That is not relevant to the discussion.
If you barely loose, and you can point to something factual you did, and it cost you a fair bit of votes, then…well…that one thing might well be what cost you your victory.
The only debate is whether it actually cost you votes (or helped the other guy) and if so by how much.
What the other guy did doesn’t matter for the discussion of the those points.
So, shall we just set it aside altogether? Since it doesn’t matter, and never did.
Yes, and no.
Yes, we should set it aside as having any relevance to the discussion of “who won?” After all, suppose that Hillary Clinton had managed to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and the second district in Maine, allowing her to be the victor in the Electoral College. Then, Mr. Trump could just as easily claim, “I won 28 states, she only won 22 plus the D of C. I should win; it’s only the accident of how electoral votes are distributed that keeps me from being the winner. Unfair!” His complaint would be equally irrelevant to the discussion.
But no, we don’t just ignore it. It tells us something about the election. It tells us that, where Democrats win, they win bigly. California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts, et al.; bastions of Democratic support, all big states, all with very large margins. Republicans have states where that happens, too, but they tend to be smaller population states: Texas only gave Mr. Trump about 800,000 more votes (compare, for example, Illinois, which cancelled Texas out in popular votes, despite only having about half the population), and the next largest state he won in by a margin of more than 10% was Indiana, which only got him +500,000.
So it’s interesting information that Ms. Clinton will “win” the popular vote, but not particularly important information.
Is there no point where your argument reaches absurdity? The fact that more people…that is, you know, actual people…voted for Democrats for the House, and yet the Republicans took many more seats, that does not trouble you?
Do you revere the rules more than the people the rules purport to protect? Is order more important than justice?
If you have a system that will generate extreme regional resentments due to the domination of a limited number of population centers, you will not have more ‘justice.’
Oh, c’mon! We have states with less people than a mid-level urban center, but they get to vote for the same number of Senators, being two. And that isn’t enough?
You only get that one because you subverted the Constitution. Congratulations that your gambit to subvert the Constitution in the name of saving it paid off.
Elections have consequences! Unless a Democrat wins, then they don’t have consequences, until order is restored by electing a Republican. Then, they have consequences again.
Yes, because you seem to forget you don’t live in “America”, you live in the United States. You know, separate polities all banded together for mutual assistance, etc.
And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, if the rules were different, if it was winner take all based on plurality of vote, the campaigns would have shifted tactics. It’s highly likely that Mr. Trump could just as easily fashion a campaign designed to maximize voters for the Republican party out of urban areas, thus overcoming a relatively minor percentage difference in the actual vote.
So until the day comes that we have the “President” winning the electoral college vote, but losing the popular vote by 5 or 6 percentage points, I think we can safely say that the popular vote is not of primary importance. It’s usually only even referred to by the losers in the elections where they “won” that metric. :rolleyes:
are you advocating for at large proportional representation? Because that’s what it would take to resolve that.
Or, the Democrats could increase their appeal outside urban centers.
It’s all cool, just good old-fashioned discrimination, disenfranchisement and the tyranny of the minority. USA, USA, that shining beacon of elitism anti-democracy.
The US was founded on liberty first, democracy second. That’s why government is limited, why there are checks and balances, why there is a supreme law that Congress cannot legislate against, and why a movement has to capture the hearts and minds of broad swathes of the country to govern.
This is a large, diverse country. I’m not really interested in being governed by places as diverse as LA, New York. and Chicago. I want LA, New York, Chicago, Boonville, Upton, Vernon, even that town in Wyoming with 1 dude who runs the general store and the motel. That’s true diversity and it’s what our country was built on.
Of course, if you give the mostly rural states the option to leave and form their own country, then we can renegotiate the terms of union.
So why not just give people in Wyoming 1.1 votes and all city residents 0.9 votes. Who needs the prospect of faithless electors.?
This country was built on the diversity of white, male property owners in the thirteen colonies.
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for the electoral college on this board. All you usually get are lectures about the motives of a bunch of slave-fucking degenerates born 300 years ago, and a mindless devotion to their naked elitism and self-serving documents that protected the interests of a tiny minority.
If some Americans have more voting power than others, then you are left with an institution that promotes discrimination. No ifs, ands or buts.
Direct elections would not automatically favor democrats. Look how many states have republican governors. Directly elected. All of those states have cities. Nobody has to rush to the aid of rural voters and give them extra voting power. So how do they do it? By having broader appeal. It’s just terrible.
Liberty first Adaher? When you marginalize a citizens vote, you are not serving the cause of liberty.
Liberty is the end goal, the system of government is the process. If monarchy best insured the liberty of all, we’d be a monarchy. Democracy is a means to an end, not the end itself.
And if you think the contract that formed the union should be null and void, then we all go back to being independent states and each have the option of accepting a new contract or not.
One good reason is that the heavily populated areas of the country would enact, with the help of politicians pandering for their votes, self-serving legislation that allows them to suck up the vast amount of natural resources that exist in ‘flyover country’ in ways that benefit them economically to the detriment of the rest of the country.
It would also rob the senators and representatives of the less populace states of any influence whatsoever in the nation’s governance. Why would the President or large-population state congress people pay any attention at all to the concerns or desires of the representatives of small-population states when small-population state citizens’ votes are utterly meaningless come election time?
Not to mention that when you close one open sore, people tend to focus on the next open sore: the Senate.
Good point!
You mean, let people make changes according to their wishes, they might get to like it?
And sez who, you can’t get urban people to care about rural people? Where is that written? Saw the news, several times, about bands of doctors and nurses, travel around the rural countryside, giving people what medical care they can. People sleep outside, overnight, to get in, have a tooth pulled, find out what they are dying of.
Am I indifferent, in my urban intellectual elitism? Let me check: No, I’m totally pissed about that, I want it changed. Yes, indeed, the rural poor have been boned. Trump gonna do something about that? The Republicans gonna do something about that?
When pigs fly.
This is pure fantasy.
Rural voters have school boards, zoning commissions, mayors, selectmen, state senators, state representatives, governors, US representatives, US senators and on and on.
The president isn’t a warlord who imposes policy by decree, somehow screwing over those po’ rural folks. What a bizarre idea. As strange as urban dwellers being represented as this monolithic, uniform entity hell bent on raping the countryside. We have Sarah Palin for that.
As for the Senate, I have no problem with it. It can be called over-representation, but it seems a fair way to protect smaller, less popular states, making the EC superfluous.
And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Seriously, the right’s drive to de-legitimize democracy makes about as much sense as does Groucho’s immortal line. “Liberty” could be just as well ensured by monarchy as by democracy? Really? (Well, I guess the monarch *himself *has a lot of liberty; perhaps you didn’t realize that the point was not just one person, but all persons.)