That’s not how it’s worked since Day One and everyone knows the rules of the game. Majority does not rule. Building electoral coalitions across sovereign states rules.
This sounds more like sour grapes.
That’s not how it’s worked since Day One and everyone knows the rules of the game. Majority does not rule. Building electoral coalitions across sovereign states rules.Only a fool would think that is meaningless. If presidential elections don’t consistently track what the majority of voters want they will lose legitimacy and the system will collapse.
We are a democracy. What the most people want is at the heart of why our system exists.
That’s not how it’s worked since Day One and everyone knows the rules of the game. Majority does not rule. Building electoral coalitions across sovereign states rules.
This sounds more like sour grapes.
It’s not how we elect Presidents. It’s a meaningless metric.
The general public is who's voting for the republicans. Not sure what it is that you want to do about that.
And by country you mean Democrats. I don’t recall an outcry to reform our electoral system after Obama won.Not sure how this relates to my point. If the system starts returning results where the majority doesn’t generally rule you’ll see that system go away, one way or another.
The electoral college is a system Americans generally dislike, designed to protect slavery. The country would not give a shit if it were done away with tomorrow.
I didn’t read @Greenman’s post as asserting a majority.The original quote in regards to the EC in this thread implied the President was elected thru a majority vote.
I was simply pointing out more votes for the losing candidate.
And by country you mean Democrats. I don’t recall an outcry to reform our electoral system after Obama won.
I didn’t read @Greenman’s post as asserting a majority.
He got around 10 million more of the popular vote (some 7% more) that that Alaskan tramp did that tagged onto McCain.And by country you mean Democrats. I don’t recall an outcry to reform our electoral system after Obama won.
Obama won a decisive victory over McCain, winning the Electoral College and the popular vote by a sizable margin, including states that had not voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1976 (North Carolina) and 1964 (Indiana and Virginia). Obama received the largest share of the popular vote won by a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. As of the 2016 presidential election Obama's total count of 69.5 million votes still stands as the largest tally ever won by a presidential candidate.
I didn’t read @Greenman’s post as asserting a majority.
Yeah it could go either way. I was just mentioning a fact.
And by country you mean Democrats. I don’t recall an outcry to reform our electoral system after Obama won.
Which members of congress were elected with fewer votes than their opponent?The term ‘general public’ usually means something like ‘the average person’. The average person does not vote for Republicans as they consistently get fewer votes than their opponents.
Which members of congress were elected with fewer votes than their opponent?
I'm not pretending anything. In every single congressional election the person with the most votes wins. The combined number of votes cast is always way below the number of possible voters in any given race.Republicans consistently get fewer overall votes than Democrats do but gain advantages due to geography and district boundaries. When you simply look at who the most Americans generally prefer it’s not Republicans.
You said the general public and that means people, not lines on a map. I’m very sure you know Republicans tend to get fewer votes than Democrats so there’s no need to pretend otherwise.
I'm not pretending anything. In every single congressional election the person with the most votes wins. The combined number of votes cast is always way below the number of possible voters in any given race.
You have this odd need to prove that democrats are the "winning" team, it's bazaar to me. Sometimes the dems are driving, sometimes it's the GOP. Right now the gop runs the white house and the senate, that will absolutely change in the future, I'd bet everything on it, and it will almost certainly happen in the next election.
Field the team that puts Americas workers first and we'll be rewarded.
I'm not pretending anything. In every single congressional election the person with the most votes wins. The combined number of votes cast is always way below the number of possible voters in any given race.
You have this odd need to prove that democrats are the "winning" team, it's bazaar to me. Sometimes the dems are driving, sometimes it's the GOP. Right now the gop runs the white house and the senate, that will absolutely change in the future, I'd bet everything on it, and it will almost certainly happen in the next election.
If voting districts were based on geography and population rather than partisan bias, there would likely be many fewer hateful (R)s in Congress.
LOL, that isn't team GOP or team Trump.
Read up on gerrymandering and packing districts.
Once again, the term "general public" implies a majority. Also, it has been a common tactic for decades for Republicans to claim they are the majority of the people even though they can't get the majority of the votes. They do this through phrases like "Silent Majority," "Real Americans," and "Traditional American Values" (meaning only their values). And here, "General Public," even though Republicans are not the general public.I didn’t read @Greenman’s post as asserting a majority.
The problem isn't the EC per se, but the unbalanced and politically-manipulated distribution of votes in the EC. Without the EC, candidates would only concern themselves with getting votes in a the most populous states. Which I hope we would not want. But with the current EC distribution, candidates need only concern themselves with winning a few over-represented 'swing states.' Which should IMO be considered just as bad.Not sure how this relates to my point. If the system starts returning results where the majority doesn’t generally rule you’ll see that system go away, one way or another.
The electoral college is a system Americans generally dislike, designed to protect slavery. The country would not give a shit if it were done away with tomorrow.
They don’t need to.Once again, the term "general public" implies a majority. Also, it has been a common tactic for decades for Republicans to claim they are the majority of the people even though they can't get the majority of the votes.
They certainly are the general public in red statesThey do this through phrases like "Silent Majority," "Real Americans," and "Traditional American Values" (meaning only their values). And here, "General Public," even though Republicans are not the general public.
Democrats have also self gerrymandered themselves. Gerrymandering didn’t cause Democrats to lose the Rust Belt.While at the same time they rig the representation in the Electoral College to under-represent blue states much the same way they gerrymander the legislative districts in red states.
I'm just waiting for Republicans to try to make non-Republican votes count as only 5/8th of a vote. It would be in line with actual Republican values.
The problem isn't the EC per se, but the unbalanced and politically-manipulated distribution of votes in the EC. Without the EC, candidates would only concern themselves with getting votes in a the most populous states. Which I hope we would not want. But with the current EC distribution, candidates need only concern themselves with winning a few over-represented 'swing states.' Which should IMO be considered just as bad.
It helps IMO to look at the politically-manipulated distribution of votes in the EC (and also the seats in the House) as similar to legislative gerrymandering within the states.
They don’t need to.
They certainly are the general public in red states
Democrats have also self gerrymandered themselves. Gerrymandering didn’t cause Democrats to lose the Rust Belt.