How American Election system work?

[Rehmani]

Fore example; Mrs Clinton got more vote but Mr Trump won the election because more GOP voted to him.
Second Question; why Mr Trump lost House of representative despite the fact that he breaks all records compare to Mr. Obama in his first midterm. Means Democrats won those seats back what Mr Obama lost in his first term. Despite the fact that Mr Trump drew bigger crowed/voters than any midterm election.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

You have to understand. We are the United States, meaning the states individually select the president they want, and all their representative votes go to that president. Trump won many more States than Hellary. Regarding the House of Representatives, those votes aren’t cast for Trump.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fore example; Mrs Clinton got more vote but Mr Trump won the election because more GOP voted to him.
Second Question; why Mr Trump lost House of representative despite the fact that he breaks all records compare to Mr. Obama in his first midterm. Means Democrats won those seats back what Mr Obama lost in his first term. Despite the fact that Mr Trump drew bigger crowed/voters than any midterm election.

The US system works on an unfair principle. In the past it was designed to give importance to smaller states.

So, the US House has 435 voting members, the US Senate has 100 voting members, therefore there are 535 electoral college seats. DC also has 3 seats so there are 538 seats.

This means Wyoming with 1 House seat, gets THREE SEATS in the electoral college, whereas California with 53 House seats, gets 55 electoral college seats.

This means a person in Wyoming gets 3.7 times the voting power of someone in California.

The "argument" is that this gives more importance to smaller states. In the modern world this doesn't actually mean this.

In the US Presidential election only 12 states matter. Literally presidential candidates don't bother with 38 states because they almost certainly know which way they're going to vote.

Therefore Wyoming is always going to vote Republican, so the Democrats don't bother there. Which means the Republicans don't bother either.

So, 12 states with 20% of the US population in them get to decide who wins the Presidency.

If a person lives in a part of the US that isn't in a state or DC then they don't even get to vote.


The system is awful. It doesn't do what defenders of the system claim it should do, it isn't fair, it isn't anything other than a system that benefits the main two parties.

FPTP literally favors the largest two parties. It's the same everywhere. People are therefore restricted in the choices they can make for president, literally they vote negatively, they vote against the person they don't want to be president.

In the modern era proportional representation would actually give smaller states MORE POWER (except those few that are in the 12 that matter), as a Democrat in Wyoming would have their vote actually counted and presidential candidates would have to realize that these votes are just as important.

The reality is that farmers in Wyoming would be in the same situation as farmers in every other part of the country and they could join together, so farming would become and important issue, rather than at present where it's not really.

 

[MarathonMike]

Fore example; Mrs Clinton got more vote but Mr Trump won the election because more GOP voted to him.
Second Question; why Mr Trump lost House of representative despite the fact that he breaks all records compare to Mr. Obama in his first midterm. Means Democrats won those seats back what Mr Obama lost in his first term. Despite the fact that Mr Trump drew bigger crowed/voters than any midterm election.

The US system works on an unfair principle. In the past it was designed to give importance to smaller states.

So, the US House has 435 voting members, the US Senate has 100 voting members, therefore there are 535 electoral college seats. DC also has 3 seats so there are 538 seats.

This means Wyoming with 1 House seat, gets THREE SEATS in the electoral college, whereas California with 53 House seats, gets 55 electoral college seats.

This means a person in Wyoming gets 3.7 times the voting power of someone in California.

The "argument" is that this gives more importance to smaller states. In the modern world this doesn't actually mean this.

In the US Presidential election only 12 states matter. Literally presidential candidates don't bother with 38 states because they almost certainly know which way they're going to vote.

Therefore Wyoming is always going to vote Republican, so the Democrats don't bother there. Which means the Republicans don't bother either.

So, 12 states with 20% of the US population in them get to decide who wins the Presidency.

If a person lives in a part of the US that isn't in a state or DC then they don't even get to vote.


The system is awful. It doesn't do what defenders of the system claim it should do, it isn't fair, it isn't anything other than a system that benefits the main two parties.

FPTP literally favors the largest two parties. It's the same everywhere. People are therefore restricted in the choices they can make for president, literally they vote negatively, they vote against the person they don't want to be president.

In the modern era proportional representation would actually give smaller states MORE POWER (except those few that are in the 12 that matter), as a Democrat in Wyoming would have their vote actually counted and presidential candidates would have to realize that these votes are just as important.

The reality is that farmers in Wyoming would be in the same situation as farmers in every other part of the country and they could join together, so farming would become and important issue, rather than at present where it's not really.

Like a lot of things that keep America great, the EC is not a perfect system. It just happens to be better than the alternatives. If you have a better alternative, what is it? Straight Popular vote? Then you have California rubber stamping Democratic Presidents for the next century. How healthy is that in a two party system? I believe the current system, crude as it is, imparts a certain amount of course correction which in the long run is always healthy.

 

[Rehmani]

You have to understand. We are the United States, meaning the states individually select the president they want, and all their representative votes go to that president. Trump won many more States than Hellary. Regarding the House of Representatives, those votes aren’t cast for Trump.

Its mean, in 20/20 only Presidential candidate will participate or contest, not governors,reps/congress and senators and they will contest in 22/20 midterm.

