Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

[Iowatech]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

Your reply was anything but clear. I have no idea what you meant by that. Nothing in my comment can be construed as whining. I am simply tired of misinformation being regurgitated as nauseam.

Who is denying you of your vote in this situation? What am I being dared to do, exactly?

If you have the time, find out why the Electoral College exists in the first place. But only if you are interested in fairness, and also why someone who lives in the periphery would act like a jerk defending it (sorry, I could have done that better).

[ZOOTECH]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

When I first replied about the electoral vs popular vote, I was not 'whining' about who actually became the Pres-Elec; that is moot. I replied about, "facts" presented that Trump had won both popular and electoral votes which hadn't been determined yet. (And I don't think it has been official, with 'illegal votes' or not).

[907tec]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

Not to get in a competition, but I'm fairly sure that I am further into the "periphery" than you are. That does not give me an excuse to act like a jerk. Further, I am well aware of the original reasoning behind the creation of an electoral college.

I understand that the EC is intended to give a voice to those living outside metropolitan areas. Hell, I certainly fall into that category. However, I am failing to see the effectiveness of this system. If the conceit is to ensure that rural concerns are considered by presidential candidates, this system appears to be ineffective. Whereas candidates might have spent their entire campaign pandering to NYC/LA/etc before, under the EC system they focus upon the handful of swing states. Same thing in my mind: a tiny portion of the country essentially dictates the outcome of an election.

Secondly, and I realize that we are not a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, but I have a hard time justifying why rural votes should be given more weight than urban. How is it fair that lesser populated States receive one electoral vote for every 150,000 people, while more populated States receive only one vote for every 300,000+?

All animosity aside, I am genuinely curious for alternative perspectives on this. As I said, I live in an extremely rural area and am familiar with the sentiment that my vote is entirely irrelevant.

[Tricky]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

Some people have drawn similarities between England's "Brexit" and Trump getting in. Nigel Farage seemed to take a part in Trump's campaign.

[copier_operator]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

From a european point of view i cant say i support Trump nor Hilary, the newshighlights here were nothing but extreme behaviour on both accounts.
Then again, in comparison voting and elections here are not the media circus it is in the states. (hence me using the word extreme earlier)

Here in Belgium a few years ago, we had our own 'Trump' elected and it seems similar to me, big words and promises got toned down to more reasonable dialogue.

I still find it fascinating how it went down though, do i understand it correctly that voting is not a duty in the usa ? its a choice ?

[TheBlueOrleans]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

Voting is referred to as one's civic duty, or patriotic duty, but it is not required. (We don't take too kindly to being mandated to do a particular thing.)
the majority of "protesters" in the Portland, OR area actually didn't even vote in this election, which further reinforces one of my political philosophies: "If you don't vote, you don't get to whine about the outcome."

I'm realizing more and more each day what an asshole I really am, and I'm to the point where I simply don't care. I'm "deplorable".

[theengel]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

My daughter is in college, and they talked about the election in one of the classes (instead of doing school work). She said every single one of them felt that only sexists and racists had voted for Trump. My daughter finally spoke up and said something to the effect of, "Some people just disagree with Hillary's policies." They looked at her like she had two heads, and asked what on earth someone could possibly disagree on with Clinton. She said, "Well, the plans for the economy, the border security... and I'm prolife, so I can't vote for someone who is pro-abortion."

They quieted down after that. Apparently, no one had even considered the notion that people voted on issues instead of race or sex.

[slimslob]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

I don't remember seeing ANYONE out crying - protesting - rioting in 2008. We dealt with it ( didn't like it but.. )
But it has been proven that these riots ( much like Ferguson - Chitown ) were paid for by Hillary's campaign and Soros. All the ginning up of emotions ect during the election and the $$$ has fueled this fire. Piss on the protesters.. hell reports out the majority of them didn't even vote...

You didn't VOTE? Then.... STFU!

And where there have been arrests, the majority of those arrested have been from out of state. Many of them actually did not vote.

[slimslob]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

No DJT really wasn't my first choice .. but #NeverHillary

Of all the original candidates on both major parties, the only ones lower on my list than Trump were Bush and Clinton

[Iowatech]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

Not to get in a competition, but I'm fairly sure that I am further into the "periphery" than you are. That does not give me an excuse to act like a jerk. Further, I am well aware of the original reasoning behind the creation of an electoral college.

I understand that the EC is intended to give a voice to those living outside metropolitan areas. Hell, I certainly fall into that category. However, I am failing to see the effectiveness of this system. If the conceit is to ensure that rural concerns are considered by presidential candidates, this system appears to be ineffective. Whereas candidates might have spent their entire campaign pandering to NYC/LA/etc before, under the EC system they focus upon the handful of swing states. Same thing in my mind: a tiny portion of the country essentially dictates the outcome of an election.

Secondly, and I realize that we are not a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, but I have a hard time justifying why rural votes should be given more weight than urban. How is it fair that lesser populated States receive one electoral vote for every 150,000 people, while more populated States receive only one vote for every 300,000+?

