4 ms·

I’m not sure this is just being written in bad faith, but in the 2016 presidential election, the winner had over 3 million less votes (over 2% of votes tallied)

I’m not sure this is just being written in bad faith, but in the 2016 presidential election, the winner had over 3 million less votes (over 2% of votes tallied). The electoral college system of the US values certain voters more than others in terms of assigning points to the contestants.

SkyBelow 7y ago
I'm aware of the 2016 situation. What I'm saying is that the 'popular vote' is not actually a vote. The vote for president is based on 538 people who are eligible to vote, and in that vote Trump won. Now, I know some people have issues with that only a very select group of people are allowed to vote for such a powerful position. But my counter point to that is where is the real differences compared to rules that say you have to be 18 to vote or you have certain legal status to vote. All of these laws can have an attempted justification made under the same argument of 'that's the way we've done it', 'it is how the Constitution says it should be done' or even 'if enough people wanted to, the Constitution can be modified to change it'. >in terms of assigning points to the contestants Is it actually assigning points? I thought it worked by states picking the 538 voters who will vote for president. In 2016 there was some debate on if those 538 people actually had to vote the way they said they would when they were picked, but from my memory the conclusion is that they do not. That's why I think it should be counted as the actual vote for president and not an assignment of points.
- SahAssar 7y ago
  But the system (regardless of if you call it "points" or "an actual vote") means that one candidate could get 78% of the popular vote and still loose as discussed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k (it talks about how it's possible to win the electoral college with only 22% of the popular vote). I don't think that can be called a fair "actual vote".
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    Can you give me the criteria for being 'fair'? To me, the vote seems fair because it was the conditions to form the USA, and the USA has had centuries to change it but has chosen not to. At least, it is as fair as a vote that requires 'citizenship' to count, given that lack of citizenship doesn't stop one form being directly impacted by the decisions of the President.

SkyBelow 7y ago

I'm aware of the 2016 situation. What I'm saying is that the 'popular vote' is not actually a vote. The vote for president is based on 538 people who are eligible to vote, and in that vote Trump won. Now, I know some people have issues with that only a very select group of people are allowed to vote for such a powerful position. But my counter point to that is where is the real differences compared to rules that say you have to be 18 to vote or you have certain legal status to vote. All of these laws can have an attempted justification made under the same argument of 'that's the way we've done it', 'it is how the Constitution says it should be done' or even 'if enough people wanted to, the Constitution can be modified to change it'. >in terms of assigning points to the contestants Is it actually assigning points? I thought it worked by states picking the 538 voters who will vote for president. In 2016 there was some debate on if those 538 people actually had to vote the way they said they would when they were picked, but from my memory the conclusion is that they do not. That's why I think it should be counted as the actual vote for president and not an assignment of points.

SahAssar 7y ago
But the system (regardless of if you call it "points" or "an actual vote") means that one candidate could get 78% of the popular vote and still loose as discussed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k (it talks about how it's possible to win the electoral college with only 22% of the popular vote). I don't think that can be called a fair "actual vote".
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Can you give me the criteria for being 'fair'? To me, the vote seems fair because it was the conditions to form the USA, and the USA has had centuries to change it but has chosen not to. At least, it is as fair as a vote that requires 'citizenship' to count, given that lack of citizenship doesn't stop one form being directly impacted by the decisions of the President.