Donald Trump becomes president today Watch

Laeliakiwi
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#141
Report 1 year ago
#141
(Original post by Len Goodman)
Yes, it's just a case of liberals attention seeking, as per usual.
I was offered a flyer for a Trump protest today, why in England? What's the bloody point? Dear God, the world is filled with idiocy.
0
quote
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#142
Report 1 year ago
#142
(Original post by anarchism101)
I'm unaware of any other democracy operating under a presidential system which doesn't directly elect its president by popular vote (though some require a majority through a runoff), apart from the USA.
South Africa
0
quote
reply
Laeliakiwi
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#143
Report 1 year ago
#143
:centipe:PEOPLE ARE SO SMART!:bee2:






0
quote
reply
Ladbants
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#144
Report 1 year ago
#144
So happy for him. Make America Great Again!
1
quote
reply
Luke7456
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#145
Report 1 year ago
#145
I'm glad trump won congratulations to trump. He will make a great president I watched him be sworn in a beautiful moment.
1
quote
reply
Shadrack97
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#146
Report 1 year ago
#146
(Original post by Len Goodman)
And it's official - President Trump. Repeat after me, liberals - PRESIDENT TRUMP.
"liberals"
I swear if you trump supporters had half a brain you'd realize, the word "liberal" isn't an offense as you think it is.
The people didn't vote him in, Hillary Clinton had the popular vote. Go home
0
quote
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#147
Report 1 year ago
#147
(Original post by clarkey500)
As I'm not American (in either sense of the word), I'm not as qualified to talk fully about the old version used in their early years.
It's not overly complicated - I'm sure you can imagine a process for choosing the president which would patently not be democratic, and in which it would as such be inaccurate to describe the president as "chosen by the people", no?

I did not mean parliamentary or presidential system (that is obvious); I meant voting system. For example, the new system, that will be used in the UK in the next election, is that each constituency is by population; the people vote and for each constituency gets a seat in parliament. It is therefore possible that the party which gets the most number of seats will not win - this is what is similar in both systems.

It is possible in the UK albeit for a Prime Minister.
Yes, and if that happened in the UK it would be just as inaccurate to describe the PM as "chosen by the people". But that doesn't happen as much anyway in the UK because people know that in parliamentary systems governments can chop and change.
0
quote
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#148
Report 1 year ago
#148
(Original post by astutehirstute)
Pointless post.

It is the American system, end of. Both sides work within it.
Which takes nothing away from my point that it is inaccurate to claim that "the people chose Trump" (or something similar). That both parties (neither of which I identify with) for the most part accept that the electoral system sometimes delivers such results doesn't change that.
0
quote
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#149
Report 1 year ago
#149
(Original post by nulli tertius)
South Africa
Fair point, though the South African mixed system in many ways resembles more of a parliamentary system than a US-style presidential system, as the president is chosen by, and answerable to, parliament. Though we won't really see how different it is from a full parliamentary system until the ANC don't just comfortably win a majority every election.
0
quote
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#150
Report 1 year ago
#150
(Original post by anarchism101)
Which takes nothing away from my point that it is inaccurate to claim that "the people chose Trump" (or something similar). That both parties (neither of which I identify with) for the most part accept that the electoral system sometimes delivers such results doesn't change that.
But then when can you say that?

Even if he had got more votes than Hillary, he may still have received fewer than 50% of the votes overall - would this be sufficient to say "the people chose him"? Even if he won over 60% of the national vote and turnout was 80%, that's still not a majority of the (of voting age) population - could you say it then?
0
quote
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#151
Report 1 year ago
#151
(Original post by Palmyra)
But then when can you say that?

