Clinton v Trump...

...selective moral outrage.......proportional manking.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all. Laughing like a drain that their supporters were so woefully represented in parliament would be more like it. The same 4m people so concerned that British laws passed by a British parliament are enforced by British judges because that's the British sovereignty as defined by the British constitution they are so passionate about... Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

Then again who knows how the votes would have been cast? The biggest flaw with FPTP is not the unfair representation of the votes cast but that it renders so many of those votes irrelevant FPTP, in part, actually shapes the outcome but if 10% of the people want to vote Monster Raving Loony, or whatevs, then 10% of the MPs should be Loonies.

Anything else is undemocratic.

Just as winning by polling fewer votes is.

Not sure of your age group but presumably you made [or would have made] the same point when Labour won the February 1974 election?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Trump is the 5th out of 45 presidents who have been elected despite polling fewer votes than his opponent.

So for more than 10% of the democratically elected presidents the US electoral college system has failed to represent the will of the people. Something of a problem to anybody trumpeting the merits of democracy, surely?

Within the "rules" Trump clearly won but the rules themselves are, at least a little, unsatisfactory.

Delivering winners that didn't win so often can't be acceptable to anybody who feels that an essential part of the democratic process involves winning the most votes, can it?

I have to admit to anticipating the responses to this with some relish as people attempt not to tie themselves up into knots of logic as they make their case.

So the great minds that framed American  democracy have got it all wrong then, eh?  You and Trump seem to agree on that.

You are obviously ignorant of the fact that the American voter at the polling station is not directly voting for the President.  They are instructing representatives of their state, who they want those state reps to vote for - different states have different rules on how then apply the results - mostly, winner takes all. Meaning if twenty votes went to clinton and twenty one to Trump.  Trump gets forty one when the reps register the states vote.

This system was set up to neutralize the power of small heavily populated states bullying many more much larger but sparser ones.

Much like London tries to do within England.

He was probably still at the Frankfurt school for Marxists then Greenskin.
How times have changed, now he's in bed with Jean Claude Juncker, Charlie Lynton, Goldman Sachs, Mandy & all the other troughing establishment.

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all. Laughing like a drain that their supporters were so woefully represented in parliament would be more like it. The same 4m people so concerned that British laws passed by a British parliament are enforced by British judges because that's the British sovereignty as defined by the British constitution they are so passionate about... Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

Then again who knows how the votes would have been cast? The biggest flaw with FPTP is not the unfair representation of the votes cast but that it renders so many of those votes irrelevant FPTP, in part, actually shapes the outcome but if 10% of the people want to vote Monster Raving Loony, or whatevs, then 10% of the MPs should be Loonies.

Anything else is undemocratic.

Just as winning by polling fewer votes is.

Not sure of your age group but presumably you made [or would have made] the same point when Labour won the February 1974 election?

I'm sure that was the talk of the Hyde Park primary school playground.

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Trump is the 5th out of 45 presidents who have been elected despite polling fewer votes than his opponent.

So for more than 10% of the democratically elected presidents the US electoral college system has failed to represent the will of the people. Something of a problem to anybody trumpeting the merits of democracy, surely?

Within the "rules" Trump clearly won but the rules themselves are, at least a little, unsatisfactory.

Delivering winners that didn't win so often can't be acceptable to anybody who feels that an essential part of the democratic process involves winning the most votes, can it?

I have to admit to anticipating the responses to this with some relish as people attempt not to tie themselves up into knots of logic as they make their case.

So the great minds that framed American  democracy have got it all wrong then, eh?  You and Trump seem to agree on that.

You are obviously ignorant of the fact that the American voter at the polling station is not directly voting for the President.  They are instructing representatives of their state, who they want those state reps to vote for - different states have different rules on how then apply the results - mostly, winner takes all. Meaning if twenty votes went to clinton and twenty one to Trump.  Trump gets forty one when the reps register the states vote.

This system was set up to neutralize the power of small heavily populated states bullying many more much larger but sparser ones.

Much like London tries to do within England.

If the great minds that shaped American democracy were so good why are there so many amendments to it?