All animosity aside, I am genuinely curious for alternative perspectives on this. As I said, I live in an extremely rural area and am familiar with the sentiment that my vote is entirely irrelevant.

The number of electors each state gets is based on the number or Representatives they have in the House of Representatives, and that is based on each states population. So that means that all fifty states get fairly represented in the election of the President, but it also means that candidates for the Presidency need to focus on all fifty states. That's one of the big differences between a representative republic like the U.S. and a pure democracy.
Don't worry about animosity, while we are fellow human beings we aren't the same person. As long as we can discuss them as fellow human beings, as far as I care disagreements are allowed.

[Santander]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

Not to get in a competition, but I'm fairly sure that I am further into the "periphery" than you are. That does not give me an excuse to act like a jerk. Further, I am well aware of the original reasoning behind the creation of an electoral college.

I understand that the EC is intended to give a voice to those living outside metropolitan areas. Hell, I certainly fall into that category. However, I am failing to see the effectiveness of this system. If the conceit is to ensure that rural concerns are considered by presidential candidates, this system appears to be ineffective. Whereas candidates might have spent their entire campaign pandering to NYC/LA/etc before, under the EC system they focus upon the handful of swing states. Same thing in my mind: a tiny portion of the country essentially dictates the outcome of an election.

Secondly, and I realize that we are not a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, but I have a hard time justifying why rural votes should be given more weight than urban. How is it fair that lesser populated States receive one electoral vote for every 150,000 people, while more populated States receive only one vote for every 300,000+?

All animosity aside, I am genuinely curious for alternative perspectives on this. As I said, I live in an extremely rural area and am familiar with the sentiment that my vote is entirely irrelevant.

Beg to differ, but the Electoral College was established in the constitution not to give people outside of metropolitan areas a voice, but to give STATES a voice. Until the beginning of the 21st Century, senators were appointed by the state government/legislature and not by popular vote to provide the states a voice in the federal government as the United States was formed by a confederation of the states which at the time were considered individual nations, hence the name "United States of America". The electoral college gave the people a voice in that the House of Representatives were elected by the people and the Senate was the representative of the States. Your assertation that lessor populated states receive one vote for every 150,000 people versus 300,000 for more populated states is totally false! The House of Representatives is based on population so states with a higher population have more representatives an hence more electoral votes, your premise is totally false. The framers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they constructed the electoral college.

[gneebore]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

Beg to differ, but the Electoral College was established in the constitution not to give people outside of metropolitan areas a voice, but to give STATES a voice. Until the beginning of the 21st Century, senators were appointed by the state government/legislature and not by popular vote to provide the states a voice in the federal government as the United States was formed by a confederation of the states which at the time were considered individual nations, hence the name "United States of America". The electoral college gave the people a voice in that the House of Representatives were elected by the people and the Senate was the representative of the States. Your assertation that lessor populated states receive one vote for every 150,000 people versus 300,000 for more populated states is totally false! The House of Representatives is based on population so states with a higher population have more representatives an hence more electoral votes, your premise is totally false. The framers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they constructed the electoral college.

The other party of your explanation is no state has less than one representative. So a very small state like Delaware still had a voice in the House. Plus like you said the senators were appointed by the state legislature until the 17th amendment changed. The reasoning behind two senators was each state had an equal voice in one house of congress. The house is apportioned via population. Some speculated even way back then that states like NY , Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Virginia, the larger states, would eventually gain a majority in the house just based on their larger areas and larger populations. Guess what they did in the house , but each state still has 2 senators. Fun thing is I vaguely remember some discussion in history class about how admitting Alaska and Hawaii changed the way congress worked since there were now four more senators. Before they were admitted there were only 96 senators.

[slimslob]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

The number of electors each state gets is based on the number or Representatives they have in the House of Representatives, and that is based on each states population. So that means that all fifty states get fairly represented in the election of the President, but it also means that candidates for the Presidency need to focus on all fifty states. That's one of the big differences between a representative republic like the U.S. and a pure democracy.
Don't worry about animosity, while we are fellow human beings we aren't the same person. As long as we can discuss them as fellow human beings, as far as I care disagreements are allowed.

Also in a pure democracy, in order to win requires 1 vote more than 50%. In a pure democracy, there would have to be a run off since both candidate got less than 50%.

[gneebore]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them

Also in a pure democracy, in order to win requires 1 vote more than 50%. In a pure democracy, there would have to be a run off since both candidate got less than 50%.

Just a thought too. If we were originally a pure democracy then the south would have had a much larger portion of delegates to congress based on population. Remember that women were not allowed to vote. Nor were slaves. Which is where the infamous blacks being only 6/10ths of a person comes from. The northern non-slave states did not want the large slave population counted towards the numbers of house members allowed to the state. Remember non-voting residents were counted. For example women were counted in the total population even though they were not allowed to vote until the 19th amendment in 1920. So in order to prevent the slave states from gaining too much power slaves were only counted at the rate 60 percent of the total numbers of slaves. In fact most jurisdictions restricted voting to male landowners.

[Wild Bill]

Re: Trump Protesters - the joke's on them