where were you (not necessarily you, rather the general you) complaining about the electoral college when Obama was elected? The fact that he also won the popular vote is arbitrary - the electoral college still existed. Of all the things to complain about this election, the electoral college ranks way low down. Just because you didn't like the election result is not a good enough reason to rubbish it.
But he won both! He won on both counts, but not Trump! Now, if Trump won the popular vote, the I would have little choice but to accept the judgement of my fellow Americans and hope to God they made the right decision (well, I literally still do. Other than resisting/bitching about the policies I'm sure to come that I do not agree with, there is not much I can do legally speaking).
How would you like it if Hillary won the electoral vote, but not the popular vote?
And out of curiosity/clarity, may I ask who you voted for?
The electoral college should have been abolished after 2000 anyways, so we wouldn't be talking about this. Bush was clearly the wrong candidate.
This is true, the low-pop area votes do have heavier weight. Yet still, even though votes "should" be independent,a country as vast as the US has a large amount of different people with different ideals. Yes, the fact that densely-populated areas are controlled shouldn't matter, but it does. If the goal was to aim for popularity vote wins, then the low-pop vote has no meaning at all. No presidental candidate would take the time to campaign these areas, because it will more or less not matter. Instead, all politics will be strictly directed to the cities, to appeal to those masses. In other words, the electoral college gives the low-pop vote an actual meaning, as well as giving people living there some policies they actually want.
I feel that paragraph was a bit of ramble, but I hope you see my point. In a popularity vote, all votes are equal, but only the cities will be pandered to.
I understand your viewpoint, but I don't agree. The results of a President who won the electoral but not the popular vote has never been good in my lifetime. Can anyone tell me the last time this has happened? I believe that for a system to be in place, it needs to generate good results, especially if it isn't the most democratic option.
The difference was 300k voters. In Norway, that'd be a massive difference, but in the US it's rather marginal. Besides, there is still about half the population that didn't vote.
And that's your right as a citizen with freedom of speech. You do not need to want to have your president. But you have him now. Because he campaigned and played the game better.
He also won because Hillary was a terrible candidate, but the DNC wanted her, voters be damned, and pretty much held her hand through the process. She is corrupt, and has so much baggage. I hated her, but I voted for her because I hate Trump more, simple as that. Sanders probably would have won, since he was a populist candidate too. They tried to shove her down our throats, and it resulted in projectile vomit in everyone's faces.
How is it fair that the small guys have no champion anymore, if the pop vote is established over the current system?
We'll see if they have a champion. I think he's going to end up stiffing them, like he's done in the past. But you're right in blaming Hillary for not reaching out to them. I blame her for that as well. Calling people "deplorables" and "irredeemables" was a stupid move on her part, and I hope the consequences aren't as bad as I fear. I've seen people online who proudly call themselves deplorable. I don't know what the consequences of that will be, or how much it will divide us.
I am still in the firm belief that thus was just "tough talk".
Considering that I fear that I'm going to die in a nuclear war, and not get the chance to have girlfriend, get married, and raise a family, you're going to have to give me more than that. I don't feel comfortable assuming that he won't do something incredibly stupid
It's not all trust. One can easily feign trustworthyness. Its very easy, really. I honestly think that you just have to accept 4 years with him, and during the next election focus more on appealing to people instea of pushing them away with the buzzwords people have come to hate. And hope your candidate actually attends to the swingstates more. What you can do now is try and see if he can redeem his inage, because I too find him an idiot.
If we can survive 4 years that is. If I'm 110% sure he won't do something stupid and start WW-III, then I'm sure we'll hang in there. We Americans are many things, and tough is one of them! We don't quit!
You're right that we need better candidates. I'm angry at Hillary for not going to North Dakota to protest with the Water Protectors against the DAPL like Jill Stein. Would it have won her the election? No guarantee at all. But it would have shown people that she cares about the environment, she cares about the little guy, and it might have galvanized more people like Native Americans and Jill Stein voters who care a lot about the environment to vote for her. It would have been honorable.
And I also am angry that they ignored the problems of the little guy in the rust belt region. I recognize that most Trump voters probably voted for him not because they are racist, ignorant, or stupid, but a number of other factors: fear of Hillary, concern that she doesn't have their best interests at heart, hatred of politics as usual, and I'm sure I've missed some. I hope Trump voters here see this, and list their reasons that cause them to vote for Trump. I want to understand. I think we need compassion and understanding, otherwise, I fear we will remain polarized, and this hate will continue.
Final point: I completely understand your view points, I simply do not agree with them. I don't think a popular vote system is any good at all, otherwise you'll have a bunch of people left out (or feel like it, atleast). Here in Norway, we have a part called Senterpartiet (Central Party) which usually collects about 10 parliament representatives. In a system of 169. Their goals and desires will never be fulfilled (whether that's a bad thing or not I'm not gonna mention), despite the party representing the farmers. The electoral college atleast gives their vote a meaning (perhaps a bit too heavy though) which is a good thing. If anything, push for an alocation of the electorial college votes from each state.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I understand your points, but I feel that a system needs to produce good results, or it needs to be replaced. There is also the problem of the wasted vote effect, which caused third party candidates to play a role in help getting Trump elected. Third party voters are going to get a lot of unfair hate.
