4 ms·

No. More people voted for Hillary Clinton. And the Electoral College is constitutionally enshrined to stop candidates like Trump. From wikipedia: James Madison

No. More people voted for Hillary Clinton. And the Electoral College is constitutionally enshrined to stop candidates like Trump. From wikipedia: James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Whether you respect the Electoral College or don't, Trump should not be the President. But given that he will be, we have an obligation to stand against him. And to shame those who refuse to stand against him and his administration. Sadly this appears to include YC and its leaders.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
NhanH 10y ago
You are not being consistent. Yes, the Electoral College was designed to stop the populist candidate if they are deemed unfit for President. And if said system ends up electing Trump, shouldn't you revise your belief, rather than sticking with it? The meme that more people is voting for Clinton is tired, and meaningless. You can't just assume with a different fundamental, the votes would have been the same: there are different campaigns, different voters. Even if you just look at the current votes, a popular vote system would have completely removed all third party candidates out, and I wouldn't be betting that most votes (around 3-4% of the votes) from Gary Johnson (libertarian candidate) going to Clinton.
- tptacek 10y ago
  He just said Trump will be President. You're rebutting an argument he didn't make. Nobody is obligated to support the President. That's why it's called "the loyal opposition".
  - NhanH 10y ago
    > Whether you respect the Electoral College or don't, Trump should not be the President. I was saying that this statement doesn't follow from his 2 previous paragraphs. On the other hand, if this was a personal statement against Trump (rather than a logical conclusion of the previous paragraphs), then my comment doesn't apply. In other words, I just wanted to emphasize that I believe in the statement "if you respect the Electoral College, Trump should be the next President". That is independent to any opinion I have on Trump. It just seems to me that too many people are rallying against a system just based on their emotions. The electoral system has its issues, however voting Trump up this time isn't one of them.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The comment straightforwardly said Trump will be President. The commenter is not required to respect the outcome. I sure don't! Your comment did not, in fact, apply.
    - couchand 10y ago
      I would argue it is correct and good to not have respect for the Electoral College. It is a hair-brained, anachronistic, undemocratic institution.
      - NhanH 10y ago
        You would have to elaborate more, at the very least on why you think that's the case, and why Electoral College was put in place before we can have a substantial discussion. Additionally reasoning would be needed like what is making the present so different that it would be anachronistic. This isn't the first time this situation happened (candidate with plurality of popular votes not becoming President). In fact this isn't even the most controversial one either: the first time this happened, Andrew Jackson even had plurality of Electoral College. The 2nd time in 1876 is also fair more controversial - the popular vote difference was larger, the electoral vote difference was 1, and the situation that leads to it was even worse. The time span between elections where it happens isn't even new (12 years in 1876 and 1888 vs 16 years in 2000 and now). Heck, in 1888 the main election topic was also about tariff policy, does that sound at all familiar? "Democracy" isn't just some magical pixie dust that can solve all problems, it's a design with a lot of trade offs, and calling things "undemocratic" isn't much of an argument.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

NhanH 10y ago

You are not being consistent. Yes, the Electoral College was designed to stop the populist candidate if they are deemed unfit for President. And if said system ends up electing Trump, shouldn't you revise your belief, rather than sticking with it? The meme that more people is voting for Clinton is tired, and meaningless. You can't just assume with a different fundamental, the votes would have been the same: there are different campaigns, different voters. Even if you just look at the current votes, a popular vote system would have completely removed all third party candidates out, and I wouldn't be betting that most votes (around 3-4% of the votes) from Gary Johnson (libertarian candidate) going to Clinton.

tptacek 10y ago
He just said Trump will be President. You're rebutting an argument he didn't make. Nobody is obligated to support the President. That's why it's called "the loyal opposition".
- NhanH 10y ago
  > Whether you respect the Electoral College or don't, Trump should not be the President. I was saying that this statement doesn't follow from his 2 previous paragraphs. On the other hand, if this was a personal statement against Trump (rather than a logical conclusion of the previous paragraphs), then my comment doesn't apply. In other words, I just wanted to emphasize that I believe in the statement "if you respect the Electoral College, Trump should be the next President". That is independent to any opinion I have on Trump. It just seems to me that too many people are rallying against a system just based on their emotions. The electoral system has its issues, however voting Trump up this time isn't one of them.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The comment straightforwardly said Trump will be President. The commenter is not required to respect the outcome. I sure don't! Your comment did not, in fact, apply.
  - couchand 10y ago
    I would argue it is correct and good to not have respect for the Electoral College. It is a hair-brained, anachronistic, undemocratic institution.
    - NhanH 10y ago
      You would have to elaborate more, at the very least on why you think that's the case, and why Electoral College was put in place before we can have a substantial discussion. Additionally reasoning would be needed like what is making the present so different that it would be anachronistic. This isn't the first time this situation happened (candidate with plurality of popular votes not becoming President). In fact this isn't even the most controversial one either: the first time this happened, Andrew Jackson even had plurality of Electoral College. The 2nd time in 1876 is also fair more controversial - the popular vote difference was larger, the electoral vote difference was 1, and the situation that leads to it was even worse. The time span between elections where it happens isn't even new (12 years in 1876 and 1888 vs 16 years in 2000 and now). Heck, in 1888 the main election topic was also about tariff policy, does that sound at all familiar? "Democracy" isn't just some magical pixie dust that can solve all problems, it's a design with a lot of trade offs, and calling things "undemocratic" isn't much of an argument.