Ken Owsy wrote:True. Together with Obama and other "democratic angels", she encourage people to go out, kill each other and humiliate. What a womderful world of Democracy!
John Cate, U.S. citizen my whole life. Lived here for 41 of my 43 years
(as of 2016). He also posted....
Winning a handful of high-population states by huge margins and losing
almost everywhere else does not a President make. And that’s the way it
was intended. The states matter in the United States. The United States
of America is not a democracy, never has been, and doesn’t claim to be
one, either. The United States is a federal republic, not a unitary
state. As such, the individual states are granted a say-so in how the
head of state is chosen. The national popular vote plays no Constitutional
role in how the President is elected. In fact, states aren’t even required
to have a popular vote. If a state so chose, its legislature could choose
which-ever candidate it wanted and appoint the electors for that person —
and some states actually did this in the 19th century.
- big-place.JPG (38.07 KiB) Viewed 2669 times
This article of mine explains the rationale behind the system at length:
John Cate's answer to Why didn't the US abolish the electoral college
after Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election? Donald Trump just
won 30 states to Hillary Clinton’s 20. In the way this country was
conceived, this matters. Clinton doesn’t get to be President just
because she got everyone (exaggerating only a little) in California
and New York to vote for her. If we were a unitary democracy, then
yes, that would be enough for her to become President. But we’re not.
We have a federal system, and if you want to lead it, you have to appeal
to more than just one segment of the population — or a handful of states
with a high population.
Hillary knows that. That’s why she’s raising a stink about it. She lost
fair and square.
- update.JPG (131.08 KiB) Viewed 2669 times