• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump has now fallen below 50% US-wide.

phoenix2020 said:
Most countries are not, to my knowledge, a confederation of states wherein each state is to have an equal voice to all others.
Click to expand...

That should be the case when voting for US Senate ... the various states get 2 Senators each.

Case solved.

But it should NOT be the case when voting for a president. One vote should be one vote. A vote from Wyoming should not be worth 6 votes, while that of a person in California should only be worth 1 vote. Unfair.

Abolish the EC.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
It's funny watching people melt down over Trump's decisive and clear cut victory.

Keep me entertained...
Click to expand...

A) I am not melting down. I am showing how the process would play out in other countries.

B) Trump's victory after all was not so decisive. He dropped below 50% nationally, and in the swing states, he only won by a few ten thousand votes again, like 2016.

C) I have predicted his win weeks before the election, unlike other Europeans.

I'm just analyzing the results from the outside (but yeah, it's pretty clear that I would not have voted for him myself and want the EC abolished for fairer elections).
 
Tender Branson said:
Don't be mad.

All I am saying is that under French and Austrian and other country's election laws, a president without an absolute majority of votes (like Trump now at 49.8%) is not a legitimate president.

He does not have an absolute majority of the 153 million voters. That's 153.000.000 people.

He only has a majority in the artificial electoral college body of 538 people.

In our systems, Trump and Harris would now be campaigning for a runoff election. Which I think is the better option, because it resembles the will of the voters more than an artificial body of 538 people.
Click to expand...
In the U.S. a President of the United States is elected to represent the people of all the States. Comparing Austria or France to an individual State would be a better comparison.
If anything at all, I would do away with political parties and let candidates for every office campaign based on issues most important to those they actually are elected to represent. In any case it is individual issues not political party that should be most important to constituents and elected representatives should speak in favor of the majority of their constituents, who may disagree with one another on individual issues.
 
Tender Branson said:
A) I am not melting down. I am showing how the process would play out in other countries.
Click to expand...
We're not in other countries so your "pointing out" is just you trying to throw shade on a clear-cut victory which really hurt your feelings. Feelings are important, though. I understand.
 
Individual said:
In the U.S. a President of the United States is elected to represent the people of all the States. Comparing Austria or France to an individual State would be a better comparison.
If anything at all, I would do away with political parties and let candidates for every office campaign based on issues most important to those they actually are elected to represent. In any case it is individual issues not political party that should be most important to constituents and elected representatives should speak in favor of the majority of their constituents, who may disagree with one another on individual issues.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced.

"In the U.S. a President of the United States is elected to represent the people of all the States."

Yes, 153 million people just voted. And Trump only received 49.8% of the vote. That's not an absolute majority. He doesn't represent them as a result of these 153.000.000 people voting.

He only won a majority in an artificial body of 538 people, who apparently "represent" the states and their 153.000.000 voters.

Absurd.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
We're not in other countries so your "pointing out" is just you trying to throw shade on a clear-cut victory which really hurt your feelings. Feelings are important, though. I understand.
Click to expand...

As I have said, it's not really a clear-cut victory if you look deeper into the results.

Trump only won WI and MI by less than 1%, which means those two states voted to the LEFT of the US as a whole.

Pennsylvania voted like the US as a whole when all votes are counted.

In the 3 rust belt states, Trump only won by 150.000 votes, less than his winning margin in 2016 there.

Nationally, he is now below 50% ... illegitimate for being President in most other countries.

This was not a decisive victory after all. It looked like one on election night, but deep down it isn't one.
 
Tender Branson said:
Which means a majority of American voters voted against Trump.
Click to expand...
You could say the same thing about Harris. And Hillary Clinton. And Al Gore. And Bill Clinton, and about the winner in half the elections going back to G. Washington
 
eman623 said:
You could say the same thing about Harris. And Hillary Clinton. And Al Gore. And Bill Clinton, and about the winner in half the elections going back to G. Washington
Click to expand...

Yes.

That's why I favour abolishing the EC and introduce national runoff elections in the US.
 
Tender Branson said:
Trump likely will end around 49.8% when the remaining 2-3 million votes are done and counted.

Harris at 48.3%.

