What is to be expected from a woman who decided to procreate with Eric Trump? She's making an excellent point though how the US electoral college is anti-democratic, in more than one meaning. Remember how HRC got >3 miilion more american votes than Laura Dumpf's father-in-law?
It wasn't taught to me. I found it myself. Just like how my sister found her own compass. Just like how my mother and father both have their own beliefs. They don't care how, only that we each live the lives we want.
Interesting how the left has flipped about the Electoral Collage, during the campaign Trump complained about winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote. After which the press ridiculed him saying how "These are the rules of the game, if you don't like it don't play". The Electoral Collage is about making sure a few big population states don't control the outcome.
I'm from South-Africa so I'm also not sure what exactly is going on, but imma throw my best guess.
Red on the map is Trump supporters and blue the people who want him impeached. F
rom what I know, the blue areas are the places in the US of A with the highest population density.
So even tho most of the country (area size) supports Trump, most of the people in the country are against him.
Am I close??
2
deleted
· 4 years ago
Pretty close. The coloring is meant to insinuate that a majority of americans voted for Trump and thus are against the efforts to impeach him, when actually he was voted by a minority of voters, following rules literally based on 18/19th century socio-demographics, the electoral college (google it). Also republicans notoriously used gerrymandering (google it) to custom-cut voting districts to eliminate the vote of non-republican voters to the largest possible extent. That's what reps always do first when they win elections: mess with their opponents and steal democrat votes for the next elections, even before they start stealing money from poor people.
You could get high off your own breath, little sheep.
As an American I can tell @bolonyman that you're on the right track. It's largely the big cities that oppose Republicanism.
As for the details, the popular vote does not matter because everyone knows it doesn't matter. People who know their region is a hard red or hard blue area won't bother to vote, if the popular vote did matter you'd find a lot of Red in blue regions, and vice versa. But that's undesirable because POTUS is meant to be elected by the 50 states, not just the 5 most populous.
As for gerrymandering, it's a zero sum thing. Both sides do it, and most of the accusations presented by either side are invalid, as districts cannot be devided into neat little gridsquares without grouping up people who have entirely separate needs and effectively making a region unmanageable and ungovernable, so they gotta look more like splotches or trails than neat little squares.
▼
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
Yeah, you could tell long, complex stories based on nothing but assumptions and basically pretend it's the 18th century, or you could simply count votes. You choose the republican story, cause what else would you do? "Fuck our country, as long as our guy is in charge" - the GOP motto of at least the last 50 years.
You regularly express that you want us disarmed. To replace our systems with Euro systems. Seriously, in this very thread you're advocating against our Electoral System, which by extension is advocating for a tyranny of the majority, or at least plurality. Assuredly this is because you think the majority will always support your views.
▼
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
I let you know how you are wrong and how you are stupid and ignorant not to get it, which is totally not the same. Calling fair and representative elections "tyranny of the majority" says everything anyone needs to know about your idea of democracy.
No election is fair, but at least our current system is representative of the fifty states. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. That's exactly why the founders went so far to preclude it. You can't honestly be clueless as to how things go wrong when everything is decided by a simple majority.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
Well, you're clueless as to how things go wrong when some broke ass rednecks' vote counts twice.
Nobody's vote counts twice. You fear tyranny of the minority? Hold on to your rights, liberty, and representation with both hands. Guard them jealously and stand ready to rise up and keep what's yours.
That's a nice bunch of nice sounding bullshit that really didn't address anything. In a system where you would vote directly everyone's vote also only counts once, and on top of that everyone's vote counts for the same !
You say the electoral college is to prevent a few high population states to impose their will on all 50 states, yet you seem contempt with it resulting in a few low population battleground states.
You say one should protect their right to representation at all costs, so I'm assuming you're disgusted by the repeated attemps by the GOP at gerrymandering and removing people from the list of registered voters. And at the lack of action take to prevent foreign interference and attacks on the election ? As well of course you're in favor of making voting as easy as accessible as possible so that even people who are in a situation where they can't afford to take a day off work can also vote. Or do you ?
Both sides gerrymander, both piss me off, but it's zero sum.
Illegitimately removing voters is just as bad as illegitimately voting, so I wholly support verifying that people actually live where they are voting, with the exception of military personnel deployed or garrisoned out of their home state.
I wholly oppose foreign actors tampering with votes and contributing to campaigns, but I'm not going to stop them from supporting either candidate. Fabricating false intelligence to make either side look bad is also a no-go.
And if someone can't be bothered to at least mail in their vote, it's better that they don't vote at all. I'll support waiving stamps even, but they'll need to verify their residence, identity, and legal status all the same.
And I'll never support popular rule or anything that will give any sovereign state less or more of vote than any other. California has no dominion over Idaho, has no dominion over New York, has no dominion over Alaska.
Red on the map is Trump supporters and blue the people who want him impeached. F
rom what I know, the blue areas are the places in the US of A with the highest population density.
So even tho most of the country (area size) supports Trump, most of the people in the country are against him.
Am I close??
As an American I can tell @bolonyman that you're on the right track. It's largely the big cities that oppose Republicanism.
As for the details, the popular vote does not matter because everyone knows it doesn't matter. People who know their region is a hard red or hard blue area won't bother to vote, if the popular vote did matter you'd find a lot of Red in blue regions, and vice versa. But that's undesirable because POTUS is meant to be elected by the 50 states, not just the 5 most populous.
As for gerrymandering, it's a zero sum thing. Both sides do it, and most of the accusations presented by either side are invalid, as districts cannot be devided into neat little gridsquares without grouping up people who have entirely separate needs and effectively making a region unmanageable and ungovernable, so they gotta look more like splotches or trails than neat little squares.
You say the electoral college is to prevent a few high population states to impose their will on all 50 states, yet you seem contempt with it resulting in a few low population battleground states.
You say one should protect their right to representation at all costs, so I'm assuming you're disgusted by the repeated attemps by the GOP at gerrymandering and removing people from the list of registered voters. And at the lack of action take to prevent foreign interference and attacks on the election ? As well of course you're in favor of making voting as easy as accessible as possible so that even people who are in a situation where they can't afford to take a day off work can also vote. Or do you ?
Illegitimately removing voters is just as bad as illegitimately voting, so I wholly support verifying that people actually live where they are voting, with the exception of military personnel deployed or garrisoned out of their home state.
I wholly oppose foreign actors tampering with votes and contributing to campaigns, but I'm not going to stop them from supporting either candidate. Fabricating false intelligence to make either side look bad is also a no-go.
And if someone can't be bothered to at least mail in their vote, it's better that they don't vote at all. I'll support waiving stamps even, but they'll need to verify their residence, identity, and legal status all the same.
And I'll never support popular rule or anything that will give any sovereign state less or more of vote than any other. California has no dominion over Idaho, has no dominion over New York, has no dominion over Alaska.