4 ms·
The will of the American people? You mean the will of the minority of voters?
by rblatz 10y ago
The will of the American people? You mean the will of the minority of voters?
- downandout 10y agoWe have the system we have. The rules have been laid out for centuries. According to our system, the will of the people is determined based upon electoral college votes of individual states. Clinton strategists knew the rules, and they lost by the rules. Don't go trying to move the goal posts after you lose. This whole argument is yet another attempt to dismiss the opinions of a huge segment of the population, and is exactly the kind of stuff I was referring to as a reason you lost.
- rblatz 10y agoSee you seem to conflate the "will of the people" for the rules of the election. I'm not debating that Trump won, I'm debating that the will of the people was done. I also was not a Hillary supporter, but again the rules are basically set out in a way that means that no matter what this election a large segment of the population's views would be ignored. Turns out this time we went with the minority opinion and ignored the majority.
- downandout 10y agoMy point was that according to the rules, the "will of the people" is in fact the vote of the electoral college.
- dragonwriter 10y agoNo, according to the rules, the will of the people is irrelevant; the rules don't determine what the will of the people is, only whether it has any relevance to the outcome.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> According to our system, the will of the people is determined based upon electoral college votes of individual states No, according to our system -- conceived to protect slavery, and sold to New Yorkers as a protection against the people falling for a dangerous demagogue -- electoral college votes decide the outcome instead of the will of the people being respected. Not even in theory does the electoral college determine the will of the people.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- douche 10y agoThe will of the majority of the voters, outside of California, anyway.
- rblatz 10y agoAnd what is your point? California is a state just like the rest.
- douche 10y agoNo, it really isn't. It's more like a sovereign state loosely bundled under the umbrella of the other states, except it is privileged by virtue of its population to dictate to the other 49 states. By all rights it ought to be segmented up into four or five states. I'm no fan of the Democratic party, and realize that any segmentation of California would result in more democrats in the senate, but even so, California is too big.
- dragonwriter 10y agoActually, California's population reduces, rather than increases, it's political power within the union proportional to its population. > any segmentation of California would result in more democrats in the senate That's actually not true; it's quite easy to divide California into a hyper-Democratic coastal state and a solidly Republican inland state, which would only increase the number of Republicans in the Senate.
- douche 10y agoWell, except in the Senate and the Electoral College. To the extent that California's consumer laws have fucked things up for the rest of us, they deserve to be exorciated. Fucking up the design of gasoline cans should almost be grounds for expulsion from the union...
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Fucking up the design of gasoline cans should almost be grounds for expulsion from the union Expelling California from the union would be an enormous cost saving move for Californians and a huge loss of resources for the union. But, actually, New York does as much leading the rest of the nation in laws and setting standards everyone else ends up complying with because businesses adapt to them as California, and generally in the same direction. So you should probably throw them out, too. Which would economically be the same kind of deal.