Thank you for the instruction as to how the electoral college works. I knew that already but thanks anyway.

As for little states being bullied by the larger ones we have the same thing here post-Brexit with Scotland and Northern Ireland being bullied into Brexit by English voters.

Overall it is no surprise that a system that you acknowledge was engineered to be undemocratic comes out with an undemocratic outcome so often.

Looks like another amendment might be required.

Lord Melbury wrote:

He was probably still at the Frankfurt school for Marxists then Greenskin.
How times have changed, now he's in bed with Jean Claude Juncker, Charlie Lynton, Goldman Sachs, Mandy & all the other troughing establishment.

Or then again maybe I wasn't.

Still better them in my eyes than the Ku Klux Klan.

There's an old saying about democracy being a wolf and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch!

No system is perfect but at least it gets things done.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

If the great minds that shaped American democracy were so good why are there so many amendments to it?

Thank you for the instruction as to how the electoral college works. I knew that already but thanks anyway.

As for little states being bullied by the larger ones we have the same thing here post-Brexit with Scotland and Northern Ireland being bullied into Brexit by English voters.

Overall it is no surprise that a system that you acknowledge was engineered to be undemocratic comes out with an undemocratic outcome so often.

Looks like another amendment might be required.

"So many amendments"? Oh you do exaggerate!

Twenty seven in two hundred and twenty seven years! ..and the first ten of those were the 'Bill of Rights'.

...and "Democracy" is not just the person with the most votes winning. That's how dictators rise. What your bigoted feeble mind cannot comprehend is the individual fifty "States" roll in all of this.

It would take too long to explain to you and you'd never ever in a million years 'get it' anyway. Your mind set isn't up to it.

""Democracy" is not just the person with the most votes winning".

Yes it is.

It's a few other things too but that one is right at the top.

Or should be.

Why bother having a vote otherwise?

I said the case against would tie itself into logic knots and there you have Exhibit 1.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Not at all. Laughing like a drain that their supporters were so woefully represented in parliament would be more like it. The same 4m people so concerned that British laws passed by a British parliament are enforced by British judges because that's the British sovereignty as defined by the British constitution they are so passionate about... Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

Then again who knows how the votes would have been cast? The biggest flaw with FPTP is not the unfair representation of the votes cast but that it renders so many of those votes irrelevant FPTP, in part, actually shapes the outcome but if 10% of the people want to vote Monster Raving Loony, or whatevs, then 10% of the MPs should be Loonies.

Anything else is undemocratic.

Just as winning by polling fewer votes is.

Not sure of your age group but presumably you made [or would have made] the same point when Labour won the February 1974 election?

I'm sure that was the talk of the Hyde Park primary school playground.

Thought as much.That must be where your idea of reducing the suffrage age to 8 came from.

Did I ever say that? No.

Just make things up why don't you.

I don't get this, is SFD saying that the 1974 Labour election win is the same as Trumps, since neither polled the most votes?

I've not said a word about our '74 election other than that I was at Hyde Park primary school at the time.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I've not said a word about our '74 election other than that I was at Hyde Park primary school at the time.

There's a reason you haven't said a word.  You'd make yourself look a hypocrite.  Greenskin has literally skinned you.

Anyway...

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

""Democracy" is not just the person with the most votes winning".

Yes it is.

It's a few other things too but that one is right at the top.

Or should be.

Why bother having a vote otherwise?

I said the case against would tie itself into logic knots and there you have Exhibit 1.

You do realize you have contradicted yourself in the first three lines?  No, of course you don't.  Your foolish blind bigoted logic wouldn't let you see that.

The only person tied up in "logic Knots" is you!

Discussing anything with you really is a waste of any sane persons time.

I'm just hoping that you lose interest and permanently stop to be honest.

But while I am here you have suggested that the electoral college was created so that the recipient of the most votes wouldn't win and that 27 isn't lots of amendments (so why not a 28th?) and that garnering the most votes is not what democracy is based on (at the same time you probably think I should just suck up to Brexit because Remain lost).

And I'm the one in knots?

