Different political systems

[Pogo]

A question for all the regressives who hate this country of ours -- if our system is so bad, how is it we have become the most powerful, wealthy and influential country in the world?

A question for those who float the above question --- why is it so important that y'all keep telling yourself that?

Smacks of more than a little insecurity.

Facts are never insecure, child.

I do not suffer from the same lack of self-esteem so typical to the regressive portion of the left where I blame my own culture for the fact I don't amount to anything. I DO amount to something and so do not indulge in all this typical regreessive blather.

I do note that you are unable to offer any rational response to the question I posed, however. That is because it shoots the op to smithereenes.

Ah but you didn't post any "facts" -- you posted emotional hype.

Put it this way --- do you see Finland crowing "we're number one!"? Brazil? India? Australia? Or do you just see them going about their business valuing others as equals rather than inferiors?

The need to put others down is an obvious insecurity, and any time an entity has to go around strutting "we're number one" it's a screaming billboard thereof.

 

[Pogo]

Only, they wouldn't.

Just as in Germany where Berlin and Munich don't control the government.

I'm sorry you have been misinformed. You can read some of my other posts to see why you are misinformed.

Those two states tip the scales on population dingleberry.

By how much?

The reality is 20% of the population live in these two states, but only 10% of voters are from these two states.

So, how much impact do 10% of voters have in PR? Well, about 10% of the vote.

Surely they should have a say in a democracy.

Hillary won by the majority of voters BECAUSE of New York and California.

That is the way pretty much all elections would pan out from here on out.

Wrong. And here's why.

You're ASSUMING that under a legitimately representative system -- as every country with democratic elections practices except us and Pakistan --- that popular vote would be the same as it is now and all you do is subtract the Electoral College from the process.

That ignores the entire context behind the whole exercise.

We currently "boast" an abysmal participation rate in our own elections. 2016's 55% was typical, and most countries would be and should be grossly embarrassed at that level. Why is that? Because millions of voters know before election day that their vote WILL NOT COUNT. Anyone who lives in a locked-red or locked-blue state has no purpose in going to vote for a President. They can vote with their state, they can vote against their state, they can vote some alternate candidate, or they can stay home and not participate at all, and all four actions have the same result ---- so what's the point? Stay home, get something productive done, and your red state votes Republican or your blue state votes Democrat, and nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and the Duopoly system perpetuates itself in perpetuity.

And if you happen to be in a so-called "batleground" state -- a bullshit concept that could not, and should not, exist but for the equally bullshitious "winner take all" electoral college system --- then you have a brief period of relevance influencing that, after which your vote just might be tossed in the dump anyway and thanks for playin'.

Now take that system of institutional irrelevance foisted upon that 45% of the electorate that doesn't bother to show up because what's the point, GIVE them a point, MAKE them actually relevant, and you see a whole different ball game.

In other words you, and I, and we, have no idea how many voters in New York and California and Massachusets would have voted Red if they thought their vote would count, nor do we have any idea how many in Alabama and Utah and Nebraska would vote blue for the same reason. We have no basis to predict anything, because we have no history of counting votes in a system where everybody's vote counts. In a way we have never had a real Presidential election.

So this is uncharted territory and predicting how a representative system would pan out based only on the history of an unrepresentative system ------- tells us nothing.

Wut?

California and New York vote straight Dim.

No, they do not. NOBODY votes "straight" anything. That's the distortion the Electrical College imparts.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A question for all the regressives who hate this country of ours -- if our system is so bad, how is it we have become the most powerful, wealthy and influential country in the world?

A question for those who float the above question --- why is it so important that y'all keep telling yourself that?

Smacks of more than a little insecurity.

Facts are never insecure, child.

I do not suffer from the same lack of self-esteem so typical to the regressive portion of the left where I blame my own culture for the fact I don't amount to anything. I DO amount to something and so do not indulge in all this typical regreessive blather.

I do note that you are unable to offer any rational response to the question I posed, however. That is because it shoots the op to smithereenes.

Ah but you didn't post any "facts" -- you posted emotional hype.

Put it this way --- do you see Finland crowing "we're number one!"? Brazil? India? Australia? Or do you just see them going about their business valuing others as equals rather than inferiors?

The need to put others down is an obvious insecurity, and any time an entity has to go around strutting "we're number one" it's a screaming billboard thereof.

You are certainly lacking in education to think the fact we have the largest GDP in the world is "emotional hyperbole". Same goes for the state of our influence and our international power.

You are simply a bitter little man due to the fact you don't amount to anything. Just because one Marxist wants to scrap our entire political system just because of Trump doesn't mean you need to join him just because you are a Marxist, and it certainly does not mean that such obvious facts as those I presented are emotional hyperbole.

