Hillary graciously absolving herself of any responsibility

**Husar** · 09-14-2017, 01:06

The really important point is that Clinton was responsible for Sanders not winning the elections anyway.

Certainly she was a better candidate than Trump, but not quite a good candidate IMO. When real change wasn't on the menu, people chose fake change instead.

**Fragony** · 09-14-2017, 05:45

Just look at her eyes amd you know why she lost, she's a psychopath. I reckon she's everything Americans hate about politicians.

No it's not because you are a woman dear Hillary, would you like yourself?

**Gilrandir** · 09-14-2017, 10:46

Originally Posted by Husar

Certainly she was a better candidate than Trump, but not quite a good candidate IMO. When real change wasn't on the menu, people chose fake change instead.

... due to the inadequate electoral system. More people voted for her.

**Husar** · 09-14-2017, 10:52

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

... due to the inadequate electoral system. More people voted for her.

That's completely irrelevant, the people who decided the election didn't chose her. While I agree that the rules are bad, they were the rules of the game in 2016 and she failed to win according to those rules. That's the reason she's not in the White House now. If so many people in the US dislike the rules, they should start a movement to have them changed instead of only complaining when they don't work for them.

**Gilrandir** · 09-16-2017, 04:56

Originally Posted by Husar

That's completely irrelevant, the people who decided the election didn't chose her.

People who decided the election (we both mean electoral college, right?) didn't CHOOSE ANYONE. According to the rules of the game they performed their duty - disregarded the will of the people who voted for Clinton in their states. And those people were more numerous in the whole country.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 09-16-2017, 05:46

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

People who decided the election (we both mean electoral college, right?) didn't CHOOSE ANYONE. According to the rules of the game they performed their duty - disregarded the will of the people who voted for Clinton in their states. And those people were more numerous in the whole country.

We have never had a direct democracy. For the most part, our founders did not want such as it engenders demagoguery and even more pandering to the public than already occurs. With two exceptions, the EC is first past the post by state.

It really was supposed to be a collection of states working together on key issues and not one collective.

**Gilrandir** · 09-16-2017, 13:10

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

We have never had a direct democracy. For the most part, our founders did not want such as it engenders demagoguery and even more pandering to the public than already occurs. With two exceptions, the EC is first past the post by state.

It really was supposed to be a collection of states working together on key issues and not one collective.

Don't you think that in view of the nation having evolved into what it is now the laws should try to keep pace with the reality?

**Husar** · 09-16-2017, 13:57

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

People who decided the election (we both mean electoral college, right?) didn't CHOOSE ANYONE. According to the rules of the game they performed their duty - disregarded the will of the people who voted for Clinton in their states. And those people were more numerous in the whole country.

No, I meant the voters in those states like Michigan, who gave Trump the electoral college votes that made him win.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

We have never had a direct democracy. For the most part, our founders did not want such as it engenders demagoguery and even more pandering to the public than already occurs. With two exceptions, the EC is first past the post by state.

It really was supposed to be a collection of states working together on key issues and not one collective.

Yeah, it's more like a direct oligarchy either way, amirite? FPTP is a terrible system anyway, a lot of votes are just retroactively nullified when they might deserve at least a minority representation. And that's just the beginning of the complicated topic of how every citizen of the US somehow has a different weight applied to their political vote despite all the blabla of "we're all equals".
Perhaps rich Germans are more influential in everyday political life, but I do know that when it comes to elections, my vote is worth just as much as theirs or that of a Bavarian. And I will get some political representation even if the party of my choice doesn't win, perhaps even government representation instead of just opposition.

I don't hate your founding fathers, but the system they designed doesn't seem to work as intended or just doesn't work well anymore despite perhaps the best intentions.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 09-18-2017, 01:18

However, a full and unrestrained democracy would place all of the political power in about 20 metro areas....

Given the voting pattern of those 20 metro areas, we would be a full socialist democracy in 15 years. That may well appeal to you and Gil, but not to me.

**Sir Moody** · 09-18-2017, 09:19

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't hate your founding fathers, but the system they designed doesn't seem to work as intended or just doesn't work well anymore despite perhaps the best intentions.

Arguably the system they designed is still doing what it was meant to do - FPTP was designed to more or less maintain a stable line of succession since it sidelines smaller groups in favour of the status quo (its either A or B and C, D and E need not apply).