Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey
Came in with a game plan of who he needed to appeal to during the campaign, did it, and now it appears he actually intends to make the country better. Unless you're squeaky clean and charismatic like Obama, I feel like that's the method of operation to win any election.
|
Given that he's more than happy to put climate change deniers at the head of the EPA, Ben Carson of "Pyramids were Grain Silos" fame as the head of education, unhinged Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General, Bannon as his Chief Strategist, etc, etc, etc...I have a really hard time believing he's actually going to do any good for this country. He's most certainly not surrounding himself with "the best people," as he claimed to do. He's surrounding himself with extremists, lobbyists, and people so off their rockers even the GOP establishment no longer has use for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
Had not seen this. On what basis?
|
There are a few issues with the Electoral College, and I think a lot of the protesting right now is less about this moment right now and more about the future. This is twice in 5 presidential elections where the loser of the popular vote won the Presidency based on the electoral college.
No state can have fewer than 3 electoral votes. So in a place like Wyoming, with a population around 600k, each electoral vote is worth 190-some thousand votes.
In California? Each electoral vote is worth about 3 million votes, due to the population density.
So why is it that Wyoming's votes are given much more importance than those of people in California/New York, other population rich areas? This is not a problem that can be fixed for this specific election, unfortunately we've already screwed the pooch on this one. But for the future, the electoral college needs to either be changed or removed. State elections are based on popular vote--why not the election for the highest office of all?
As of now (while votes aren't fully counted yet in California, I believe) Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by 1.3 million. So you've got a president elect who was voted in, despite being behind by about the same number of votes as the
entire population of Wyoming and South Dakota combined. (800k-ish and 500k-ish)
It just makes a mockery of the idea of "one person, one vote" if the votes of those in small, rural states hold more weight than those in densely populated ones.