By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
AsGryffynn on 30 November 2016
Edit Thread
sethnintendo said:

Some of you keep talking that the electoral college was setup to protect rural voters from city voters... It was actually the opposite. It was to protect city people from rural people. They were afraid the dumb, uninformed, and misinformed masses might elect someone not qualified. Also, there was more people living in rural USA than city centers. This was the case till probably about the mid 1900s or so. Now let me see you spin history.

It was actually specifically to protect people living in less populated areas. Population in the US has always been sharply divided. The system ensures no larger state rules over the smaller one, otherwise, it'd be less "US Presidential Election 2016" and more "California vs Texas"... 

Nem said:
Aura7541 said:

Minority opinions need to be protected and protection of those positions does not equate to tyranny of the minority. The majority opinion is not necessarily the 'right' or more meritable position. Your argument is ultimately an ad populum slippery slope double special. Otherwise, there will be mob rule. Past presidents in the US have won both the electoral college and popular vote, and won the electoral college, but not the popular vote. The electoral college forces candidates to listen and appeal to different demographics of the US. If the US was run by a direct democracy, those candidates would only campaign in California, New York City, Philadelphia, and *insert any other major city*. The needs of certain demographics, especially those from rural areas, will be kicked to the curb because those people will just be seen as mere scraps.

TL;DR - In a constitutional republic, both the majority and minority opinions can be addressed. In a direct democracy, only the majority opinion will be addressed. The president needs to represent the people, not the majority.

What an absolute joke! So, you should go with the opinion of the minorities eh? Well... i guess you should start asking your population minorities like latinos what to do now (and all those that Trump wants to deport aswell). Because this logic is hysterical! You're applying the tyranny of the majority eh?!

Btw no opinion is necessarely the best. But the opinion with the most backing should serve as the basis one you go with. Thats why you go with the majority, becaue its representative of more people.

Lol at mob rule. Of course, only the special ones should call the shots. Ah right... that isn't democracy though. Leaders of the free world... LOL! You are discriminating people and quite honestly, it's disgusting.

And tell you what... when 1 person = 1 vote, you also have to appeal to every demographic! How do you think democracies work? Better than the USA that's how! Cause theres none of this travesty where people win without getting the most votes.

You literally trashed all Latinos and Blacks in the US. You do realize they are minorities right? This system wasn't conceived for no good reason. Also, more Latinos voted for Trump than they did for Mitt Romney (for one, Trump won Florida's popular vote). The only reason Hillary has an advantage was because of bloody California. Considering California works as if they were their own country, thinking they should decide the election might be the most ridiculous, over the top statement I've ever heard. 

Also, the majority wasn't always better. The majority of people in Germany liked Hitler at the time, look how that panned out... 

If I wanted to tell you how it works, well, things might only be fair if you tell 33 percent of the American urban population to leave the country. Then we'd have an equal proportion of blue and red voters, then whoever yields loses. Otherwise, as I said, there's no reason for the GOP to exist. Trump did win the popular vote in MOST states. It only happens there are a handful whose population has the weight of dozens of states and renders this win pointless. Californians shouldn't decide for the rest of Americans who don't have the advantages they have. 

The special ones shouldn't call the shots, but people from across the country should have their say on who rules. If most of the country's states, rather than the people, choose their leader, you know most of the country will be represented, rather than a state with overcrowding issues. 

By the way, Trump was aware of this. He campaigned with the electoral college in mind, not for the popular vote. The fact he dyed blue states red alone seems like a hint he did pack more firepower than Hillary did, but not in the "fortress states" of Hillary's firewall.