Please don't answer. Just accept that that is a rhetorical question. Please ignore me. Please never, ever under any circumstances reply to me again.

But we both know you can't help yourself and you will.

watch this SFD then stfu

Angry wrote:

watch this SFD then stfu

I've already seen it.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I'm just hoping that you lose interest and permanently stop to be honest.

But while I am here you have suggested that the electoral college was created so that the recipient of the most votes wouldn't win and that 27 isn't lots of amendments (so why not a 28th?) and that garnering the most votes is not what democracy is based on (at the same time you probably think I should just suck up to Brexit because Remain lost).

And I'm the one in knots?

Please don't answer. Just accept that that is a rhetorical question. Please ignore me. Please never, ever under any circumstances reply to me again.

But we both know you can't help yourself and you will.

Of course I will.  Why wouldn't I?  Because you can't handle being shown to be wrong.?  You just want me off your back because I show you up as the intellectual fraud that you are.

I haven't suggested at all that the electoral college was created so the the recipient of the most votes wouldn't win.  You just made that up. I can't help it if you don't understand its concept and how voting fits in with that.

Why don't you address the contradiction you have left yourself in with Greenskin?  Because you can't.  Instead you are left bleating for me to leave you alone.

You're pathetic.

You said: "This system was set up to neutralize the power of small heavily populated states bullying many more much larger but sparser ones."

If that doesn't tally with "engineered to be undemocratic" then I'm not sure what does.

You said: " "Democracy" is not just the person with the most votes winning".

That doesn't realy require any further comment.

The fact remains that Clinton polled the most votes and lost - no matter how abusive you get.

The fact also remains Trump won the presidency no matter how much of a sore loser and how ignorant you are about how  the American democratic system works. The fact you don't like it doesn't make you right!

Got an answer for Greenskin yet?

He's not asked me anything that I could answer. To be honest once he accused me of advocating votes for 8 year olds (which is pure invention on his part) I didn't think he was seriously engaging with the debate.

I have pointed out that I was still in Primary school in 1974. What would you expect me to have said at the time?

More to the point it'd be damned weird if I remembered what I'd said about it had it even crossed my radar.

What I have said since on this thread is that any result that goes to a party polling fewer votes is clearly, obviously, definably, undeniably undemocratic. Especially when it goes wrong as often as the US electoral college does.

And in the past I have often made the case for PR and I was in favour of the AV option in the first of Cameron's referenda which was as close to being able to vote for it as I have been able to (there was a thread on here if you want to find it which will back me up on this).

I have also on occasion drawn attention to Churchill's defeat of Attlee in 1951 as a grossly unfair outcome and have never advocated on behalf of FPTP.

There is no inconsistency in my views or statements on this going back several years.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

H

What I have said since on this thread is that any result that goes to a party polling fewer votes is clearly, obviously, definably, undeniably undemocratic. Especially when it goes wrong as often as the US electoral college does.

..and what  you say it utter (one of your favourite words) bollox.  You have no grasp at all of how it ALL works.

..and you know darn well what Greenskin is getting at..

Would you support the victory of who you voted for, even if they had received less votes than the winning party that you despised?

Of course I would. That's just a variation of the UKIP question I've already answered. I'd love it to bits. I'd be laughing like a drain then I'd point out that the British constitution as delivered by the British parliament and predicated on the votes of British people had delivered the result and that it had to be abided by.

What I would not do is claim that the result was democratic or fair or that the very same electoral process that delivered the result was fit for process.

I'd probably go on to say that the result was a travesty, anachronistic and a product of an out-moded system ravaged by the passage of time and that it was badly in need of reform, something I have long advocated, but since it always benefitted the winner the most there was no incentive for those who could change it to change it.

I definitely would not say that democracy is not about winning the most votes because there's not even a smidgin of common sense in that.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I definitely would not say that democracy is not about winning the most votes because there's not even a smidgin of common sense in that.

LOl..   One of the world's great democratic institutions and a model for many others, created by the bright minds of some of the greatest men known to mankind, have got it all wrong according to Frannie.

Fool.