US Politics thread

[AP0CALYPS3]

My point is that you either should have a centralized government that governs all of the US, or have it split enough to actually matter. Right now it is both at the same time, which just does not make any sense.

But why

[Edwin]

I do hope this post doesn't get deleted like every single post containing this video has in the past:

Spoiler

[close]

I'm sure all you political scientists will enjoy it 

[AP0CALYPS3]

honest all the US needs to do is get itself one of the most highest educated populations on the world

[csderp]

Until we enact strict voter ID laws at the federal level, America can never go on popular vote. Who knows how many illegals voted this time around, but the number that's being thrown around is 3 million. 3 million, across every state that doesn't have voter ID laws, is enough to make "someone" win the popular vote without winning the EC (most solid blue states are states without voter ID, many of which contain high amounts of illegal immigrants).

Even with that, I would still want to keep the electoral college simply due to the fact that mob rule is great until you're no longer part of the mob. We would have had 4 straight Dem presidencies if it weren't for the EC keeping the executive branch in flux.

The founding fathers were geniuses to be honest.

[AP0CALYPS3]

Honestly for the most part, the EC has served us well thus far. It's only mistake was Bush, and it just saved us from Hillary.

Why fix what ain't broken?

[BabyJesus]

Most of the time the winner of the electoral college also wins the popular vote. There have only been 4 times in history where the winner lost the popular vote

[Olafson]

Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

[AP0CALYPS3]

Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

It's not a 7% failure rate.

You are defining the game as a direct democracy, its not.

You don't "lose" when you win the presidency

Its about who the states are voting for. The States chose trump. Simple as that.

[Olafson]

Apoc has a 100% failure rate in duel tournaments.

Not sure about Apoc, but I do for sure.

Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

It's not a 7% failure rate.

You are defining the game as a direct democracy, its not.

You don't "lose" when you win the presidency

Its about who the states are voting for. The States chose trump. Simple as that.

I know it is not. It is not a direct failure obviously. But they get fewer votes yet still win. Something is wrong there. It has happened 4 times in the history of the US, which makes for a 7% failure rate.

[AP0CALYPS3]

Apoc has a 100% failure rate in duel tournaments.

Tbh I really don't care much for all your instigation, and I don't report you for it. But when you bring it here, I will report you for it.

[AP0CALYPS3]

Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

It's not a 7% failure rate.

You are defining the game as a direct democracy, its not.

You don't "lose" when you win the presidency

Its about who the states are voting for. The States chose trump. Simple as that.

I know it is not. It is not a direct failure obviously. But they get fewer votes yet still win. Something is wrong there. It has happened 4 times in the history of the US, which makes for a 7% failure rate.

I understand what you mean, but a failure rate implies it's doing something it was not designed to do. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Besides, with the EU having so many non-elected officials I think the US having a small "failure rate" when the popular vote gets REALLY close is excusable in the western world.

[Olafson]

Yes, most of the time. But not all the time.

There is a 7% failure rate. Meaning that the person that got fewer votes actually ends up being elected. The game is being won by the looser. It makes no sense.

It's not a 7% failure rate.

You are defining the game as a direct democracy, its not.

You don't "lose" when you win the presidency

Its about who the states are voting for. The States chose trump. Simple as that.

I know it is not. It is not a direct failure obviously. But they get fewer votes yet still win. Something is wrong there. It has happened 4 times in the history of the US, which makes for a 7% failure rate.

I understand what you mean, but a failure rate implies it's doing something it was not designed to do. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Besides, with the EU having so many non-elected officials I think the US having a small "failure rate" when the popular vote gets REALLY close is excusable in the western world.

Fair point, can't say anything against that.

[csderp]

I've been constantly reminded of this failure rate meme ever since those CGP grey videos on the EC became relevant again. Thank you for taking the wheel olaf-kun :3~~

[Duuring]

How does it 'work'? Does it elect the person most Americans want? No. Does it elect the person who wins a majority of the states? No. Does it force candidates to give attention to not just the great cities but to the entire country? No. Hell, no. The USA elects every single position in the legislative, executive or juridicary branches on every level of government by majority vote, except the presidency - then, suddenly, argueing that the most important position should also be elected by the majority becomes ridicious.

Please, enlighten me on how the Electoral College 'works', apart from that it happened to elect your favorite candidate this time.

[Olafson]

Well it works as it is intended to.
I am not saying that it makes sense. I think it should do a better job at representing the people.