Clinton got more votes...

[-TesseracT-]

Clinton got more votes overall, though Trump still won because of the fact that he got more electors.

That is so undemocratical, or whatever you say. Such BS. And the Senate and Supreme Court? Don't even get me started. 

[Guest]

How's sweden with all the refugees? 

[-TesseracT-]

1 minute ago, CaptainGunny said:

How's sweden with all the refugees? 

Happy to help people who really needs it. 

[Nowak]

The electoral college exists to keep the system from being so big cities, rather than people living in smaller cities and towns (where a majority of the population lives) decides the president. Imagine how fair it'd be if big cities like LA, Boston, NYC, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, DC, Raleigh, New Orleans and Austin got to decide who was the next president and not the rest of us in smaller cities and towns.

 

I'll give you a hint, not very.

[Liltrekkie]

A little education lesson for all you people who say you need to abolish the electoral college. And for those who feel the need to call BS all the time
The electoral college is something our founding fathers created because they didn't want a bigger state to overshadow a smaller states because of a population advantage.
It works similar on how the House of Representatives is chosen.
It was SPECIFICALLY created so states like California with 38.8 MILLION people can't overshadow a state like Maryland which has 5.9 MILLION people in it.
That is why democrats usually win the popular vote. Because their population is thick and concentrated in a few heavily populated areas like California, where 5.4 MILLION people voted for Clinton and 2.9 million voted for Trump.
In Texas, where 28 million people live, 4.6 million voted for Trump, while 3.8 million voted for Clinton.
9.2 million voted for Clinton between the two states, Trump had 7.3 million vote.
10 states have enough population to overshadow the other 40 states. Those are California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina.
10 states hold 178 million million people. Way over half the population.
That is why the founding fathers created the electoral college. So 10 states cannot overwhelm the other half of the country. Because when 10 states hold half the population, why do the other 40 need to vote when their votes wont matter?

[Praesi]

And? Gore had  more votes too and Bush  did it. Where is your Point? Thats the US System. Lucky the better candidate won this time.

[-TesseracT-]

On 11/10/2016 at 2:38 AM, Daring said:

The electoral college exists to keep big cities, rather than people living in smaller cities and towns (where a majority of the population lives) from deciding the president. Imagine how fair it'd be if big cities like LA, Boston, NYC, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and Austin got to decide who was the next president and not the rest of us in smaller cities and towns.

 

I'll give you a hint, not very.

So? If the majority of people in a country votes for one candidate, the other candidate shouldn't win. I see the crux here though. 

 

On 11/10/2016 at 2:39 AM, Praesi said:

And? Gore had  more votes too and Bush  did it. Where is your Point? Thats the US System. Lucky the better candidate won this time.

Trump has bragged about abusing women, why should he be president again?

[Nowak]

Just now, -TesseracT- said:

So? If the majority of people in a country votes for one candidate, the other candidate shouldn't win. I see the crux here though. 

The problem with that statement is that the majority of the population lives in the smaller cities and towns, rather than the big cities.

 

The US is a country of 360 million people. Imagine how fair it'd be to the rest of us if only a tiny fraction of that population got to choose the president.

[Praesi]

8 minutes ago, -TesseracT- said:

Trump has bragged about abusing women, why should he be president again?

You expect me to answer such a Question, do you?

[-TesseracT-]

Just now, Praesi said:

You expect me to answer such a Question, do you?

Well, I don't expect you to bring a good answer. 

[Gale]

I really believe countries should move away from using the First Past the Post voting system and look into other options, like Single Transferable, or Alternative. Out of all the three that I mentioned, I do think the FPTP is the worst one.

[Praesi]

7 minutes ago, -TesseracT- said:

Well, I don't expect you to bring a good answer. 

No doubt. I have not enough experience on that CNN conversation lvl.

[skywake]

IMO there are three bigger issues with the US voting system for presidential elections

 

1. No Preferential voting, votes for third parties do not count

 

2. The winner gets all that state's votes. For example in my state's last Senate election?

38% Liberal -> 5 seats

28% Labor -> 4 seats

10% Green -> 2 seats
4% One Nation -> 1 seat
Under a US system? Even if preferential voting existed our state would give all 12 seats to the Liberals. Is that what our state voted for?

 

3. Low voter turnout. Yesterday's US Presidential election? Half the country didn't vote. The last Australian election had 91% of people voting. In Australia we have compulsory voting and you get a small fine if you don't vote without a good reason. But because of that they have to make voting easily accessible to all people. The queues are short and there are a lot of options for early voting. In the US some states are going out of their way to stop certain demographics from voting.