Even if he had got more votes than Hillary, he may still have received fewer than 50% of the votes overall - would this be sufficient to say "the people chose him"? Even if he won over 60% of the national vote and turnout was 80%, that's still not a majority of the (of voting age) population - could you say it then?
Well, you could make that argument, but I'd say if he'd at least got a plurality, there'd be at least some grounds for saying that "the people" chose him - he'd be the candidate which it would be most justified to say that about. As it is though, he's not.
0
quote
reply
Pikachū
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#152
Report 1 year ago
#152
(Original post by anarchism101)
Well, you could make that argument, but I'd say if he'd at least got a plurality, there'd be at least some grounds for saying that "the people" chose him - he'd be the candidate which it would be most justified to say that about. As it is though, he's not.
"the people" - more like Cali and NY chose.
0
quote
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#153
Report 1 year ago
#153
(Original post by Pikachū)
"the people" - more like Cali and NY chose.
Not sure what point you're trying to make here?
0
quote
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#154
Report 1 year ago
#154
(Original post by anarchism101)
Well, you could make that argument, but I'd say if he'd at least got a plurality, there'd be at least some grounds for saying that "the people" chose him - he'd be the candidate which it would be most justified to say that about. As it is though, he's not.
A plurality is not really much less arbitrary a ground to claim "the people chose him" than to say it under the current system.

Your point seems pretty pedantic and heavily undermined by the fact that we can rarely actually say "the people chose" any candidate in any democratic election, because then it just turns on definitions.
0
quote
reply
Pikachū
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#155
Report 1 year ago
#155
(Original post by anarchism101)
Not sure what point you're trying to make here?
That California has the highest population by far and if it was popular vote only they'd be the decidor of every election.
0
quote
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#156
Report 1 year ago
#156
(Original post by Palmyra)
A plurality is not really much less arbitrary a ground to claim "the people chose him" than to say it under the current system.

Your point seems pretty pedantic and heavily undermined by the fact that we can rarely actually say "the people chose" any candidate in any democratic election, because then it just turns on definitions.
The difference is that in a plurality there'd at least be no other candidate who could claim greater popularity. Yes, you could make the argument that "the people" didn't actually choose anyone in particular, but you couldn't claim that they did in fact choose some other individual.

I accept it's a bit pedantic, and I'm not trying to argue that the election is illegitimate or anything like that. I just find it rather absurd arguing that a candidate who received fewer votes than an other has some sort of great popular mandate. having something other than a simple popular vote to choose officeholders, but doing so means accepting that the legitimacy of those officeholders, should they fail to win the popular vote, rests on something other than mere popularity.
0
quote
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#157
Report 1 year ago
#157
(Original post by Len Goodman)
Yes, it's just a case of liberals attention seeking, as per usual.
Can you please call me an anarchist, socialist or communist or something

I'm not a flipping liberal and I as such I am not ideologically obliged to accept/respect your quasi fascist *******s. :huff:
0
quote
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#158
Report 1 year ago
#158
(Original post by Pikachū)
That California has the highest population by far and if it was popular vote only they'd be the decidor of every election.
Unlikely as they're only 12% of the population. There are more over-65s in the US than Californians. Bush lost California in 2004 but still won a majority of the popular vote.
0
quote
reply
jape
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#159
Report 1 year ago
#159
(Original post by Laeliakiwi)
LIL' SAM IS BEING SALTY...:auto:

I usually like Sam, but he's being daft about the unmitigated horror of the Trump Presidency.
1
quote
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#160
Report 1 year ago
#160
(Original post by anarchism101)
The difference is that in a plurality there'd at least be no other candidate who could claim greater popularity. Yes, you could make the argument that "the people" didn't actually choose anyone in particular, but you couldn't claim that they did in fact choose some other individual.
It's a fair point, but it's not as though the electoral college system is uniquely flawed in that manner. The FPTP system in the UK has produced Prime Ministers who we would not doubt were "chosen by the people" (i.e. Churchill in 1951 or Wilson in 1974) yet lost the popular vote.

Maybe on one (convincing) construction of "the people" it's not technically accurate, and I think both the EV and FPTP systems are undemocratic and outdated, but I don't really see the point in trying the undermine the result in a relatively arbitrary manner - especially since had Hillary won in such a manner we would probably be seeing the same points being raised - but in the opposite direction.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have any savings?

Yes (115)
72.78%
No (43)
27.22%

Watched Threads

View All