60 percent of Americans say Trump does not deserve reelection

[Della]

There are approximately 60 million people in NY and California. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/us ... california

The US population is approximately 330 million.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... opulation/

And here's the break down for electoral votes.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... ation.html

[Momto2boys973]

It is. Any democratic system that results in the winner of the most majority of votes not being the actual winner is flawed by definition. Just think of the times people use the phrase “let’s choose this democratically”- from deciding what movie to watch to what take out to get- it means that each person gets one vote that counts and whatever gets the most votes that’s the winner.

I think the issue is that the U.S doesn’t see itself as a unity. I’ve heard the defense of the EC: “why should others choose what’s better for me and my state?” Well, because when choosing a president it’s about the country. And what’s unfair is that some states get more of a saying than others. When the decision is who isn’t going to leas the country, it should be up every individual to decide, not to put more weight on certain states than others.

Imagine if a family of 5 is being “democratic” to choose where to eat. Mom and dad vote for Red Lobster and the 3 kids vote for Cheesecake Factory. In a real democracy, that would mean he Cheesecake Factory. But hey, the family has an EC in place and the kids’ votes are worth one, the parents’ votes are worth 3 so tough! Even if the majority wants to go to Cheesecake Factory, it’s Red Lobster because it’s 6-3, not 3-2 as it TRULY is. How is that fair and democratic?

The polls had Hillary winning- and she did.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2016/10/23/politi ... gle.com%2F

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hil ... d=44354341

Comments like this do not help or continue the conversation.

You KNOW that she did not win the election because you do understand the system by which we elect presidents. If you don’t like the system or find it faulty - say that.

I find the electoral college system to be ever more relevant today. I find polls to be useless propaganda - only published to help sway voters.

The Electoral College is an old antiquated device created by the founding fathers whom I bet are spinning in their graves now after seeing who was put in the White House .
If Hillary had won due to the Electoral college, you would hate the whole idea of an Electoral College and the founding fathers.
Because of your rigid biased outlook, and your misplaced loyalty for an unqualified member of the Elite.

[Carpy]

It is. Any democratic system that results in the winner of the most majority of votes not being the actual winner is flawed by definition. Just think of the times people use the phrase “let’s choose this democratically”- from deciding what movie to watch to what take out to get- it means that each person gets one vote that counts and whatever gets the most votes that’s the winner.

I think the issue is that the U.S doesn’t see itself as a unity. I’ve heard the defense of the EC: “why should others choose what’s better for me and my state?” Well, because when choosing a president it’s about the country. And what’s unfair is that some states get more of a saying than others. When the decision is who isn’t going to leas the country, it should be up every individual to decide, not to put more weight on certain states than others.

Imagine if a family of 5 is being “democratic” to choose where to eat. Mom and dad vote for Red Lobster and the 3 kids vote for Cheesecake Factory. In a real democracy, that would mean he Cheesecake Factory. But hey, the family has an EC in place and the kids’ votes are worth one, the parents’ votes are worth 3 so tough! Even if the majority wants to go to Cheesecake Factory, it’s Red Lobster because it’s 6-3, not 3-2 as it TRULY is. How is that fair and democratic?

Comments like this do not help or continue the conversation.

You KNOW that she did not win the election because you do understand the system by which we elect presidents. If you don’t like the system or find it faulty - say that.

I find the electoral college system to be ever more relevant today. I find polls to be useless propaganda - only published to help sway voters.

The Electoral College is an old antiquated device created by the founding fathers whom I bet are spinning in their graves now after seeing who was put in the White House .
If Hillary had won due to the Electoral college, you would hate the whole idea of an Electoral College and the founding fathers.
Because of your rigid biased outlook, and your misplaced loyalty for an unqualified member of the Elite.

Imagine, if you will, the country voting democratically to deny the rights of Muslims to worship in a mosque.

Thomas Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

[Momto2boys973]

You confuse system of government with ways of choosing that government. That’s what people who say “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic!” do. It’s 2 separate things. That’s as if I say “I’m not white! I’m Jewish!” Well, I’m actually both. One thing is my race, the other is my religion. So in a democratic republic the people choose the leaders. Those leaders work on the legislations. It’s not a free for all.

