Trump does not have the majority

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

Actually it's been the Republicans every time but 1824, that does not mean it was made to favour them, they just happen to be the ones that get more of the purslane vote at the moment (couldn't comment on in the 19th century).

The Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. The Founding Fathers did not believe political parties should be a thing, thinking them uncinstructive towards Republicanism. The first party didn't form until a year later in 1789, and didn't really form until a few years after that, it also sounds as if it was more of a lobbying group for the first couple of years.

The Democratic - Republican Party formed in the early 90s to combat the federalists, and within a decade had completely overwhelmed them. They then split in 1824 into the two parties we know today, one a Jacksonian party, the other anti Jacksonian.

TL;DR it wasn't written to favour any party because there were none and the founding fathers were anti party when writing the constitution.

Posted from TSR Mobile

And what worked so well then works well now?

Aw bless, leftie liberals. A majority in itself means nothing. Trump won fair and square, so quit your whining.

Yes, remember that the US is, as the name suggests, a union of states. Specifically of 50 federal states and a capital district, it is not one continuous state. On this basis consider the following:

Candidate A wins every state and DC bar one (it's arbitrary which but I ironically like to chose Wyoming, even though CA would be the better one) but in that final state candidate B wins by enough to take the popular vote. Who has the stronger mandate to represent the 50 states?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ok, calm down...

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

He said the majority in itself means nothing - nothing about specifics.

And in any case, the EU referendum was non-binding legally, so a 4% difference may not be viewed as significant enough (as per other countries on constitutional issues).

You mean like when the EU forced Denmark and Ireland to rerun their referendums and France and the Netherlands were ignored.

No, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

But it is nonetheless so ignorant. Denmark's vote was so marginal, than Denmark negotiated AGAIN before giving a new referendum. As in, they revised the terms.

Same with Ireland, which was reassured that it would not join the common defence policy.

Which referendums were ignored in France & the Netherlands? On the Treaty for the Constitution? Because it was NOT ratified.

I mean wow... Spewing lies AND thinking others will just believe them is ridiculous. Who would've thought a Brexit supporter would be so smart (sarcasm entirely intended).

What country is a continuous state?

And the person who won the most votes.

Also did you forget senate and congress in your scenario? Who would have a majority in those?

Pretty sure Iceland is, with a single central government which is only constrained and superceded by the constitution. Meanwhile in the US the federal government is entirely superceded by the stares unless the constitution states otherwise, as per the 10th Amendment, although there is plenty of unconstitutional federal government.

Posted from TSR Mobile

So what you are saying is the states have all the power except for exceptions? So what's the problem in your scenario?

Have you actually ever read the US Constituion, I would advise you do so before continuing, as well as getting a firmer understanding of legal superiority. The former does not take long, it's a rather short document, especially if read as amended, the latter shouldn't take long either, but that's harder to say.

Posted from TSR Mobile

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.

So what you are saying is the states have all the power except for exceptions? So what's the problem in your scenario?

He said the majority in itself means nothing - nothing about specifics.

And in any case, the EU referendum was non-binding legally, so a 4% difference may not be viewed as significant enough (as per other countries on constitutional issues).

The Lisbon treaty brought in exactly the same measures through the back door.

Twice the Irish people voted against the EU, and were bullied into rerunning their referendum.

I do know rather more about the EU than most people <30 in this country and believe it has contempt for democracy and is becoming the new Eastern Bloc. But anyway, lets not derail the thread.

Well it wasn't legally binding it was a majority under a vote where they promised that they would abide by the majority. If they ran an election on it the majority of parliamentary constituencies voted out. It would be very difficult for someone to try to block it.

I think an election is coming and another shock for the remain MPs but in my opinion it would be best if the high court over turned the recent ruling so she can trigger it without a vote. The last thing I want are the tories with a massive majority negotiating our exit. At least right now it's a tiny majority.

No one said they'd try to block it (no one of influence at least). You seem to forget that the difference was just 4% - by no means significant enough to allow Leave do whatever they want. Hence Parliament must be able to debate on proposed terms.

The Court can only view matters from a legal perspective - not political. That's why -among other things of course- Britain's judiciary is one of the most respected, influential around the world. I can't fathom how people want to reduce that and support idiotic leaflets saying judges are the enemies of the people. Truly incomprehensible.