4 ms·

>They were GIVEN control (despite the pervasive belief that campaign money would win the day for the presidency, but maybe it did?) The fact is, the majority o

>They were GIVEN control (despite the pervasive belief that campaign money would win the day for the presidency, but maybe it did?) The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. Whether by gerrymandering or by unfortunate coincidence, Trump had a deficit, but the minimum votes needed in the areas that mattered. He's not opposed to -everything- the American people want, but he is the less popular of the two least popular candidates of all time. So yeah, he goes against the majority of America on a huge amount of policies. > there are many aspects of the Republican party that continues to support what the American people want via the status quo and initiative that people in blue states tend to not like. Aspects yes, but the I'd wager most of the decisions made have nothing to do with what the electorate actually want, and are more to do with what their corporate donors are pushing for. There are a lot of "safe" areas where it really doesn't matter what they do, voting repub/democrat is a way of life, not a choice.

jack9 9y ago
> The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. If you want change, you have to focus on an issue. If this is the issue, then you need to stop saying "Trump" as if he is special, since it appears to be a partisan attack. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-... It should have been stopped at Bush but the Republicans are too short sighted to take aim at it right now, especially since it's helped them out about once a decade.
- JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
  I think this is a comments board mature enough to realise we aren't doing attacks on people. We are discussing issues. If this was reddit or slashdot, I wouldn't phrase it that way.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. That only puts him in the company of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. If you don't like the electoral college then fix it. But all that changes is how candidates will campaign. Republicans would still win half of elections, because that's the nature of a two party system. The only way out of that is to adopt a different voting system (e.g. range voting) so that there can be more than two viable parties.
- consp 9y ago
  It's not hard to figure out all whom you name won both popular and electoral votes, though jfk only by a very small margin.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  > That only puts him in the company of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. The number of names is right, the names aren't.
  - jrimbault 9y ago
    PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... Abraham Lincoln, percent of popular vote 39.65% John Kennedy, percent of popular vote 49.72% Bill Clinton, percent of popular vote 43.01% (1992) / 49.23% (1996)
- croon 9y ago
  > Republicans would still win half of elections, because that's the nature of a two party system. No it's not. (A lot) More than half of the population benefits/are catered to (what capitalists' Adam Smith would call maximized utility) by one party, while very few benefits from the other. That's why gerrymandering and lack of facts are vastly larger issues on one side.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    Republicans currently get slightly less than half of the popular vote -- compared to Democrats who also get slightly less than half of the popular vote. Hillary Clinton didn't have a majority of the popular vote in 2016, she had 48% compared to Trump's 46%. And some of the highest population states (California, Texas, New York) are immutable for both parties in the electoral college. If you put the votes there in play it would completely change the nature of the campaigns. > That's why gerrymandering and lack of facts are vastly larger issues on one side. Don't be partisan. The Republicans lie, the Democrats lie. The common "women make 77% of what men make" is a lie; that number doesn't account for different occupations or hours worked. Any healthcare plan that doesn't reduce the revenue of healthcare companies is not going to reduce the cost of healthcare; both parties are equally guilty of that. Nearly every statistic you hear in politics on both sides is inaccurate or taken out of context, and the Democrats are especially egregious about this with respect to intersectional politics. And gerrymandering is what the party with a legislative majority does every time the census comes in. This time it happens that mostly Republicans were in power when the lines were drawn, but don't pretend the other party wouldn't or hasn't done the same thing when it's their turn.
belorn 9y ago
The concept of a majority vote was traded away when multiple states with different population was united into a single nation. The evening out of power difference between high population state and low population state is a very strong bargaining chip in avoiding a split back to the previous system.

jack9 9y ago

> The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. If you want change, you have to focus on an issue. If this is the issue, then you need to stop saying "Trump" as if he is special, since it appears to be a partisan attack. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-... It should have been stopped at Bush but the Republicans are too short sighted to take aim at it right now, especially since it's helped them out about once a decade.

JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
I think this is a comments board mature enough to realise we aren't doing attacks on people. We are discussing issues. If this was reddit or slashdot, I wouldn't phrase it that way.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. That only puts him in the company of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. If you don't like the electoral college then fix it. But all that changes is how candidates will campaign. Republicans would still win half of elections, because that's the nature of a two party system. The only way out of that is to adopt a different voting system (e.g. range voting) so that there can be more than two viable parties.

consp 9y ago
It's not hard to figure out all whom you name won both popular and electoral votes, though jfk only by a very small margin.
jrimbault 9y ago
> That only puts him in the company of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. The number of names is right, the names aren't.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... Abraham Lincoln, percent of popular vote 39.65% John Kennedy, percent of popular vote 49.72% Bill Clinton, percent of popular vote 43.01% (1992) / 49.23% (1996)
croon 9y ago
> Republicans would still win half of elections, because that's the nature of a two party system. No it's not. (A lot) More than half of the population benefits/are catered to (what capitalists' Adam Smith would call maximized utility) by one party, while very few benefits from the other. That's why gerrymandering and lack of facts are vastly larger issues on one side.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  Republicans currently get slightly less than half of the popular vote -- compared to Democrats who also get slightly less than half of the popular vote. Hillary Clinton didn't have a majority of the popular vote in 2016, she had 48% compared to Trump's 46%. And some of the highest population states (California, Texas, New York) are immutable for both parties in the electoral college. If you put the votes there in play it would completely change the nature of the campaigns. > That's why gerrymandering and lack of facts are vastly larger issues on one side. Don't be partisan. The Republicans lie, the Democrats lie. The common "women make 77% of what men make" is a lie; that number doesn't account for different occupations or hours worked. Any healthcare plan that doesn't reduce the revenue of healthcare companies is not going to reduce the cost of healthcare; both parties are equally guilty of that. Nearly every statistic you hear in politics on both sides is inaccurate or taken out of context, and the Democrats are especially egregious about this with respect to intersectional politics. And gerrymandering is what the party with a legislative majority does every time the census comes in. This time it happens that mostly Republicans were in power when the lines were drawn, but don't pretend the other party wouldn't or hasn't done the same thing when it's their turn.

belorn 9y ago

The concept of a majority vote was traded away when multiple states with different population was united into a single nation. The evening out of power difference between high population state and low population state is a very strong bargaining chip in avoiding a split back to the previous system.