5 ms·

>High brow smack (condescension) like that and "basket of deplorables" are what America revolted against. Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hilla

>High brow smack (condescension) like that and "basket of deplorables" are what America revolted against. Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton. She won the popular vote by over a million votes. We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate. >If the liberal left was truly smart, why did they allow the president to run up more national debt than all presidents prior...combined? The president doesn't make the budget or handle the accounting of the US. Congress does. Guess who controls Congress? Hint, not the liberal left.

Graphon1 10y ago
> We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. It may have been built with slave/free state "fairness" in mind, but even today the mechanism serves to level out the tyranny of the majority, from the states' perspective.
- MereInterest 10y ago
  I fail to see how a tyranny of the minority is better than a tyranny of the majority. The current winner-take-all system must provide one or the other.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    I fail to see how it is a tyranny of the minority. US is a federation after all.
- gohrt 10y ago
  A state doesn't have a "perspective". A state is just a line drawn around a collection of people. Mathematically, a majority of states have excess power in proportion to its population. From a state's imagined perspective, it's a tyranny of the majority.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nightski 10y ago
Every source I can find has her winning by around 200k. When you are talking about 120M votes that is rather insignificant.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  When it's the difference in winning the majority and still losing the election, it is significant.
  - grzm 10y ago
    FWIW, technically it's a plurality, not a majority. To win a majority, you need to win over 50%.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  Earlier projections I saw said a million, but you are right thanks.
thomyorkie 10y ago
> Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton. She won the popular vote by over a million votes. We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate. While I agree that the electoral college is not the best system, we can't really know what the results would have been if the popular vote determined the presidency. Campaigns are optimized based on the electoral college and each would have been run differently on a different system. Also, voter turnout may have been different because you no longer have partisan strongholds which may discourage voting.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Not only that don't forget there's 4 million Americans who live in the US territories. They are American but don't get to vote for president because they don't live in a state or (since the 70s) DC. That's more than the population of Connecticut, for example.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton A plurality did, not a majority. But still more than went with any individual alternative. > Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate. It's not so much antiquated as evil; it's designed specifically to magnify the power of voters in states with people counted for assigning representation that don't vote (primarily to secure slavery, but its continued to reward other forms of disenfranchisement since.)
- grzm 10y ago
  "A plurality did, not a majority." Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to look up the difference :)
  - woofyman 10y ago
    A plurality is also called a simple majority.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      That's definitely not true, unless in some special context.
      - kazga 10y ago
        I'm not sure about English, but "simple majority" and "absolute majority" are commonly used to refer to a plurality and >50% respectively in German. Wikipedia [0] also recognizes this meaning. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_majority
        grzm 10y ago
        The Wikipedia article indicates that simple majority may refer to majority, plurality, FPTP, or super majority, indicating no preference as to which might might be the most commonly understood.
551199 10y ago
The country is mostly red. Even though Clinton got 200k more votes I'm sure you can see why the the electoral system is in place. I like to add there is still 4 million votes that are being counted. Projection even from CNN is that Trump wins the popular vote. [0] https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-landslide1.png https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-lands... [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/trumps-geographic-landslide http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/trumps-geographic-l...

Graphon1 10y ago

> We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. It may have been built with slave/free state "fairness" in mind, but even today the mechanism serves to level out the tyranny of the majority, from the states' perspective.

MereInterest 10y ago
I fail to see how a tyranny of the minority is better than a tyranny of the majority. The current winner-take-all system must provide one or the other.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  I fail to see how it is a tyranny of the minority. US is a federation after all.
gohrt 10y ago
A state doesn't have a "perspective". A state is just a line drawn around a collection of people. Mathematically, a majority of states have excess power in proportion to its population. From a state's imagined perspective, it's a tyranny of the majority.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nightski 10y ago

Every source I can find has her winning by around 200k. When you are talking about 120M votes that is rather insignificant.

gnaritas 10y ago
When it's the difference in winning the majority and still losing the election, it is significant.
- grzm 10y ago
  FWIW, technically it's a plurality, not a majority. To win a majority, you need to win over 50%.
yolesaber 10y ago
Earlier projections I saw said a million, but you are right thanks.

thomyorkie 10y ago

> Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton. She won the popular vote by over a million votes. We just use an outdated system built to appease slaveholders that does not necessarily represent the bulk will of the people. Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate. While I agree that the electoral college is not the best system, we can't really know what the results would have been if the popular vote determined the presidency. Campaigns are optimized based on the electoral college and each would have been run differently on a different system. Also, voter turnout may have been different because you no longer have partisan strongholds which may discourage voting.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
Not only that don't forget there's 4 million Americans who live in the US territories. They are American but don't get to vote for president because they don't live in a state or (since the 70s) DC. That's more than the population of Connecticut, for example.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton A plurality did, not a majority. But still more than went with any individual alternative. > Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate. It's not so much antiquated as evil; it's designed specifically to magnify the power of voters in states with people counted for assigning representation that don't vote (primarily to secure slavery, but its continued to reward other forms of disenfranchisement since.)

grzm 10y ago
"A plurality did, not a majority." Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to look up the difference :)
- woofyman 10y ago
  A plurality is also called a simple majority.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    That's definitely not true, unless in some special context.
    - kazga 10y ago
      I'm not sure about English, but "simple majority" and "absolute majority" are commonly used to refer to a plurality and >50% respectively in German. Wikipedia [0] also recognizes this meaning. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_majority
      - grzm 10y ago
        The Wikipedia article indicates that simple majority may refer to majority, plurality, FPTP, or super majority, indicating no preference as to which might might be the most commonly understood.

551199 10y ago

The country is mostly red. Even though Clinton got 200k more votes I'm sure you can see why the the electoral system is in place. I like to add there is still 4 million votes that are being counted. Projection even from CNN is that Trump wins the popular vote. [0] https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-landslide1.png https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-lands... [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/trumps-geographic-landslide http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/trumps-geographic-l...