U.S. Politics

[Johnny English]

But she won the popular vote!

I'm sick of that argument. It's like a team losing 14-10, but led the game in time of possession, first downs, and total yards and their fans blaming the winning team.

Not really. It's more like a game finishing 14-10, but the W being awarded to the team with 10 points because they had more first downs. You can make an argument that both teams knew before kick off that the stat that mattered was first downs and not scoreline, but the not unreasonable complaint is that knowing the rules of the game doesn't change the fact that they don't make sense.

[Tommy]

Not really. It's more like a game finishing 14-10, but the W being awarded to the team with 10 points because they had more first downs. You can make an argument that both teams knew before kick off that the stat that mattered was first downs and not scoreline, but the not unreasonable complaint is that knowing the rules of the game doesn't change the fact that they don't make sense.

But the electoral count IS the score. Your analogy doesn't work because there would be no point in having endzones or even a score if it didn't matter.

[Johnny English]

But the electoral count IS the score. Your analogy doesn't work because there would be no point in having endzones or even a score if it didn't matter.

There would be no point in recording first downs or yardage gained if it didn't matter, but we still do.

[dcm1602]

There would be no point in recording first downs or yardage gained if it didn't matter, but we still do.

They don't matter. An nfl game comes down to the score. Hillary Clinton was the one who got more yards and first downs, but Trump scored more points so be gets the W. And now people are bitching that Hillary Clinton deserves to win because she outplayed Trump up and down, and he still walked away with more points

[Johnny English]

They don't matter. An nfl game comes down to the score. Hillary Clinton was the one who got more yards and first downs, but Trump scored more points so be gets the W.

No, see, you're still working with Tommy's flawed interpretation. The score in a football game makes sense. It's the point of the game. It's the logical criterion on which to judge a game.

The US political system, and the British and Canadian ones for that matter, is massively flawed. One man one vote is a lost principle in our current systems - right now your vote (and mine, for that matter) is worth far, far less than that of someone in a small handful of select battlegrounds. To use Tommy's flawed analogy, your game doesn't hand the W to the team that scores the most points, it's handing it to the team that wins some other far more esoteric statistical battle. It's broken democracy.

[ons]

A better analogy would be Trump winning three out of four quarters of a football game by less than 7 points each, while Clinton won one quarter by 21 points. Clinton ends with more points overall, but Trump won more quarters, so won the game.

They both knew that whoever won more quarters would win the game, but the final score still had Clinton ahead by a few points.

That being said, that is no excuse for how she strategized, nor for her weakness as a candidate. She was widely disliked, for many valid reasons, and put far too much weight in optimistic polls.

[dcm1602]

No, see, you're still working with Tommy's flawed interpretation. The score in a football game makes sense. It's the point of the game. It's the logical criterion on which to judge a game.

The US political system, and the British and Canadian ones for that matter, is massively flawed. One man one vote is a lost principle in our current systems - right now your vote (and mine, for that matter) is worth far, far less than that of someone in a small handful of select battlegrounds. To use Tommy's flawed analogy, your game doesn't hand the W to the team that scores the most points, it's handing it to the team that wins some other far more esoteric statistical battle. It's broken democracy.

Maybe so but what's the alternative?

Both Republicans and Democrats are shitty, and even tho you're a left wing guy you surely won't argue if the US was a one party country  it would be better. Contrast is a good thing to keep these excrement heads in check on  both sides

And that's basically what it would be without the electoral college. Candidates would cater to a handful of major cities, while ignoring the rest if the country

[Tommy]

Maybe so but what's the alternative?

Both Republicans and Democrats are shitty, and even tho you're a left wing guy you surely won't argue it the US was a one party country

And that's basically what it would be without the electoral college. Candidates would cater to a handful of major cities, while ignoring the rest if the country

Well until 1856 only white male property owners were allowed to vote, so the common folk in the big cities didn't really have a say. It was mostly landowners outside the cities.

[Badger]

Maybe so but what's the alternative?

Both Republicans and Democrats are shitty, and even tho you're a left wing guy you surely won't argue it the US was a one party country

And that's basically what it would be without the electoral college. Candidates would cater to a handful of major cities, while ignoring the rest if the country

No. The cities narrative is bullshit.

1 person should = 1 vote. It doesn't matter if they live in the same city, neighborhood, block, or share one studio apartment on the Lower East Side.

At this point the electoral college is indistinguishable from affirmative action for red states.

[dcm1602]

No. The cities narrative is bullshit.

1 person should = 1 vote. It doesn't matter if they live in the same city, neighborhood, block, or share one studio apartment on the Lower East Side.

At this point the electoral college is indistinguishable from affirmative action for red states.

I thought you guys were in favor of affirmative action ?

[dcm1602]

Meh I have no interest in arguing that nonsense

Making an argument for the popular vote is perfectly reasonable.

The biggest problem is most voters Democrat and Republican are ignorant freaking morons who have no understanding of anything which is why every year you get the same exact freaking excrement and corruption from both parties.

I'd rather have the people vote on highly educated intelligent representatives on a state by state basis then have them hold an election for the entirety electoral proceeds, as they would have the education, and time to thoroughly vet and understand each candidate as well as have an in depth understanding of the issues.

I realize it's not "democratic"  but the average American voter might as well be drooling and banging their ahead against the wall, the way our elections are held might is a process of extreme ignorance

[Badger]

I thought you guys were in favor of affirmative action ?

I'm in favor of things that benefit me.

[Tommy]

I'm in favor of things that benefit me.

Why do you think a Hillary presidency would benefit you more?

[Badger]

Why do you think a Hillary presidency would benefit you more?

Don't be obtuse.

[Tommy]

http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php

Columbia can invite Ahmadinejad to speak freely at their campus but an American with dissenting opinions can't speak without violent protests.

Okay.