4 ms·
> it could be argued that he only didn't win the popular vote because he didn't focus on that, This is exceedingly unlikely. At least not without major platfor
by joshuamorton 6y ago
> it could be argued that he only didn't win the popular vote because he didn't focus on that,
This is exceedingly unlikely. At least not without major platform changes. A trump that appeals to an additional 3-5 million people looks significantly different.
> I think the founding fathers would cite our current president as the reason they didn't trust direct democracy
This makes even less sense, a more direct democracy (proportional approtianmemt in the house and senate) would be a much stronger check on an unpopular president. What you're seeing now is what happens when the value of votes are distributed unevenly, such that a party can appeal to a minority while retaining political power.
That said even if it were the case, a popular vote would have other useful far reaching consequences in terms of how federal funding is apportioned.
- rrauenza 6y agoI was thinking more in the lines of the electoral college - there was some wishful thinking as the votes came in by some that the electoral college would be the check and balance this last election. Very wishful. But the college is there historically because the founders didn't trust direct democracy... https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-elector...