The Many Faces of US Politics...

[stew]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

This was never set up to be republican friendly, it was devised so that people in rural areas would feel like their vote counted even if a bunch of morons in LA and New York voted a different way than they did, their vote mattered and it is a brilliant piece of legislation no matter who benefits politically.

Its just that the votes of the morons in rural areas carry more weight under this system.

Under a popular vote, everyone's vote would count equally, no matter what their political leaning.

Quit bitching about a tried and tested piece of leglislature that has existed for ages, rather, back Hillary in 2020 and bitch about Bernie Saunders scuppering her candicacy, well him and the macedonians. Twat       

[AZOffaly]

"The morons in rural areas"? Poorly worded J70.

I presume you mean 'morons in rural areas carry more weight than morons in urban areas'? I know you didn't mean people in rural areas are morons.

[J70]

"The morons in rural areas"? Poorly worded J70.

I presume you mean 'morons in rural areas carry more weight than morons in urban areas'? I know you didn't mean people in rural areas are morons.

Read the posts.

I was responding to stew's use of the word "morons" to describe people on LA and New York (I live in NYC myself).

[J70]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

This was never set up to be republican friendly, it was devised so that people in rural areas would feel like their vote counted even if a bunch of morons in LA and New York voted a different way than they did, their vote mattered and it is a brilliant piece of legislation no matter who benefits politically.

Its just that the votes of the morons in rural areas carry more weight under this system.

Under a popular vote, everyone's vote would count equally, no matter what their political leaning.

Quit bitching about a tried and tested piece of leglislature that has existed for ages, rather, back Hillary in 2020 and bitch about Bernie Saunders scuppering her candicacy, well him and the macedonians. Twat     

Who's bitching?

I'm discussing the merits of an alternative.

And longevity and tradition are not, by themselves, adequate defenses of any process or system.

[AZOffaly]

"The morons in rural areas"? Poorly worded J70.

I presume you mean 'morons in rural areas carry more weight than morons in urban areas'? I know you didn't mean people in rural areas are morons.

Read the posts.

I was responding to stew's use of the word "morons" to describe people on LA and New York (I live in NYC myself).

Ah, fair enough.

[J70]

"The morons in rural areas"? Poorly worded J70.

I presume you mean 'morons in rural areas carry more weight than morons in urban areas'? I know you didn't mean people in rural areas are morons.

Read the posts.

I was responding to stew's use of the word "morons" to describe people on LA and New York (I live in NYC myself).

Ah, fair enough.

I grew up in rural Donegal (even in Donegal I was considered "from the bog"!).

My in-laws, fine people, are from and mostly live in the rural western US.

[Eamonnca1]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

So following that logic,  the unionist majority in the North should be allowed to lord it over their Nationalist brethren given their numerical superiority?

Did you read my last sentence all the way to the end?

[Eamonnca1]

All kidding aside, if we had an election based on a simple majority, would the progressives on here agree to voters having to present a valid state or national id in order to vote?

Ah, the old "voter fraud is a thing" trope.

[Declan]

God Bless America - unless you're black

[Eamonnca1]

"Land of the free" my ass.

[whitey]

All kidding aside, if we had an election based on a simple majority, would the progressives on here agree to voters having to present a valid state or national id in order to vote?

Ah, the old "voter fraud is a thing" trope.

I take it that's a no

[Eamonnca1]

[Rossfan]

God Bless America - unless you're black

Appalling

[whitey]

But sane people are in the majority, as evidenced by the whopping 2 million more who voted for Hillary than Trump.  The idea that you have to give the minority a veto in case the majority gets it wrong is tripe. We're talking about the USA, not Northern Ireland.

So following that logic,  the unionist majority in the North should be allowed to lord it over their Nationalist brethren given their numerical superiority?

Did you read my last sentence all the way to the end?

Yes.....it seems like that is what you are advocating for

[heganboy]

Stew,
The will of the people, or the result of the electoral college system?

The system is the system and it was the same for each candidate

The Democrats actually have a huge advantage when it comes to the electoral college......just shows what a monumental fvck up the Clinton campaign was

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-2016-race-an-electoral-college-edge-for-democrats/2015/03/15/855f2792-cb3c-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html?utm_term=.b0a91a499977

Whitey- I'm on your side here- you play the game by the rules. However - the will of the people was actually not Trump.

As far as the advantage in the college system, its gerrymandered both ways in different places. Neither main party is blameless.

At this point guessing the next step US politics is a fools game, though Cambridge Analytica may have a fair sense of whats next. I admire the hypocrisy of the tech firms that played such a huge part in the election results up and down the US then take issue with the results. Money in ads displaying fake news of all colors and hues was gladly taken to the bank.

I think we are just about at the stage where the presidency is now buyable, based on a candidate that can do as they are told, and just not care about policy, as long as they sound like they mean it (for either side as long as they pay well)

The current president of the united states  actually said in public during the campaign "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" probably one of the most factually accurate statements he made during the process.

is there a new path ahead- this one has been broken for a while?