 

If you want to complain about something? Complain about those things first. Not the fact that a candidate won with <0.5% less votes. The fact that the end result was a win with that small a % less votes shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be that there was a spoiler effect with third parties. The issue is that people didn't vote. The issue is that a few % in a few key states made a massive difference to the final result.

[ATFink]

5 minutes ago, -TesseracT- said:

Trump has bragged about abusing women, why should he be president again?

Since @Praesi can't answer the question, I'll pick it pick up this flaming bag of crap. I don't know maybe I'll come up with something.

 

I feel like inserting my opinion and saying "Trump shouldn't be president" isn't an appropriate answer because Clinton certainly shouldn't be (and thankfully won't be) president either.

 

The reasons Trump should be president are:

1) Our electoral process chose him (seriously, that's about all that qualifies him IMO).

2) hmmmm... nah I'm stumped here. I tried to plays devils advocate and failed  

   Maybe because he supports legal immigration laws and wants to enforce the legality of immigration?

 

So yeah... not much of a political stance as to why he should be president. However, I think it should be worth mentioning that John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton had some shady history with women and they seemed to be just fine as presidents. Strictly speaking, his comments about women alone shouldn't have barred him from presidency. It's his lack of experience in public office, his inconsistency on the record, thin skin, uncontrolled comments, probably some other things I'm not thinking of at the moment... and yeah his comments about women to (remember, I said his comments about women alone shouldn't be what bars him).

[plsno]

Seems fine with me. The United States isn't a democracy so why would our election process be democratic? It's also pretty hilarious you're crying about the election not being democratic yet you seem to support the candidate that stole her parties nomination thanks to the DNC and media collusion.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, Daring said:

The electoral college exists to keep the system from being so big cities, rather than people living in smaller cities and towns (where a majority of the population lives) decides the president. Imagine how fair it'd be if big cities like LA, Boston, NYC, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, DC, Raleigh, New Orleans and Austin got to decide who was the next president and not the rest of us in smaller cities and towns.

 

I'll give you a hint, not very.

Actually, no, in direct votes systems the majority has the most weight, always. If most people lives in smaller cities and towns, all combined have more weight than big cities combines. You cannot be more and have less weight if all votes count equally.

You may not want that system for whatever reason, in which case you opt for a system in which not all votes count equally, such as the US has (but also as other countries with different systems have). The key reason to maintain this system is to preserve the federal (confederate?) system, meaning that states keep their individuality and the president is not chosen by the people, but by the states. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the majority of the population votes, only what the majority of states want. But 1 state 1 vote would be ridiculous given the difference among them, so each state gets a different weight (captured by the number of electors). A direct vote system wouldn't be worse at all in terms of representation, it just would put a different accent (on nationwide majorities as supposed to states). It's just a particular point on a federal-unitary axis.

 

3 hours ago, Liltrekkie said:

A little education lesson for all you people who say you need to abolish the electoral college. And for those who feel the need to call BS all the time
The electoral college is something our founding fathers created because they didn't want a bigger state to overshadow a smaller states because of a population advantage.

In the XVIII century, when nationwide elections were a little harder to organize than local ones, and then run another local one with the representatives elected in the first round.

In any case, the same as above applies: this isn't a single country-state, it is a union of states, and these rules were designed with state-level interests in mind, i.e., that states saw it in their best interest to belong to the union (then some weren't that convinced, and they had to fight a war etc ). To our Swedish friend: don't think of it as Sweeden, think of it as the EU, and what it could become if further political integration takes place. The same weighting schemes at the country level are in place in the EU as the US has at the state level.

3 hours ago, Liltrekkie said:

Because when 10 states hold half the population, why do the other 40 need to vote when their votes wont matter?

Actually it is the other way around: with single-district voting, everyone has incentives to vote, any voter can be the marginal one - actually it is impossible to say whether the first person to vote in California or the last to vote in Montana made the difference, in the end only the total sum matters. The 10 biggest states combined could yield a very tight result, meaning that the exact split in some smaller place tilts the scale.

In the current system, however, it's much easier to be in a position where voting is pointless, because even if the national election is very tight, your state happens to be 75% blue or 75% red, and your vote only counts inside the state. If you can't change the result within your state, nothing else matters. It is in the current system where, if enough electors are decided by a group of state (notice that having en electoral college as opposed to direct vote doesn't change the fact that some states are bigger than others, hence it doesn't change that a few states have much more weight than others - if 10 vs 40 was true in direct voting, it remains true in the electoral college), you can stop counting before the results of some small states come in, it doesn't matter anymore. Given the small margin in popular vote, if the election was decided by direct vote we would have waited till the last results from Alaska and what not instead of calling the winner at 271 electors.