Now, by your example... imagine if those whose vote is more valuable choose that Muslims can’t worship in a mosque. And in terms of numbers, that’s the minority of the people. But tough, because they have more of a saying so even if the majority disagrees with that, it’s what it is. So someone getting screwed can happen either way, that’s not a good argument for the EC. A true democracy is what the majority wants. When you give certain people, for whatever reason, more of a vote than others, then that’s not democracy. So no offense to Jefferson, but with the EC 49% of the people may take away the right of the other 51%. So while both can result in some people not getting what they want, which one is really more fair? The one that will mean the majority chooses and the minority has to live with that choice or the one that can result in the minority choosing and the majority having to live with that choice?

It is. Any democratic system that results in the winner of the most majority of votes not being the actual winner is flawed by definition. Just think of the times people use the phrase “let’s choose this democratically”- from deciding what movie to watch to what take out to get- it means that each person gets one vote that counts and whatever gets the most votes that’s the winner.

I think the issue is that the U.S doesn’t see itself as a unity. I’ve heard the defense of the EC: “why should others choose what’s better for me and my state?” Well, because when choosing a president it’s about the country. And what’s unfair is that some states get more of a saying than others. When the decision is who isn’t going to leas the country, it should be up every individual to decide, not to put more weight on certain states than others.

Imagine if a family of 5 is being “democratic” to choose where to eat. Mom and dad vote for Red Lobster and the 3 kids vote for Cheesecake Factory. In a real democracy, that would mean he Cheesecake Factory. But hey, the family has an EC in place and the kids’ votes are worth one, the parents’ votes are worth 3 so tough! Even if the majority wants to go to Cheesecake Factory, it’s Red Lobster because it’s 6-3, not 3-2 as it TRULY is. How is that fair and democratic?

The Electoral College is an old antiquated device created by the founding fathers whom I bet are spinning in their graves now after seeing who was put in the White House .
If Hillary had won due to the Electoral college, you would hate the whole idea of an Electoral College and the founding fathers.
Because of your rigid biased outlook, and your misplaced loyalty for an unqualified member of the Elite.

Imagine, if you will, the country voting democratically to deny the rights of Muslims to worship in a mosque.

Thomas Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

[Carpy]

You confuse system of government with ways of choosing that government. That’s what people who say “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic!” do. It’s 2 separate things. That’s as if I say “I’m not white! I’m Jewish!” Well, I’m actually both. One thing is my race, the other is my religion. So in a democratic republic the people choose the leaders. Those leaders work on the legislations. It’s not a free for all.

Now, by your example... imagine if those whose vote is more valuable choose that Muslims can’t worship in a mosque. And in terms of numbers, that’s the minority of the people. But tough, because they have more of a saying so even if the majority disagrees with that, it’s what it is. So someone getting screwed can happen either way, that’s not a good argument for the EC. A true democracy is what the majority wants. When you give certain people, for whatever reason, more of a vote than others, then that’s not democracy. So no offense to Jefferson, but with the EC 49% of the people may take away the right of the other 51%. So while both can result in some people not getting what they want, which one is really more fair? The one that will mean the majority chooses and the minority has to live with that choice or the one that can result in the minority choosing and the majority having to live with that choice?

It is. Any democratic system that results in the winner of the most majority of votes not being the actual winner is flawed by definition. Just think of the times people use the phrase “let’s choose this democratically”- from deciding what movie to watch to what take out to get- it means that each person gets one vote that counts and whatever gets the most votes that’s the winner.

I think the issue is that the U.S doesn’t see itself as a unity. I’ve heard the defense of the EC: “why should others choose what’s better for me and my state?” Well, because when choosing a president it’s about the country. And what’s unfair is that some states get more of a saying than others. When the decision is who isn’t going to leas the country, it should be up every individual to decide, not to put more weight on certain states than others.

Imagine if a family of 5 is being “democratic” to choose where to eat. Mom and dad vote for Red Lobster and the 3 kids vote for Cheesecake Factory. In a real democracy, that would mean he Cheesecake Factory. But hey, the family has an EC in place and the kids’ votes are worth one, the parents’ votes are worth 3 so tough! Even if the majority wants to go to Cheesecake Factory, it’s Red Lobster because it’s 6-3, not 3-2 as it TRULY is. How is that fair and democratic?