You have to understand. We are the United States, meaning the states individually select the president they want, and all their representative votes go to that president. Trump won many more States than Hellary. Regarding the House of Representatives, those votes aren’t cast for Trump.

 

[petro]

American politics?
Simple.
One side claims victory, the other side whines until the next cycle.

Meanwhile, nothing worthwhile happens except the ever ending waste of taxpayer dollars.

Real winners: the political elite.
Real losers: everyone else.

 

[Rehmani]

Fore example; Mrs Clinton got more vote but Mr Trump won the election because more GOP voted to him.
Second Question; why Mr Trump lost House of representative despite the fact that he breaks all records compare to Mr. Obama in his first midterm. Means Democrats won those seats back what Mr Obama lost in his first term. Despite the fact that Mr Trump drew bigger crowed/voters than any midterm election.

The US system works on an unfair principle. In the past it was designed to give importance to smaller states.

So, the US House has 435 voting members, the US Senate has 100 voting members, therefore there are 535 electoral college seats. DC also has 3 seats so there are 538 seats.

This means Wyoming with 1 House seat, gets THREE SEATS in the electoral college, whereas California with 53 House seats, gets 55 electoral college seats.

This means a person in Wyoming gets 3.7 times the voting power of someone in California.

The "argument" is that this gives more importance to smaller states. In the modern world this doesn't actually mean this.

In the US Presidential election only 12 states matter. Literally presidential candidates don't bother with 38 states because they almost certainly know which way they're going to vote.

Therefore Wyoming is always going to vote Republican, so the Democrats don't bother there. Which means the Republicans don't bother either.

So, 12 states with 20% of the US population in them get to decide who wins the Presidency.

If a person lives in a part of the US that isn't in a state or DC then they don't even get to vote.


The system is awful. It doesn't do what defenders of the system claim it should do, it isn't fair, it isn't anything other than a system that benefits the main two parties.

FPTP literally favors the largest two parties. It's the same everywhere. People are therefore restricted in the choices they can make for president, literally they vote negatively, they vote against the person they don't want to be president.

In the modern era proportional representation would actually give smaller states MORE POWER (except those few that are in the 12 that matter), as a Democrat in Wyoming would have their vote actually counted and presidential candidates would have to realize that these votes are just as important.

The reality is that farmers in Wyoming would be in the same situation as farmers in every other part of the country and they could join together, so farming would become and important issue, rather than at present where it's not really.

First thanks detail reply.
Second Please can you tell me that in 20/20 election only presidential candidate will contest or along side presidential candidates senate,congressman and governor will contest too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fore example; Mrs Clinton got more vote but Mr Trump won the election because more GOP voted to him.
Second Question; why Mr Trump lost House of representative despite the fact that he breaks all records compare to Mr. Obama in his first midterm. Means Democrats won those seats back what Mr Obama lost in his first term. Despite the fact that Mr Trump drew bigger crowed/voters than any midterm election.

The US system works on an unfair principle. In the past it was designed to give importance to smaller states.

So, the US House has 435 voting members, the US Senate has 100 voting members, therefore there are 535 electoral college seats. DC also has 3 seats so there are 538 seats.

This means Wyoming with 1 House seat, gets THREE SEATS in the electoral college, whereas California with 53 House seats, gets 55 electoral college seats.

This means a person in Wyoming gets 3.7 times the voting power of someone in California.

The "argument" is that this gives more importance to smaller states. In the modern world this doesn't actually mean this.

In the US Presidential election only 12 states matter. Literally presidential candidates don't bother with 38 states because they almost certainly know which way they're going to vote.

Therefore Wyoming is always going to vote Republican, so the Democrats don't bother there. Which means the Republicans don't bother either.

So, 12 states with 20% of the US population in them get to decide who wins the Presidency.

If a person lives in a part of the US that isn't in a state or DC then they don't even get to vote.


The system is awful. It doesn't do what defenders of the system claim it should do, it isn't fair, it isn't anything other than a system that benefits the main two parties.

FPTP literally favors the largest two parties. It's the same everywhere. People are therefore restricted in the choices they can make for president, literally they vote negatively, they vote against the person they don't want to be president.

In the modern era proportional representation would actually give smaller states MORE POWER (except those few that are in the 12 that matter), as a Democrat in Wyoming would have their vote actually counted and presidential candidates would have to realize that these votes are just as important.

The reality is that farmers in Wyoming would be in the same situation as farmers in every other part of the country and they could join together, so farming would become and important issue, rather than at present where it's not really.

First thanks detail reply.
Second Please can you tell me that in 20/20 election only presidential candidate will contest or along side presidential candidates senate,congressman and governor will contest too.

Every 2 years you have elections.

You have 100% of House seats.
You have 33% of Senate seats.

Every 4 years you have a presidential election.

So, in 2020 there will be a presidential election, 100% of House seats up for grabs and 33% of Senate seats up for grabs.

 

[Rambunctious]

The dems need to stop cheating....or it could bring down the whole system....the judges need to stay out of it....let the votes be counted fairly with matching sigs....do it right and let the chips fall where they may.....that women in AZ didn't win that race...she stole it...she is representing people that didn't vote for her...what good is that?.....for her or them...its no good for anyone....