JECE, aren't you in Brazil? What's this "we"?

? I've met him I assure you he's in 'murica

But if I understand correctly they are not committed to choosing only between Clinton and Trump, right? Because honestly a bum on the street would be a better choice then those two.

By the way, there is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact between several states to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote (in this case Hillary), but it's not effect yet, almost all the states that signed it voted Hillary, the two states that elected Trump did not yet pass the legislation, and even so they have only 36 votes, lol.

But seriously, as much as I think things may actually get worse once GOP messes with the elections that way, but hey, that's your fucked up voting system.

Eh? Sorry, must have been thinking of someone else. Well. then, petition away my man :-)

Crazy Anglican: I graduated from high school in 2010 after living there for two years and haven't visited Brazil since January 2013. Good memory nonetheless, though.

Lethologica: Of course it's fucking rigged. The Republicans are on the verge of stealing their fourth presidential election using the Electoral College while the Democrats have never won the presidency without also winning the popular vote.

Pathetic and despicable JECE, obviously.

Hilarious.

You lost. DWI.

Okay, here's the thing. Trump's victory is a victory over establishment forces. His party fought him, and the Washington elite fought him. His supporters have been ignored and condescended for years, treated like dirt. Only in his victory can they say they have their voice, can they say they conquered the corruption of the political system. And you want to use the system to take that victory away from a people who have had anger tapped into? Not only is it absolutely disgusting in concept, but it would put Americans at each other's throats considerably more. This is a terrible idea.

This is ridiculous. Trump is the President-elect. Both houses belong to the Republicans. Most states are the same. Final answer. Rogue electors aren't going to rig an election. Sorry.

lol this thread

Lol the electoral college for making this even theoretically possible.

^agreed. Should probably mention it in the other discussion about the EC today, but the actual process of having "electors" needs to gtfo. No good can come of this.

I'm sure it's been said in this thread already, but talk of abandoning electoral college would require some "small population states" to vote against their own interest. It's never gonna happen.

"Not only is it absolutely disgusting in concept, but it would put Americans at each other's throats considerably more. This is a terrible idea."

and merely one more reason the electoral college is messed up ;)

@Hauta, as it happens, it does not. It only requires a majority of the electoral college to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - google it.

It is rigged. The fact is in the House, Senate and presidency, the Democrats won all those races but because of gerrymandering and the like don't get the seats. There no mandate and no legitimacy. Can't govern without consent of the governed and there is no intention of the majority to give that.

Blah blwh blah. Is anyone buying what you are selling? Nope didn't think so.

Your tears are delicious. Thx

Wasn't the whole electoral college thing put in place by the founding fathers to prevent direct democracy and reduce the danger of someone leading the US that was unfit to rule? ;)

Exactly, and it worked.

Until now?

Its funny that before the election, the democrats were pooh pooing the 'its rigged' talk, making fun of trump for saying that. now that the election is over, they are the ones saying that it is rigged and unfair.

"The fact is in the House, Senate and presidency, the Democrats won all those races but because of gerrymandering and the like don't get the seats."

lol
melt!!

Gerrymander their way into control of the Senate? What, do you want the state lines redrawn to fix that?

Obama won a majority of the states for two years in a row. There is no corruption and no gerrymandering. The people of the country found out that the Democratic Party isn't for them. So the people voted republican to try a different approach on governing. The electoral college isn't rigged, the founding fathers put that in so the small states might have some say. If it was direct vote then the presidential candidates would only have to go for California, Texas, NewYork, and the other big states.

"The fact is in the House, Senate and presidency, the Democrats won all those races but because of gerrymandering and the like don't get the seats."

LOL

@Wolfsbane - that is a really odd narrative, not supported by the facts.

Obama won in 2012 by 65.9 million votes to 60.9 million.

Trump won in 2016 with 60.3 million votes to Clinton's 60.9 million.

So much is true, lower numbers voting for a republican - even if he is an putsider, and lower numbers vote for the democrats - clearly Clinton is not as well liked as Obama was.

But for the vast majority ~ 120 million people, there hasn't really been much of a change in their voting patterns.

The loss is the fault of the democrat party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opinion/the-democrats-screwed-up.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Given the 5.5 million people who appeared to vote neither for democrats bor republicans (conpared to 2012) you have to look beyond the democratic and republican party nominees. Look at the 'Bernie or bust' guys, the votes for green and libertarian parties, and the voter turnout.

That will give you the true story.

(That said, i've made a huge assumption in pretending that the 60 million voters for each of the main parties are the same people...)

Or you could look internally at both parties to see why those votes went the way they did.