The Fair Vote

What are you talking about? Hillary received 48% of all the votes cast, Trump received 46% of all votes cast, third party candidates received 6% of all votes cast. No blank votes.

Let me put it this way, Hillary Clinton received a total of 65,853,514 or 48.1% of the total vote. Trump received 62,984,828 or 46.1% of the total votes cast. Neither received a majority, 50% plus one vote. Third party candidates received the rest. There were 4,489,341 votes for Gary Johnson, 3.3% of the votes cast, Jill Stein received 1,457,218 votes or 1.1% of the votes cast with numerous other third party candidates receiving the rest of the votes to make 100%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

The fact is you had 52% of all voters vote against Hillary by casting a vote for someone else, 54% of all voters voted for someone other than Trump or against him.

No candidate in 2016 received a majority of the vote, a majority be 50% plus one vote. Hillary was a plurality winner of the popular vote, not a majority winner. She received more votes than anyone else, but didn't receive a majority of the votes. More people voted against her than for her.

 

A true national popular vote would require an amendment to the Constitution.

 

Exactly, its against the Constitution for states to make deals between themselves, with out authorized by Congress

 

Yes, it is as simple-as-that! The world sees it that way as well.

Yet closed-minded individuals in the US - who are getting their FIRST REAL LESSON on how manipulation destroys any sense of democratic fairness (in our republic) cannot see through to that truth. Whyzzat?

The answer is dumb&simple: They are emotionally wedded to the notion that the Replicant Party should rule* America ...

*So, their answer in fact is dead-simple: We should go back to a political existence that occurred more than two centuries ago. We need only elect a Replicant KING FOR LIFE!

 

Good question! You don't "get it".

So, this pestiferous exchange ends here ...

 

A FAIR AND EQUITABLE DEMOCRACY

Quote from Wikipedia here:

Unfortunately not in all quarters of this petulant country needing a Real Lesson in "What Constitutes a Fair Democracy?"

Because what we got aint one ... !

 

The system of choosing the president exists because that is what the delegates agreed to when they established the union.

 

You can have a real democracy I suppose but you would lose 57 states

 

Word salad is fun huh?

 

Wait til he puts you on ignore.

 

Country? Don’t you mean countries?

 

The lelectoral college is never a problem when Democrats win

 

The problem with such, is that there is no actual fairness to be had, unless considerable steps are taken to ensure that only citizens of the united states and the living are allowed to vote, and that votes are counted honestly. What is currently had in the united states is not such, as the vetting process is exceedingly subpar and a joke internationally.

 

Political parties are irrelevant to me. I have a disdain for both. I'm more in line with the framers and founders who called political parties factions. Not a good word back then. They feared with the advent of political parties, folks would start doing what was good for the party and not the country. Andrew Jackson established the first modern political party after the 1824 election.

That said, being a nation of the several states, not one giant humongous country, that having each state individually have a say in who becomes president is the correct thing. I'm all for the representative republic and not for a direct democracy. But I am also open to changes. If I think the changes made kept us as a union of the several states and a representative republic, I'm certainly not oppose to changes that might make how we do things better and fairer.

 

Open minded Americans who had their proper lessons, and apparently paid attention, and learned about our history and our government and know how it actually works see through ignorance of such matters by those who fall for this national popular vote and how short sighted it is.

 

You're correct, I don't get blank votes. Not when everyone choose a candidate. Well have a nice one.

 

The United States is not a democracy and the Constitution guaranties to the States we will not be one.

 

How many times has a democrat won the EC vote but lost the popular vote? The only 2 republicans elected this century were both elected against the will of the people. That is a travesty in a free country.

 

Yes, and so what?

From WikiPedia here:
2016 United States presidential election

DD .... vs ... Hillary (vote results, per cent of total)
Popular vote - 62,984,828 ..... 65,853,514
Percentage - 46.1% ..... 48.2%

So, Hillary won the plurality and not the majority.

B. F. D. ...

 

Blank votes happen.

It is an expression of opinion - meaning the voter thought neither candidate was worth a vote. But they wished to express their opinion in the manner of a void-vote ...

 

Pay people just enough to keep them coming back. Yet not enough to upset the share holders.

 

People who complain about the electoral college have no idea why we have both a House and a Senate in the Congress.

 

California doesn't define the will of the people. Some live in Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota and Idaho too.

 

That still means more Americans didn't want her than did. You're letting 48% win over the 52%. Hence, the majority doesn't rule, the minority does.

 

I voted Johnson in 2016. It was an officially registered vote against both Trump and Clinton. Nothing blank about it. It certainly wasn't a void vote. 6% of all America, 9 million voters in all voted against both major party candidates. So should their vote, their voice be heard?

Compare the 2016 third party vote against both major party candidates to 2012 where 1.5% voted third party. 2008 1.2% and in 2004 1.0%. Your blank vote, third party choice give people a chance to voice their opposition to both major party candidates. You view it as no big deal. I view it as having every voter voice heard and counted. We seem to have irreconcilable differences on this. You seem to want only votes counted that go to the two major party's candidates, while trashing everyone else's vote.