Its a well-documented historical fact that Clinton got more votes than Trump, but the US isn’t a democracy. Trump declared himself the winner and nobody did anything to stop him
it’s not because trump declared himself the winner. it’s because in the US, empty lands can have more votes than people. it’s called electoral college but that’s what it really is. essentially rocks and dirt voting.
When I learned about the electoral college in a US school, I was told by my teacher that it exists so the delegates can override the people’s vote in an event where they voted for someone clearly terrible (eg a clown or a fascist)
Again, Trump lost the popular vote, and the US just let him claim that he won, when they should have stopped it.
that’s the excuse. the real reason is to give republicans/conservatives more voting power, and for a long time now, any chance of winning elections really.
you know how they cry about DEI because they think it gives minorities undue positions? the electoral college is that kind of DEI for conservatives. otherwise the country wouldn’t be this backwards so consistently all the time.
voter suppression and gerrymandering helps too of course. basically the less democratic the voting process the better chances they have.
He didn’t declare himself the winner. The voting system is a bit more complex and while it’s possible to completely override the election results through the electoral college, usually what happens is that the blue candidate gets a lot more votes in populous states with big cities (California, NY, etc), but as soon as you’re one vote ahead in a state, the extra million or 2 don’t matter.
Something that’s been proposed to combat this without moving to an entirely new model, is for states to no longer be all or nothing. Instead of candidate A getting 60% of the votes and 100% of the EC vote, they’d get 60% of the EC vote and the other guy would get 40%. Then all votes would matter, rather than only swing state votes.
This obsession to shift the definition of what’s required to be president just so you can continue a world view of winners and losers is as meaningless as it is American. Trump won the election due to the electoral college and gerrymandering shenanigans, but lost the popular vote. Why not say that most people didn’t want him as a president and why did the system allow it instead of mapping this into Americas obsession with winners and losers? He literally did not win, and it highlights a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.
Nobody “did anything to stop him” because at that point, you are dropping down to his level and calling for an insurrection. That the side of morons with guns and expanding prison systems has no problems with insurrections might highlight another even darker problem, one which might be a bigger problem when those morons are also the ones crowding around and abusing positions of authorities up to the federal supreme court level, regardless of whether they are a minority.
You do realize he didn’t win, right?
Its a well-documented historical fact that Clinton got more votes than Trump, but the US isn’t a democracy. Trump declared himself the winner and nobody did anything to stop him
it’s not because trump declared himself the winner. it’s because in the US, empty lands can have more votes than people. it’s called electoral college but that’s what it really is. essentially rocks and dirt voting.
When I learned about the electoral college in a US school, I was told by my teacher that it exists so the delegates can override the people’s vote in an event where they voted for someone clearly terrible (eg a clown or a fascist)
Again, Trump lost the popular vote, and the US just let him claim that he won, when they should have stopped it.
that’s the excuse. the real reason is to give republicans/conservatives more voting power, and for a long time now, any chance of winning elections really.
you know how they cry about DEI because they think it gives minorities undue positions? the electoral college is that kind of DEI for conservatives. otherwise the country wouldn’t be this backwards so consistently all the time.
voter suppression and gerrymandering helps too of course. basically the less democratic the voting process the better chances they have.
The electoral college exists to give slave states more votes.
He didn’t declare himself the winner. The voting system is a bit more complex and while it’s possible to completely override the election results through the electoral college, usually what happens is that the blue candidate gets a lot more votes in populous states with big cities (California, NY, etc), but as soon as you’re one vote ahead in a state, the extra million or 2 don’t matter.
Something that’s been proposed to combat this without moving to an entirely new model, is for states to no longer be all or nothing. Instead of candidate A getting 60% of the votes and 100% of the EC vote, they’d get 60% of the EC vote and the other guy would get 40%. Then all votes would matter, rather than only swing state votes.
This obsession to shift the definition of what’s required to be president just so you can continue a world view of winners and losers is as meaningless as it is American. Trump won the election due to the electoral college and gerrymandering shenanigans, but lost the popular vote. Why not say that most people didn’t want him as a president and why did the system allow it instead of mapping this into Americas obsession with winners and losers? He literally did not win, and it highlights a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.
Nobody “did anything to stop him” because at that point, you are dropping down to his level and calling for an insurrection. That the side of morons with guns and expanding prison systems has no problems with insurrections might highlight another even darker problem, one which might be a bigger problem when those morons are also the ones crowding around and abusing positions of authorities up to the federal supreme court level, regardless of whether they are a minority.