(December 1, 2016 at 4:36 pm)Napoléon Wrote:(December 1, 2016 at 4:25 pm)Alex K Wrote: Maybe because your comment was pretty much a non sequitur, so it's hard to guess what you actually mean?
Lol so because you've misunderstood/misinterpreted you just assign what you want?
I don't really get what's so hard to understand, do you guys just like to argue or what?
Abaris said he would be hard pressed to name a country that has a losing candidate with 2.5 million less votes.
I effectively made 2 points that might give an explanation as to why (without going into super duper detail for those with such poor reading comprehension to understand):
1. Population
2. Democracy
Point 1: You would probably find it hard to find a candidate with 2.5 million less votes, because guess what, most countries don't have a population as high as the US's in order for that to regularly or realistically occur
Point 2: Most countries don't function the same democratically as the US, or even similarly.
Is that better? Or am I "telling you that implementing proportional elections wouldn't be feasible because the US is too big"?
I understand why Alex was confused because neither of those points are relevant. I don't think you understood Abaris' point. He means that a system that would elect the person who got 2.5 million less votes than the other candidate is a fundamentally undemocratic system. Yeah, the U.S. is big and we're the only ones with an electoral college...thanks for the factoids. That doesn't address the point he was making