Imagine, if you will, the country voting democratically to deny the rights of Muslims to worship in a mosque.

Thomas Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

No confusion on my part. That is why we are governed by a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Do you want California and NYC making the the rules for all 50 states? We have 50 states who elect the president for a reason.

[Carpy]

You confuse system of government with ways of choosing that government. That’s what people who say “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic!” do. It’s 2 separate things. That’s as if I say “I’m not white! I’m Jewish!” Well, I’m actually both. One thing is my race, the other is my religion. So in a democratic republic the people choose the leaders. Those leaders work on the legislations. It’s not a free for all.

Now, by your example... imagine if those whose vote is more valuable choose that Muslims can’t worship in a mosque. And in terms of numbers, that’s the minority of the people. But tough, because they have more of a saying so even if the majority disagrees with that, it’s what it is. So someone getting screwed can happen either way, that’s not a good argument for the EC. A true democracy is what the majority wants. When you give certain people, for whatever reason, more of a vote than others, then that’s not democracy. So no offense to Jefferson, but with the EC 49% of the people may take away the right of the other 51%. So while both can result in some people not getting what they want, which one is really more fair? The one that will mean the majority chooses and the minority has to live with that choice or the one that can result in the minority choosing and the majority having to live with that choice?

It is. Any democratic system that results in the winner of the most majority of votes not being the actual winner is flawed by definition. Just think of the times people use the phrase “let’s choose this democratically”- from deciding what movie to watch to what take out to get- it means that each person gets one vote that counts and whatever gets the most votes that’s the winner.

I think the issue is that the U.S doesn’t see itself as a unity. I’ve heard the defense of the EC: “why should others choose what’s better for me and my state?” Well, because when choosing a president it’s about the country. And what’s unfair is that some states get more of a saying than others. When the decision is who isn’t going to leas the country, it should be up every individual to decide, not to put more weight on certain states than others.

Imagine if a family of 5 is being “democratic” to choose where to eat. Mom and dad vote for Red Lobster and the 3 kids vote for Cheesecake Factory. In a real democracy, that would mean he Cheesecake Factory. But hey, the family has an EC in place and the kids’ votes are worth one, the parents’ votes are worth 3 so tough! Even if the majority wants to go to Cheesecake Factory, it’s Red Lobster because it’s 6-3, not 3-2 as it TRULY is. How is that fair and democratic?

Imagine, if you will, the country voting democratically to deny the rights of Muslims to worship in a mosque.

Thomas Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Adding, if you change that system, you will set us on the road to a dictatorial system of government and erode the rights of individual states to govern themselves.

[Momto2boys973]

And yet every other democratic country follows a system of popular vote and they’re not dictatorships or violating individual rights left and right...
In fact, dictatorial systems occur when a privileged minority rules over the majority, which is a possibility with the EC, not no so much with the popular vote.

You confuse system of government with ways of choosing that government. That’s what people who say “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic!” do. It’s 2 separate things. That’s as if I say “I’m not white! I’m Jewish!” Well, I’m actually both. One thing is my race, the other is my religion. So in a democratic republic the people choose the leaders. Those leaders work on the legislations. It’s not a free for all.

Now, by your example... imagine if those whose vote is more valuable choose that Muslims can’t worship in a mosque. And in terms of numbers, that’s the minority of the people. But tough, because they have more of a saying so even if the majority disagrees with that, it’s what it is. So someone getting screwed can happen either way, that’s not a good argument for the EC. A true democracy is what the majority wants. When you give certain people, for whatever reason, more of a vote than others, then that’s not democracy. So no offense to Jefferson, but with the EC 49% of the people may take away the right of the other 51%. So while both can result in some people not getting what they want, which one is really more fair? The one that will mean the majority chooses and the minority has to live with that choice or the one that can result in the minority choosing and the majority having to live with that choice?

Imagine, if you will, the country voting democratically to deny the rights of Muslims to worship in a mosque.

Thomas Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Adding, if you change that system, you will set us on the road to a dictatorial system of government and erode the rights of individual states to govern themselves.

