Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Stop saying trump is illegitimate becuase he lost the popular vote Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    It doesn't matter, the fact that he lost the popular vote and yet gets elected shows a serious flaw in the Electoral College that needs to be fixed. In no event should the loser of a vote in terms of numbers, be the one that wins. It's a massive middle finger up to everyone by rejecting the majority of vote(r)s (who should under normal circumstances win).

    I wouldn't say 'illegitimate' though, just a flawed system which, whilst was set up to try and make voting more fair, has led to this situation 4 times now.
    Yeah but not like the same situation can't happen in the UK as well due to the system we use.

    (Original post by Palmyra)
    Do you feel the same way about the FPTP system used in our own general elections and which produced analogous results on three distinct occasions in the 20th century?
    Yeah this.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    Would it pass as a constitutional amendment? definitely not. Many people are just bitter becuase it's trump, let's be honest if Obama won without the popular vote it'd be a different story
    Yeah that's true, they'd probably not even get 2/3 in Congress, let alone 75% of states to ratify it. And yeah, I also think your second point is true, but again they have a right to protest (even if there aren't grounds to protest his legitimacy, they can try to at least make a political point if they wish to show dissent for his policies, for what little it will achieve).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SonoLuma)
    The U.S has a "first past the post" voting system.

    I cannot believe that people dont understand this.... still...

    Trump was first past the post, and so he won.
    Just add on that the US election is made up of 50 first past the post elections (not one big FPTP, otherwise he would've lost) and he won the most of them, then you'd be accurate still agree tho.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    California's margin of victory was 4 million which is how and why trump lost the popular vote, so you talk about voting equality yet support California over turning the election and having a bigger say? The EC limits its influence so other states get their fair share, I understand you appreciate that but you can't always have both, I think with deeper analysis this result shows just how divided America is, hence its unusual outcome. Democracy means different things to different people, you might be under the illusion that direct democracy is the best but look at Scotland in the EU referendum, imagine the control UKIP would have, if it were direct in America you wouldn't even have a federal government, you'd have independent states.
    I think you're really taking everything I'm saying massively out of context here and inferring things I have not said. The only thing, the main thing, I am saying is that if a system allows a result whereby out of 2 people, the one who did not get the most individual votes wins, it is a flawed system and deserves criticism' and in an ideal world every individual vote should be equal.

    I'm not quite sure why you're trying to drag me into a debate over independent states, UKIP, Brexit and California as I have expressed no views on that matter. I can address two of them; only if UKIP acquired a majority somewhere and didn't win the seat would I have a problem with the system (I don't like the FPTP system but that's another issue); since they didn't, I don't. And the UK voted collectively as a nation for Brexit and in terms of individual voters, the majority won, so I have no issue with voting there.

    I care little to discuss independent states nor individual states.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Yeah that's true, they'd probably not even get 2/3 in Congress, let alone 75% of states to ratify it. And yeah, I also think your second point is true, but again they have a right to protest (even if there aren't grounds to protest his legitimacy, they can try to at least make a political point if they wish to show dissent for his policies, for what little it will achieve).
    Glad you're open to both views but the issue is, they're not even protesting his policies… that's what annoys me most. None of his policies discrimate anyone unless you're an illegal immigrant or similar justification along those lines so I don't see why women feel the need to march against him when he as president doesn't have any policies against them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Nobody seems to be raising the point they're only complaint AFTER the results. If Killary had lost the popular but won the electoral, I'm sure there wouldn't be this silly campaigning outside of the a White House, show some respect for your new leader, he's achieved more than you will with your silly gender studies degree... If people seriously saw a fault in this system, they would have been angry before the voting, it's just because it didn't go their way that they are getting angry.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    California's margin of victory was 4 million which is how and why trump lost the popular vote, so you talk about voting equality yet support California over turning the election and having a bigger say?
    California only has around 12% of the population, so I don't see the problem.

    It's such a stupid argument anyway, which part of the principle 'one person = one vote' do you object to? We don't give people living in London fewer voting rights because it is a large population centre, and this is no different.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    Just add on that the US election is made up of 50 first past the post elections (not one big FPTP, otherwise he would've lost) and he won the most of them, then you'd be accurate still agree tho.
    No, the way I referred to it is correct. As that is its name.

    Dont bother replying, I wont see it.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I swear you only hear people really genuinely piping up about the electoral college when their side loses. I distinctly remember many people on hillarys side being really hyped about Florida because if they won florida it would mean it pretty much blocked Trump from being elected irrespective of how he did in other states due to the amount of electoral college votes Florida brings.

    Hillary lost. Trump won. In american politics he is the legitimate winner. Both sides knew how to play the political game vis a vis the electoral college voting system, and ultimately hillary didnt win.