Trump will beat her by about 2 million votes nationally, or by +1.5%.
Click to expand...
Yet Republicans are shouting from their rooftops "Landslide!! Trump has a mandate"
 
Tender Branson said:
Trump and Harris would also go into a runoff here in Austria ... because our presidential election system also requires the top 2 candidates to advance to runoffs, if no candidate receives 50% of the vote.
Click to expand...
Trump got way more than 50% of the vote. The vote that counts, anyway. 312-222
 
Tender Branson said:
I am not convinced.

"In the U.S. a President of the United States is elected to represent the people of all the States."

Yes, 153 million people just voted. And Trump only received 49.8% of the vote. That's not an absolute majority. He doesn't represent them as a result of these 153.000.000 people voting.

He only won a majority in an artificial body of 538 people, who apparently "represent" the states and their 153.000.000 voters.

Absurd.
Click to expand...
A majority of the electoral votes is all that is required, NOT a majority of the people or those who voted. But, as I said the office of President is responsible to ALL the people and ALL the States, NOT just those who elected Him/Her or the political party He/She belongs to.

The office of President would always be held by a Democrat were it to require a majority of the ballots cast, as it would be decided solely by the densely populated cities where people depend more on government support due to costs of living.
 
Tender Branson said:
Trump now has 76.4 million votes and 49.93%

2024 Presidential Election by State

2024 Presidential Election by State
www.thegreenpapers.com

Which means a majority of American voters voted against Trump.
Click to expand...

We don't look at it that way. There will always be a percentage of the population that either doesn't vote or votes for a third party.

However, if the vote tally is larger than the other main contender (our country is typically a 2-party system, no 3rd party coming close in many, many years), we consider it a mandate.

Trump beat out Harris, the only real contender. He also won control of both Houses of Congress. Mandate valid.
 
He will still "win the popular vote." It's not necessary to have 50% to do that.
 
Captain Adverse said:
We don't look at it that way. There will always be a percentage of the population that either doesn't vote or votes for a third party.

However, if the vote tally is larger than the other main contender (our country is typically a 2-party system, no 3rd party coming close in many, many years), we consider it a mandate.

Trump beat out Harris, the only real contender. He also won control of both Houses of Congress. Mandate valid.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The President is elected if they win the Electoral College. Speaking of any "mandate" other than that, is simply ignorant.

Think of what you're saying. Gore had a mandate to be President? Hillary Clinton had a mandate to be President?
 
The Stars Tremble said:
You're wrong. The President is elected if they win the Electoral College. Speaking of any "mandate" other than that, is simply ignorant.

Think of what you're saying. Gore had a mandate to be President? Hillary Clinton had a mandate to be President?
Click to expand...
Its a question of a legal win versus social capital.

Any president who doesn't have a clear majority of the popular vote can not be credibly said to have a mandate since the majority of people don't want it, it's just a fluke of the legal mechanisms behind electing a president.

So while Trump won legally, he lost culturally.
 
Tender Branson said:
I'm looking at the votes and it's not clear-cut.

It's the data. And data doesn't lie.
Click to expand...
1992
Clinton 43.0%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%

1996
Clinton 49.2%
Dole 40.7%
Perot 8.4%
 
Slartibartfast said:
Its a question of a legal win versus social capital.

Any president who doesn't have a clear majority of the popular vote can not be credibly said to have a mandate since the majority of people don't want it, it's just a fluke of the legal mechanisms behind electing a president.

So while Trump won legally, he lost culturally.
Click to expand...

The popular vote is a beauty contest, with no consequences in law.

Sore losers might like to pretend someone else is "really" the president, but it's just silly posturing. No more valid that Trump's claim to have won in 2020.
 
Individual said:
1992
Clinton 43.0%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%

1996
Clinton 49.2%
Dole 40.7%
Perot 8.4%
Click to expand...

Indeed. It is very disappointing to here Democrats now, saying that Clinton wasn't really the president ... or that he was an illegitimate president. He beat TWO guys, twice, and that's probably harder than the usual two-horse race.
 
The Stars Tremble said:
The popular vote is a beauty contest, with no consequences in law.

Sore losers might like to pretend someone else is "really" the president, but it's just silly posturing. No more valid that Trump's claim to have won in 2020.
Click to expand...
Its obvious that Trump is "really" the president. That's not what I am talking about at all. That's the legal situation we must endure and we will do that.

What it means is that the country is still, on balance, more liberal than conservative and that is the basis in which liberals can move forward and with cultural support as roadblocks are put up against the new administration's agenda. There is a lot of power in that, even if its not measurable in a legality sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom