elections...

[Justin]

What does LEGAL Americans have to do with ILLEGAL immigrants?

I've always hated the electoral college but I understand there has to be something in effect to count for the lesser states with less population. If we didn't have an electoral college then California, New York, Texas, and Florida would decide our president. People in California have different polices needs/wants then someone from Montana. Someone from Texas differs from someone in Vermont. I understand the gripe about the EC, but I also understand the need as well.

Because people make the argument about illegal immigrants do all of these horrible things as if our own citizens don't do the same thing.

But to your electoral point...I disagree.  There is only a 3 million vote difference between Clinton and Trump between those four states that you listed.  So those four will not determine the president. One vote per person, majority wins.  That is democracy.

[Judge]

If we just had popular vote, then every vote would count and they wouldn't spend all their time pandering to 3 states.  Every state would get at least a stop since their vote would count.  Even if a state leans red or blue, there are still people in that state voting for the other candidate and that helps the overall total.

[Jon]

Because people make the argument about illegal immigrants do all of these horrible things as if our own citizens don't do the same thing.

But to your electoral point...I disagree.  There is only a 3 million vote difference between Clinton and Trump between those four states that you listed.  So those four will not determine the president. One vote per person, majority wins.  That is democracy.

Every country has to deal with their own bad eggs... what he is trying to control is having to deal with other countries bad eggs.

I would be fine with popular vote being the deciding factor, but like I said, I also see the need for something along the lines of the EC.

[Drama Queen]

Yeah I get the need for EC also, though overall it's hard to argue against Judge's point when 3 or 4 states become so pivotal.

But anyway the whole placing an X thing is inferior and flawed regardless.

Ranking votes is the way to go. That way people CAN vote for a third party without their vote being wasted, because they still get to have a say between the remaining candidates once their number one vote is eliminated.

It's the one thing I can say with absolute certainty that my home country does better than my adopted country.

[Jon]

Here's a good article about the EC.

http://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2016/11/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-margin-is-meaningless-in-every-way-except-pithy-tweets

[Kieran King]

As an outsider, I'm admittedly not 100% informed on the subject, but the system seems archaic in terms of television and the internet. People aren't reliant on the candidate being there in person to be informed. An argument can be made for advertising, but the concern about focusing efforts in a few states seems like less of a big deal than it would have been when constitutionally drafted. Especially in light of it already happening anyway. What concerns me as an advocate for democracy is that voter turnout is essentially suppressed in 'safe' states. There are over 2 million people whose vote for Trump in New York did not contribute to the democratic process. Likewise, over 3 million in Texas voted for Hillary. What's the point in turning out to vote when even at the state-level (which seems to be where the US wants to keep things) the result is all-or-nothing? They need to find a way to make it more representative.

This may be an ignorant statement, and perhaps understating the value of agriculture to the US economy, but aren't the more populated areas actually more important in determining the course of the US? New York, for example, affects North Dakota more than North Dakota affects New York. Is it such a bad thing that presidential candidates would focus their efforts on these states if they have to focus them anywhere (which they already are)?

[Snap]

But to your electoral point...I disagree.  There is only a 3 million vote difference between Clinton and Trump between those four states that you listed.  So those four will not determine the president. One vote per person, majority wins.  That is democracy.

So very true. There is no way that Trump should be president when the majority of Americans voted for another candidate and the fact that Clinton clearly won the popular vote. The argument which is always made with going by the popular vote is that x-amount of people voted for someone else. It seems that the Republicans benefit more from the Electoral College than the Democrats do, considering it tends to work in their favour when their candidate loses the popular vote. First Bush, now Trump.

The EC is essentially a similar system to how parties are elected to form the government here in Canada, with the analog of each "electoral vote" being the various ridings within the provinces, including how the most populous provinces have more ridings and it is entirely possible that Ontario and Quebec alone (sharing the bulk of the ridings in the country) can potentially determine the government before the polls in the west close. It is a decent enough system when determining which candidates will be elected but it is an asinine system when choosing a leader where you are essentially being told "you're not really voting for the president, your 'vote' will go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in your state."

In Canada, the entire country doesn't get a direct say in who the prime minister will be, rather the party which wins more ridings than the other parties will form the government and the leader of that party becomes the prime minister, even if the leader loses their own riding. This happened in the last general election in British Columbia as the BC Liberals were re-elected (likely because people didn't trust the leader of the other major party) yet the premier lost her riding. While she still retained the leadership of the party and, thus, was still the premier she would not be able to enter the House of Commons with the government. So, in a blatant display of corruption, she had an MLA vacate his riding where she should be all but guaranteed to win and then ran in a by-election to get back into the Commons.

It's just scary that America went from a progressive stance, electing their first "minority" president to going to the opposite end of the spectrum and electing a disgusting racist misogynist who ran a campaign based on hate and fear. Dye Trump's hair black and... eh, nevermind. Perhaps the scariest quote from the campaign was "If we could run this country the way I run my company" when Trump BANKRUPTED his companies.

Now some might argue that Canadians or non-Americans in general shouldn't really be criticising the results of the election, but the United States calls itself and its president the "Leader of the Free World" and that world contains more than just the United States and the election of a president affects not only the United States but it's major trading partners in Canada and Mexico as well. So, yeah, if the US want to call itself the "Leader of the Free World" then they should take responsibility for that claim and think about how they will be affecting the world when they cast their vote, especially when that vote involves installing a thin-skinned bully who isn't even qualified to hold the office as president and a religious zealot as vice-president. It's baffling that so many people couldn't (wouldn't?) see through the rhetoric and lies Trump regurgitated through-out the campaign. Four years...

[Judge]

...here in Canada...

Got room for me and my wife? We'll pay rent.

[ChrisShields]

So very true. There is no way that Trump should be president when the majority of Americans voted for another candidate and the fact that Clinton clearly won the popular vote. The argument which is always made with going by the popular vote is that x-amount of people voted for someone else. It seems that the Republicans benefit more from the Electoral College than the Democrats do, considering it tends to work in their favour when their candidate loses the popular vote. First Bush, now Trump.

The EC is essentially a similar system to how parties are elected to form the government here in Canada, with the analog of each "electoral vote" being the various ridings within the provinces, including how the most populous provinces have more ridings and it is entirely possible that Ontario and Quebec alone (sharing the bulk of the ridings in the country) can potentially determine the government before the polls in the west close. It is a decent enough system when determining which candidates will be elected but it is an asinine system when choosing a leader where you are essentially being told "you're not really voting for the president, your 'vote' will go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in your state."

In Canada, the entire country doesn't get a direct say in who the prime minister will be, rather the party which wins more ridings than the other parties will form the government and the leader of that party becomes the prime minister, even if the leader loses their own riding. This happened in the last general election in British Columbia as the BC Liberals were re-elected (likely because people didn't trust the leader of the other major party) yet the premier lost her riding. While she still retained the leadership of the party and, thus, was still the premier she would not be able to enter the House of Commons with the government. So, in a blatant display of corruption, she had an MLA vacate his riding where she should be all but guaranteed to win and then ran in a by-election to get back into the Commons.

It's just scary that America went from a progressive stance, electing their first "minority" president to going to the opposite end of the spectrum and electing a disgusting racist misogynist who ran a campaign based on hate and fear. Dye Trump's hair black and... eh, nevermind. Perhaps the scariest quote from the campaign was "If we could run this country the way I run my company" when Trump BANKRUPTED his companies.

Now some might argue that Canadians or non-Americans in general shouldn't really be criticising the results of the election, but the United States calls itself and its president the "Leader of the Free World" and that world contains more than just the United States and the election of a president affects not only the United States but it's major trading partners in Canada and Mexico as well. So, yeah, if the US want to call itself the "Leader of the Free World" then they should take responsibility for that claim and think about how they will be affecting the world when they cast their vote, especially when that vote involves installing a thin-skinned bully who isn't even qualified to hold the office as president and a religious zealot as vice-president. It's baffling that so many people couldn't (wouldn't?) see through the rhetoric and lies Trump regurgitated through-out the campaign. Four years...

Just a few points here. That "racist misogynist" had a female campaign manager and a black man in a key position on his campaign, so that doesn't really add up if he hates them. As far as the whole bankrupted his companies, it was 4 business out of something like 127. Literally less than 1% of his businesses went through bankruptcy. Third, the only qualifications for being president are that you're over 35 years of age and a natural born citizen, so he's completely qualified.

A big part of why he won, is that people got tired of being told they were idiots if they didn't blindly follow the left. They got tired of being called racist if they disagreed in any way with Obama. They got tired of being called sexist misogynist if they thought Hilary wouldn't be a good president because of her history of corruption and lies. What do you really expect to happen when you treat a large portion of your country, like shit? They're gonna turn against you and go for the guy who at least seems to care. Hilary kept trying to say she understood the plight of the middle class, while wearing 1600 dollar pant suits and flying around on her jet. Trump wears fancy suits and flies around on his jet too, but instead of saying he was just like us, he instead talked to people and tried to find out what things were like for them, because he doesn't deal with the same problems they do.

[Jon]

This is more of a question to those that complain about the EC and voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Were you mad that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the democratic preliminaries, yet Barack Obama won the primary?

[Captain Metro]

The EC is essentially a similar system to how parties are elected to form the government here in Canada, with the analog of each "electoral vote" being the various ridings within the provinces, including how the most populous provinces have more ridings and it is entirely possible that Ontario and Quebec alone (sharing the bulk of the ridings in the country) can potentially determine the government before the polls in the west close. It is a decent enough system when determining which candidates will be elected but it is an asinine system when choosing a leader where you are essentially being told "you're not really voting for the president, your 'vote' will go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in your state."

The Canadian system is retarded for that very reason and it's why fiscal, environmental and social policy are ALWAYS crafted to secure Ontario and Quebec. No one gives a fuck about the Maritimes or Territories. We'd be better off with an Electoral College type system that forces politicians to at least consider the hand that feeds them.

[Cory]

The Canadian system is retarded for that very reason and it's why fiscal, environmental and social policy are ALWAYS crafted to secure Ontario and Quebec. No one gives a fuck about the Maritimes or Territories. We'd be better off with an Electoral College type system that forces politicians to at least consider the hand that feeds them.

yep