Trump Pokes Iran

[DarthMetalliCube]

Barozi said:

Jon-Erich said:

Trump is the legitimate President. He got more electoral votes than Clinton. The popular vote doesn't matter. This is because he actually campaigned in the areas where he knew he needed to win. Hillary Clinton on the other hand ran a terrible campaign. She didn't campaign where she needed to. She stuck mostly to the left-leaning costal cities. She was stupid enough to actually believe the polls even though they've been terribly wrong in the past. She called roughly half of the voting population deplorable. You know, the people she needed votes from. She pretty much controlled the DNC and cheated and was later exposed for it. She also had a lot of baggage on her when she ran because of all the scandals that have been building up over the years. It also doesn't help that a lot of friends and foes who have crossed her path over the years have ended up dead. Now she has to live with the embarrassment that her dumb ass let Donald Trump win.

Also, the person who posted before you was wrong. George W. Bush won the popular vote when he ran for re-election in 2004. That also goes to show how badly John Kerry sucked. Bush was not a popular President in '04 and yet the other guy made him look good.

We know that the popular vote doesn't matter for the US presidential election, but you really need to ask yourself if that's a very democratic system.
Democracy means that all the power comes from its people and when you have a president that has less legitimacy because there were less people voting for said person, that's really questionable.
And I didn't even start the fact that you cannot even directly vote for a specific candidate, even though the ballot says otherwise...

The US is not, and was never technically a straight-up Democracy though, it's a Democratic Republic. The people don't have the final say, but they elect those in power to represent them by way of the individual states. And that's the best way to do things, especially with such a massive country with a population of 325 million.

The Electoral College might seem odd to outsiders, but for us Americans it actually makes quite a lot of sense. Sure, it's not a perfect and completely fair system, but from what I can tell it's about the closest system we can get to it, with our circumstances of being such a large country with such a huge and diverse population taking up a whopping 50 states.

The electoral college ensures that people from ALL states are represented with relative parity (and of course the number of electoral votes still differs depending on the population. So obviously Callifornia's going to have a much bigger amount of electoral votes than Idaho, so there's still some democratic aspect to it. It's just the majority votes within the STATES reside moreso over the entire COUNTRY'S popular vote as a group).

This system prevents the coastal cities (So Cal/LA and New York mainly) to essentially dictate the politics of the other 48 states and countless 10's of millions of people living in Middle America. If we simply boiled everything down to the popular vote, you'd basically have LA and NY deciding every single election, because of the massive amount of people condensed into these major cities, which would not go over too well. What's best for the coastal elites and city folk isn't necessarily what's best for the blue collar family living in Cincy, or the rural residents of Omaha Nebraska. And with such a massive landmass, people here often have very different circumstances, living conditions, and experiences.

Now I suppose you could make the argument that maybe some more states could implement a splitting of the electoral votes rather than having mostly a "winner take all" system, but for the most part this system seems pretty fair given how the US is set up.

Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 24 July 2018