Again, you can prefer this system for its union-of-states focus, but it has nothing to do with being fairer or votes feeling less wasted than in other systems.

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, -TesseracT- said:

Happy to help people who really needs it. 

Yeah, except that's not really happening: you're mostly getting opportunistic assholes that still rape women and attack people. Because you know, Allahu Akbar and all.

[-TesseracT-]

25 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yeah, except that's not really happening: you're mostly getting opportunistic assholes that still rape women and attack people. Because you know, Allahu Akbar and all.

That's a fair point that I haven't really considered much. However, it can be dealt with. When such things happen, I'm sure that the offenders will face deportion. I think most people learn the Swedish culture. Sex and abuse is discussed widely in Swedish elementary and high schools. And for those who do offend but somehow stay, they can get the help that they obviously need through therapy for example.

 

I've met so many Islamic people, and most are really good and friendly people. The other can be interpreted as different-looking.

 

So, the people that come here and may assault women, wouldn't they do the same in their home country? In Sweden, we can give them the chance to work out their problems so that they no longer do such things at all, whether they happen to be in Sweden, Iran or any other country. 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, -TesseracT- said:

That's a fair point that I haven't really considered much. However, it can be dealt with. When such things happen, I'm sure that the offenders will face deportion.

I'm sure most people assume that, but we also have evidence of the police just covering it up for fear of being perceived as "racists" for investigating migrants: 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police-accused-cover-up-sex-attacks-refugees-festival

 

I wouldn't want to live there as a women, as statistically unlikely as being raped still is you've gotta wonder "Is it really worth it over just doing a little bit of due diligence before accepting all people claiming to be refugees?"

 

But well just food for thought.

[-TesseracT-]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I'm sure most people assume that, but we also have evidence of the police just covering it up for fear of being perceived as "racists" for investigating migrants: 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/11/swedish-police-accused-cover-up-sex-attacks-refugees-festival

 

I wouldn't want to live there as a women, as statistically unlikely as being raped still is you've gotta wonder "Is it really worth it over just doing a little bit of due diligence before accepting all people claiming to be refugees?"

 

But well just food for thought.

Would you like to live in the US as a woman then? I garantuee you, apart for possible the high sexual abuse, Sweden is one of the greatest countries to live in as a woman. We take equality very seriously and have come a very long way with that. http://nordic.businessinsider.com/sweden-is-the-best-country-in-the-world-to-be-a-girl-2016-10

[AresKrieger]

It is a similar system to the method used for uk parliament just with states instead of districts and it gives a slight advantage to getting a majority of states though the senate seat buff didn't actually affect the election this time.

 

On 11/10/2016 at 7:11 AM, -TesseracT- said:

snip

Sweden was having an exponential increase in sexual assault last I checked just like Germany but not as extreme

And what do women have in Sweden that they don't in the US

[Misanthrope]

25 minutes ago, -TesseracT- said:

Would you like to live in the US as a woman then? I garantuee you, apart for possible the high sexual abuse, Sweden is one of the greatest countries to live in as a woman. We take equality very seriously and have come a very long way with that. http://nordic.businessinsider.com/sweden-is-the-best-country-in-the-world-to-be-a-girl-2016-10

The key difference is that both here in Mexico and in the US sexual assault perpetrators are prosecuted and not shielded by Cultural Marxist Ideologues. 

[Albatross]

To this moment he's only 300,000 people behind her. That is hardly anything to riot over. It isn't like with Obama, where a million lead was on Romney. We're talking about 300,000 which came after Trump won with both Electoral vote lead and Popular vote lead.

 

America decided. Time to get over it and MAGA.

 

 

[Clanscorpia]

Im not saying Im happy about it but you Americans are stupid so I guess the rest of the world will have to deal with it. Im honestly waiting for Trump to leave NATO and get nuked because no-one will save him anymore  And about the "grab her by the pussy" crap, it was A - 8 YEARS AGO, and B - Who the fuck hasent said shit like that

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Albatross said:

To this moment he's only 300,000 people behind her. That is hardly anything to riot over. It isn't like with Obama, where a million lead was on Romney. We're talking about 300,000 which came after Trump won with both Electoral vote lead and Popular vote lead.

 

America decided. Time to get over it and MAGA.

 

 

Agreed, but you're seeing and continue to see the true colors of the regressive left: Completely antidemocratic.