[WhoAreYou]

I understand why you say California, but why do you mention NY?

I’m sure you’d have no problem saying that Trump should have won if he won the popular vote but not the EC.

I said that the popular vote should be the only way to elect the president. Eliminate the archaic Electoral College.
Got it?

I don’t believe for a minute that you would be saying that Trump should have won if he just won the popular vote. And the popular vote isn’t how we elect because we’re not a democracy. California and New York should get to pick the president every election. I’m sure peoples thoughts on the popular vote would change is California and New York were red states.

[Momto2boys973]

I think AMERICANS should elect the President, regardless on what state they live in. Unless the word “United” should be struck and the name changed to “Individual States of America”. The word “United” implies that every individual vote has the same value.

Did you know that nearly half of Americans don’t vote? America considers itself the prime example of “democracy” and yet has one of the highest rate of non voters in the democratic vote. And one of the factors is so many people feeling their vote doesn’t count. Use the example I gave of the family having a “democracy” with an EC. How many times of the parents overruling the votes because they have more “points” before the kids start realizing that their vote doesn’t count, so why bother?

You confuse system of government with ways of choosing that government. That’s what people who say “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic!” do. It’s 2 separate things. That’s as if I say “I’m not white! I’m Jewish!” Well, I’m actually both. One thing is my race, the other is my religion. So in a democratic republic the people choose the leaders. Those leaders work on the legislations. It’s not a free for all.

Now, by your example... imagine if those whose vote is more valuable choose that Muslims can’t worship in a mosque. And in terms of numbers, that’s the minority of the people. But tough, because they have more of a saying so even if the majority disagrees with that, it’s what it is. So someone getting screwed can happen either way, that’s not a good argument for the EC. A true democracy is what the majority wants. When you give certain people, for whatever reason, more of a vote than others, then that’s not democracy. So no offense to Jefferson, but with the EC 49% of the people may take away the right of the other 51%. So while both can result in some people not getting what they want, which one is really more fair? The one that will mean the majority chooses and the minority has to live with that choice or the one that can result in the minority choosing and the majority having to live with that choice?

Imagine, if you will, the country voting democratically to deny the rights of Muslims to worship in a mosque.

Thomas Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

No confusion on my part. That is why we are governed by a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Do you want California and NYC making the the rules for all 50 states? We have 50 states who elect the president for a reason.

[Momto2boys973]

As I said, you’re confusing apples and oranges. America is actually a democratic republic. “Constitutional” and “Republic” are terms with which a system of government is described. “Democracy” is a way of choosing that government. Like the UK is a “parliamentary monarchy”, but it’s still a democracy. Because while parliament governs the country and the monarch has a representative role, that parliament is democratically elected.

So being a Republic doesn’t make any less a democracy. In fact, America’s glorifies itself as THE example of democracy. Abraham Lincoln said it himself a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. That’s the definition of democracy. The EC kills all that.

You confuse system of government with ways of choosing that government. That’s what people who say “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic!” do. It’s 2 separate things. That’s as if I say “I’m not white! I’m Jewish!” Well, I’m actually both. One thing is my race, the other is my religion. So in a democratic republic the people choose the leaders. Those leaders work on the legislations. It’s not a free for all.

Now, by your example... imagine if those whose vote is more valuable choose that Muslims can’t worship in a mosque. And in terms of numbers, that’s the minority of the people. But tough, because they have more of a saying so even if the majority disagrees with that, it’s what it is. So someone getting screwed can happen either way, that’s not a good argument for the EC. A true democracy is what the majority wants. When you give certain people, for whatever reason, more of a vote than others, then that’s not democracy. So no offense to Jefferson, but with the EC 49% of the people may take away the right of the other 51%. So while both can result in some people not getting what they want, which one is really more fair? The one that will mean the majority chooses and the minority has to live with that choice or the one that can result in the minority choosing and the majority having to live with that choice?

Imagine, if you will, the country voting democratically to deny the rights of Muslims to worship in a mosque.

Thomas Jefferson "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

No confusion on my part. That is why we are governed by a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Do you want California and NYC making the the rules for all 50 states? We have 50 states who elect the president for a reason.