Devil May Cry Forums

To quote someone smarter than me: "Americans chose Clinton, but got Trump." As Clinton actually got more votes than Trump but do to the weirdness of the American Election system Trump got the Presidency instead.

@Blackquill: Which is why we always set up parliamentary systems in places we set governments up in, since we know our system is archaic and broken.

Because he got more electoral votes. He lost the popular vote but won the electoral. It's a weird system. This is also how Bush got in office 16 yrs ago.

Don't listen to these people, clearly the answer is la-li-lu-le-lo.

@Shadow ...Okay don't take this personally but what the hell? What kinda system is that? I mean, a country that always speaks of "exporting democracy" yet doesn't even get how democracy's supposed to work.

@Foxtrot94 A very dumb system. Or, at the very least, one that doesn't make sense. Perhaps, at one time, it worked well, but it feels very obsolete...especially if the majority is voting for someone and yet the other still wins. Doesn't make sense in the slightest.

So wait, she actually got the popular vote, but he won just because the states he won had more seats.
That's stupid, the popular vote should be all that matters, THAT is what the people as a whole are saying THAT is what should matter

#SystemIsRigged

The thing about this is that Donald may have won more electoral seats, but the Electoral College still has to vote for the candidates on December 19th and they're not Constitutionally obligated to vote the way their states did (or penalized in a significant manner such as prosecution/jail time). They can be fined in some states, but still opt not to vote for Trump if they think he's unfit.

They can vote for Hillary even if she conceded, see: 2012 Election, where even when Obama got the popular vote and Romney conceded, the Electoral College didn't vote unanimously for Obama with all 538 seats, but rather split it 332 to 206. So her concession speech wouldn't remove her name from the ballot, it's just a show of sportsmanship and recognition that Trump won in the projection.

RE: electoral college, it USED to exist as a check on the popular vote for where the people are uninformed and irresponsible. Ideally the State would pick the electors, and these electors would decide who'd become President. Unfortunately the electors are now nudged into pledging party loyalty in about 30 out of the 50 states, and electors who vote against their state are called "faithless electors".

TLDR: We don't directly pick the president in Nov 8th, we just pick whether our electors are R or D, and our votes let them know who we "suggest" to be President. Even then, a red state's elector can vote Hillary, or a blue state can go Trump. The penalty for not going with popular vote isn't any more serious than a $1,000 fine and it's rarely been enforced, though. So the next comment is where it gets nuts.

If neither HRC nor DJT gets 270+ votes on 12/19th, the House of Representatives would step in and on 1/6/17, they'd vote to pick the next president. The top three contenders from the electoral college would then need 26/50 votes from the HoR to become President, but the HoR isn't obligated to vote by popular lines or "who technically got the most seats" either. They could vote third party if they felt like it.

Thank you for explaining, @Morgan. So...basically, it's an even worse system than I was ever taught. :/

Granted, we've seen that Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, so it's predicted that they'll vote Trump just because, but not even the GOP likes Trump. He's anti-free-trade, he's pro-Putin, his "plan" on doubling the amount of money spent on infrastructure will put the country into further debt, and he'd make 0 changes to Social Security that the GOP wants him to make, among other things, IIRC.

@Shadow Yeah, I'd say it's a dangerous system to put faith in thanks to the vicious cycle. No one votes for third party in a major way because they have little power in the face of a de facto duopoly, and we have a de facto duopoly because no one votes for third party in a major way, because they have little power... etc. etc. ... and it didn't help that our third party options were rubbish anyway.

So, is what you're saying, there is still a hope, just a small hope, that Trump will not be president?

Yeap. It just needs to be really, really obvious that Trump is unfit to lead and that he has little interest or ability to further the interests of the GOP, and he's prided himself on being "anti-establishment" which is.... what the GOP is. It's an establishment.

Batman for President? Think about it.

That reminds me of this audio post: http://waiting4codot.tumblr.com/post/152972294828/the-report-with-jack-ryder-tonights-guests-dr