And now for something completely different...

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Exactly. In the system you use, it's not "the people" who decide your president; it's the politicians who decide on their voters.

No, in our system the person who won the the overwhelming majority of diverse regions won the presidency. Does not seem inherently unfair at all.

Originally posted by quackquack
No, in our system the person who won the the overwhelming majority of diverse regions won the presidency. Does not seem inherently unfair at all.

Yeah, not unfair at all to discount, discourage or devalue someone's vote because of where they live.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yeah, not unfair at all to discount, discourage or devalue someone's vote because of where they live.

Our system forces candidates to appeal to the majority of people in broad geographical areas. Although I like the expression, no ones votes is discounted, discouraged or devalued.

Originally posted by Suzianne
There are two kinds of people who should watch this YouTube clip. Those who are deeply disturbed by what Donald Trump is doing to America, and those who still support Donald Trump despite his abject failure as President of our United States.

Here is your dose of Truth and Reason. No need to thank me for bringing it to you.

Here is Bernie Sanders' 19 ...[text shortened]... In a perfect world, this man would be our President right now.

[youtube]AmR6XYVEKWI[/youtube]

If only that man had been the dem's nominee. We would live in a different world right now.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The only thing that is relevant is that Trump won in the system we use. He had the majority of votes in about 70% of geographic regions. If we used a different system (which we don't) he likely could have received more votes in areas he did not carry. But since that is useless he did not waste time in areas he did not need. If Clinton, followed that strategy perhaps she would have won. But, of course she did not.

Originally posted by quackquack
The people would not pick the president in your perfect world?

In a perfect world, the Republicans would not get away with causing 7 million minority voters to be removed from the voter rolls simply because they were likely to vote Democrat.

Yes, in a perfect world, the people would ACTUALLY get to elect the President, instead of what happened Nov. 8th.

Originally posted by quackquack
That's not the system we use and even if it were we would not have Bernie Sanders as president. Trump won his primary and then he won the election. Other than to satisfy you, why again does Trump need to get the majority of votes?

In the system we DO use, the purpose of the Electoral College is to keep demagogues who manage to fool Americans into supporting him out of the White House. Epic Fail.

Originally posted by quackquack
Our system forces candidates to appeal to the majority of people in broad geographical areas. Although I like the expression, no ones votes is discounted, discouraged or devalued.

Tell that to the 7 million minority voters across the country who were told that they could only vote a "provisional ballot" that they knew damn well would not be counted.

Originally posted by Ashiitaka
If only that man had been the dem's nominee. We would live in a different world right now.

I said in a perfect world. In that perfect world, he would have won the Democratic nomination.

And yes, we might be on the track back now, instead of having a front-row seat to the destruction of America, led by the un-elected Steve Bannon.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I dispute the legality of denying 7 million minority Americans their Constitutionally-protected right to vote, based on nothing more than their last names.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

If popularity makes someone right, then based on the number of thumbs down you get, you'd be the dumbest person who posts on this site.