    The reason Hillary won the popular vote is due to California, which is not representative of the US as a whole. Similarly, London isnt representative of the UK or we'd end up with a Labour PM when the rest of the country is evidently more conservative.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SonoLuma)
    The U.S has a "first past the post" voting system.
    FPTP in terms of (the artificially created) "electoral college" votes, not actual (raw) votes...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    I think you're really taking everything I'm saying massively out of context here and inferring things I have not said. The only thing, the main thing, I am saying is that if a system allows a result whereby out of 2 people, the one who did not get the most individual votes wins, it is a flawed system and deserves criticism' and in an ideal world every individual vote should be equal.

    I'm not quite sure why you're trying to drag me into a debate over independent states, UKIP, Brexit and California as I have expressed no views on that matter. I can address two of them; only if UKIP acquired a majority somewhere and didn't win the seat would I have a problem with the system (I don't like the FPTP system but that's another issue); since they didn't, I don't. And the UK voted collectively as a nation for Brexit and in terms of individual voters, the majority won, so I have no issue with voting there.

    I care little to discuss independent states nor individual states.
    Sorry, I guess I did apply what you said to a different context. I was simply giving examples as to why it shouldn't be a system of direct democracy hence why people don't and shouldn't have an equal vote. When I mention brexit don't think of the EU just think of it in terms of the referendum for an example of direct democracy where votes are equal, you get a country like Scotland voting to remain and then England voting to leave and cancelling out its say, now on this single issue they agreed to vote collectively and still feel disconnected/unrepresented (even though their votes were equal) so if it were on a regular basis like general elections you can imagine they would be furious and most likely become independent, apply this an American pres. election and you'd destroy any desire of federalism/unified states.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImASnek)
    Both sides knew how to play the political game vis a vis the electoral college voting system, and ultimately hillary didnt win.
    Very true.

    The reason Hillary won the popular vote is due to California
    No, Hillary won the popular vote because more American voters in total voted for her than they did Trump.

    which is not representative of the US as a whole.
    So what you are telling me is, if a majority of voters vote for candidate X, this is not necessarily representative of the country as a whole? Are you even reading what you are writing?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That'sGreat)
    Nobody seems to be raising the point they're only complaint AFTER the results. If Killary had lost the popular but won the electoral, I'm sure there wouldn't be this silly campaigning outside of the a White House, show some respect for your new leader, he's achieved more than you will with your silly gender studies degree... If people seriously saw a fault in this system, they would have been angry before the voting, it's just because it didn't go their way that they are getting angry.
    Sanity reigns.

    As I just said in my post, both sides knew the rules and how to play the electoral college system to their gain. Hillary supporters were happy that if Hillary won Florida irrespective of how trump did in other states pretty much couldnt win due to the number of votes Florida brings - and they didnt see a problem with it then..?

    You cant go retroactively changing the rules of the game once its been played.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    California only has around 12% of the population, so I don't see the problem.

    It's such a stupid argument anyway, which part of the principle 'one person = one vote' do you object to? We don't give people living in London fewer voting rights because it is a large population centre, and this is no different.
    every constituency doesn't have the same population so it's not really one person = one vote here either
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SonoLuma)
    No, the way I referred to it is correct. As that is its name.

    Dont bother replying, I wont see it.
    Lol love it when people think they're right but a simple google search would say otherwise ^^ its 50 FPTP elections each worth certain points. A shame you won't see it, you could've learnt something.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    Very true.


    No, Hillary won the popular vote because more American voters in total voted for her than they did Trump.


    So what you are telling me is, if a majority of voters vote for candidate X, this is not necessarily representative of the country as a whole? Are you even reading what you are writing?
    ooooooo salty - MAGA
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pikachū)
    every constituency doesn't have the same population so it's not really one person = one vote here either
    relevance? the argument was being made in support of the US system, not the UK system (which I also oppose).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    California only has around 12% of the population, so I don't see the problem.

    It's such a stupid argument anyway, which part of the principle 'one person = one vote' do you object to? We don't give people living in London fewer voting rights because it is a large population centre, and this is no different.
    Actually we do, we limit their votes by putting them in boundaries… also 'one person = one vote' kind of murdered the Labour Party. You have to understand the USA is all about federalism, that's what this election is about, who is the head of state for the federal coalition of the 50 states.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    No, Hillary won the popular vote because more American voters in total voted for her than they did Trump.
    No… Hilary won because of the huge victory margin and unpopularity of trump in California… take California out of play and trump has won the EC and won the popular vote by 2 million +
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    You have to understand the USA is all about federalism, that's what this election is about, who is the head of state for the federal coalition of the 50 states.
    This is a much better argument, stop pretending the U.S. is a democracy and acknowledge that it is a federal republic. However, I don't think the argument underlying this arrangement would have much force today (unless you want to effectively equate the U.S. to Syria or Lebanon which reaches a partially undemocratic balance between representation and democracy - in the latter's case representation of ethnic/religious minorities, and in the former's case representation of those outside of California).
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.