is on the wall.

I'm not sure if this is positive or not because Trump is such a monumental fuckup that Dems could pick up a lot of terrible shit on their platform, slap a pretty face and charisma on it, and win 2020 in a landslide. They'll probably just go full-corporate chrony capitalism-supporting Dem, judging by 2016. Which will be bad.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

I mean, Obama isn't that good, but he didn't invade Iraq.

Didn't get us out either.

And he's just as warlike, only difference is he didn't put more boots on the ground.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

I mean, Obama isn't that good, but he didn't invade Iraq.

Didn't get us out either.

And he's just as warlike, only difference is he didn't put more boots on the ground.

Amputation posted...

Every Mal_Fet post: "But, Obama!"

---

Mal_Fet posted...

And he's just as warlike, only difference is he didn't put more boots on the ground.

He's just as warlike, except for the part where he didn't invade countries with boots on the ground.

okay
---

Meanwhile: "But Bush!!"
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Meanwhile: "But Bush!!"

Well, no, I'm pointing out the part where your post contradicts itself. That's not blaming Bush, but nobody ever said you had any intellect, either. Whoops, now I'm bringing up unrelated shit too.
---