The Student Room Group

Trump does not have the majority

Scroll to see replies

Original post by yudothis


Though I must be cheeky and say the Germans thought they could control Hitler when they made him Chancellor in 1933 :wink:


True but the political establishment which the Trump supporters opposed is as much Republican as Democrat.

Trump's economic policies might make America poorer than Clinton's, but might give a bigger share of that smaller cake to those who backed Trump.

America's infrastructure is poorer than that of most industrialised countries.

Just think on this. America has a lot of elections and a low average turnout, but think of any other western countries where to queue for an hour to vote is normal and a 2-3 hour queue is not regarded as exceptional.
Original post by A Mysterious Lord
It was the same with Bush/Kerry in 2004.

Unfortunately, that's the system.


Bush v Gore 2000

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Bush v Gore 2000

Posted from TSR Mobile


Ahh yes, I stand corrected.
Reply 23
Original post by notmypresident
He won bigly.


*big league

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 24
neither does the UK government post-2015
both the UK and the US have very clearly flawed methods for selecting the executive
the US needs AV and to scrap the electoral college, and the UK needs PR
is anybody influential going to recognise this fact? no - there's a huge divergence between the politicians and the political academics.
Original post by yudothis
Clinton is beating him by 166k voters in the popular vote.

On top of that there are over 6m votes going to the independent. 3 times as many as 2012 and 6 times as many as in 2004.

Sad state of affairs.


The USA is a collection of states (clue's in the name really).
If there's a particularly high turnout in one area, that shouldn't make another area underrepresented, which is why they have the electoral college system.
Reply 27
Original post by yudothis
Clinton is beating him by 166k voters in the popular vote.

On top of that there are over 6m votes going to the independent. 3 times as many as 2012 and 6 times as many as in 2004.

Sad state of affairs.

Original post by anosmianAcrimony
[video="youtube;zcZTTB10_Vo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcZTTB10_Vo[/video]



Currently many people don't bother voting when they live in a safe state for either party (Democrats in Alabama or Republicans in California for instance). You cannot extrapolate and say that Hillary would have won if there had been direct suffrage, it would be a completely different election.
Original post by yudothis
Clinton is beating him by 166k voters in the popular vote.

On top of that there are over 6m votes going to the independent. 3 times as many as 2012 and 6 times as many as in 2004.

Sad state of affairs.

Not all
Original post by yudothis
Clinton is beating him by 166k voters in the popular vote.

On top of that there are over 6m votes going to the independent. 3 times as many as 2012 and 6 times as many as in 2004.

Sad state of affairs.


Like the British system is so much more accurate?

It is very common that governments and presidents are elected by minorities, in any system.
Eg. 55% goes voting, party X wins by getting 33%, party Y has 23, other parties the rest- a little bit more than 18% of support for the winning party, AKA elections in many European countries.
Current president of Poland was supported by 28% of society for example.
(edited 7 years ago)
Aw bless, leftie liberals. A majority in itself means nothing. Trump won fair and square, so quit your whining.
Reply 31
Original post by #ChaosKass
Aw bless, leftie liberals. A majority in itself means nothing. Trump won fair and square, so quit your whining.


So the Brexit referendum means nothing then? :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by _Fergo
So the Brexit referendum means nothing then? :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile


Different rules, last I checked the EU referendum didn't work in a similar way to the electoral college with remain winning in it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 33
Original post by james813
The USA is a collection of states (clue's in the name really).
If there's a particularly high turnout in one area, that shouldn't make another area underrepresented, which is why they have the electoral college system.


Or it is to rig it in favor of a certain party?
Original post by yudothis
Or it is to rig it in favor of a certain party?


Is that the Federalist Party or the Whig party?
Reply 35
Original post by nulli tertius
Is that the Federalist Party or the Whig party?


Well if it were one of those, looks like it didn't work out so well for either.
Original post by yudothis
Or it is to rig it in favor of a certain party?


no
Reply 37
Original post by james813
no


Yes
Original post by yudothis
Yes


Which party is it rigged in favour of?? The electoral college seats are adjusted based on the population of each state.
Reply 39
Original post by james813
Which party is it rigged in favour of?? The electoral college seats are adjusted based on the population of each state.


Yes, which means many millions of votes are essentially lost. And twice in the last 5 elections the GOP has benefited.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending