| Nem said: I think its obvious. The idea that someone who gets majority vote on a presidencial election doesn't get to rule is something only (old) american's could think up. That is not democratic, especially coming from the "leader of the free world". Its a bit ironic.
Civil war from what is mostly interior and less technological advanced states? ^^ I see what you mean! Its could happen.
Tyranny of the majority? As in opposed to Tiranny of the minority? I don't understand the concept of "tyanny of the majority". It's called Democracy! The majority SHOULD win! Thats the whole concept of every vote beeing equal. |
Of course it's fair! The whole point was people in urban regions will vote differently from people in the countryside, but the countryside seems unable to hold the same amount of people. How do you give the people in the rural and sparsely populated flyover US the same weight and firepower as those in the cities? You destroy the boundary between both to ensure the urban population has less power.
The reason Clinton had more votes was solely because of one state: California. Since Trump didn't even bother campaigning for the 55 electoral votes California packs, the state was lost in a mudslide and almost everyone decided to vote for the crook instead. In other words, the Hollywood celebrities pack the most electoral votes, but they pack far more people than this.