I would suggest going to school in hopes that you might learn the difference.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

They're fine with it until their candidate loses because of Texas...

Then they'll claim the Texas vote should not count...

The Electoral College make it where every state has a say, but those like the OP'er believe red states should not have as much to say in elections like blue states...

Also when will the damn ignorant fools realize the voice of America is our House of Reps and not the President?

The flaw there is that "the state has a say" but its people -- do not. My state for example went to Congress and declared "wow, it's amazing -- every single voter in the state of North Carolina voted for Donald Rump" --- which is absolute bullshit.

Until that's fixed our election system remains an international joke.

Sure it does.

It is a joke when your flaw candidate loses the election but is perfectly fine when your candidate win.

The reality is the House of Representatives are the voice for you and I and not the damn President.

The reality is the Electoral College worked and that is why those like you hate it. Clinton lost the majority of states in 2016 but you and your kind believe blue states like California should swing the vote and ignore the red states wish of not having her as President.

Also let stop passing the buck and blaming the system and let blame your political party failure to bring in the green vote so you could win in key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Let also admit that Jill Stein cost Clinton in those key States and had the Democratic Party not played games with Sanders then just maybe Clinton would have won.

As for the world opinion when it come to our election process, well this country has been doing this a lot longer than most countries have been without some form of dictatorship, so **** them and their pathetic opinion.

I mean maybe America should be more like China or North Korea with the one party system and your choice is what the government allow you to vote on!?!

So it is not the system but the ignorant voter that believe only a few states with large populations should have the say and forget the rest of the nation!

Also funny how none of you are willing to move to Germany or France but yet love their systems so much.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Seems to be working just fine to me.

 

[Lastamender]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

France and Germany are soon to be third world shitholes. I'll stick with our form of government and law enforcement.

 

[NightFox]

Seems to be working just fine to me.

Obviously unlike some of the other posters in this thread you understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, of course trying to impart that wisdom to the hyper-partisan drones that are still bitter about Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Bitching and Moaning defeat is probably an exercise in futility, sort of like trying to explain nuclear physics to a Labrador retriever, it'll understand some of the words but none of the concepts.

 

[g5000]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

California and New York did not decide Trump would be President.

They decided Hillary should be President.

You need to take your theory back to the drawing board.

 

[dblack]

Feel free to move to either of those countries.

Oh, wow, this argument again.

Here's the analogy.

A man works for a company. He says to his boss "hey boss, if we do this, we can make more money" the boss says "well you're free to go to those companies".....

Heh. Well, it's not an argument. Just a weak attempt to dismiss criticism.

The worst impediment to improving our elections is the short sighted views of most voters. They are so steeped in the two-party system that they will always look at any changes from the perspective of how it impacts their "team", without really considering the broader improvements.

 

[Auld Phart]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

California and New York did not decide Trump would be President.

They decided Hillary should be President.

You need to take your theory back to the drawing board.

because of the electoral college.

haven't you been paying attention?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

 

[g5000]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

O'rly?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

California and New York did not decide Trump would be President.

They decided Hillary should be President.

You need to take your theory back to the drawing board.

You missed the point entirely.

 

[g5000]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

California and New York did not decide Trump would be President.

They decided Hillary should be President.

You need to take your theory back to the drawing board.

You missed the point entirely.

Nope. He claimed California and New York and 10 to 12 other states are deciding who is President.

Our last election blows that claim out of the water.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

O'rly?

Yes, really.

 

[g5000]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

O'rly?

Yes, really.

Can you see the graphic I posted?

Trump complained about the EC after the 2012 election.

You said there were no complaints.

 

[Auld Phart]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

California and New York did not decide Trump would be President.

They decided Hillary should be President.

You need to take your theory back to the drawing board.

You missed the point entirely.

Nope. He claimed California and New York and 10 to 12 other states are deciding who is President.

Our last election blows that claim out of the water.

Our last election blows that claim out of the water.

Yes G...

BECAUSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

READ THE THREAD

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

You're fine with California, New York, and 10-12 other states deciding who the president is going to be for the next 50 or so years


(or until the revolution when people get fed up?)

California and New York did not decide Trump would be President.

They decided Hillary should be President.

You need to take your theory back to the drawing board.

You missed the point entirely.

Nope. He claimed California and New York and 10 to 12 other states are deciding who is President.

Our last election blows that claim out of the water.

His claim was that without the EC they would be deciding who is POTUS.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, Obama was elected twice by the EC.... no complaints.

O'rly?

Yes, really.

Can you see the graphic I posted?

Trump complained about the EC after the 2012 election.

You said there were no complaints.

Name one Obama supporter that complained about the EC being outdated. I'll wait.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The states vote for POTUS, and the overwhelming majority voted for Trump.