2024 US Presidential Election

[Silver]

To be fair to we the people, they voted hillary. Just think...harris is on track to beat hillarys record or win the office. I can't think of any better way to sum up the state of american democracy and the value of our votes.

One article said something to the effect of Kamala needing to spend way more than Trump in particular states. Like, how is it even a thing? It just makes no sense to me.

[Ivan Denisovich]

People didn't elect trump to the office, he clearly lost and if will of the people would be respected then it would be reflected by him becoming just another loser. At least from my pov he was handed power by some shady group no matter how legitimate EC is in Americans view.

Your POV is wrong. There was no ‘shady group’ involved. Trump was handed power based on the rules laid down in the US Constitution. Outmoded rules that no longer fulfill their original function, to be sure, but rules just the same.

If Trump had been denied the Presidency after winning the EC, that would have been unconstitutional. The American Founders never intended for their new country to be ruled by ‘the will of the people’.

Boru

Institutions that overturn will of the people aren't shady at all.  

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's not really, shady, the ec is right out in the open.  The reason we didn't have as much trouble with it in the past is that political campaigns didn't have big data for microtargeting.

For me any institution that can turn loser of the elections into a winner is shady by default.

But Trump didn’t lose the election. That’s kind of the whole point.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Your POV is wrong. There was no ‘shady group’ involved. Trump was handed power based on the rules laid down in the US Constitution. Outmoded rules that no longer fulfill their original function, to be sure, but rules just the same.

If Trump had been denied the Presidency after winning the EC, that would have been unconstitutional. The American Founders never intended for their new country to be ruled by ‘the will of the people’.

Boru

Institutions that overturn will of the people aren't shady at all.  

‘The will of the people’ isn’t the issue. It never has been.

Boru

[Ravenshire]

Can be a dangerous thing if a guy who didnt actually get elected by a majority comes into office due to some shady group using  loopholes in ones´ process of determining who is supposed to be the head of executive after said elections, particularly if you allow this to happen twice.
Just sayin´

Twice?!?

We've "allowed" it four fucking times, so far!

[Ivan Denisovich]

For me any institution that can turn loser of the elections into a winner is shady by default.

But Trump didn’t lose the election. That’s kind of the whole point.

Boru

The whole point is that he did lose them by getting less votes but was handed power by some shady group. Person who get less votes in presidential elections isn't usually called winner unless something deeply undemocratic happens.

[Ivan Denisovich]

. Institutions that overturn will of the people aren't shady at all.  

‘The will of the people’ isn’t the issue. It never has been.

Boru

If you say so then it is so.  

[Mister Agenda]

But Trump didn’t lose the election. That’s kind of the whole point.

Boru

The whole point is that he did lose them by getting less votes but was handed power by some shady group. Person who get less votes in presidential elections isn't usually called winner unless something deeply undemocratic happens.

The 'shady group' being large states with low populations? Maybe we're using different definitions of 'shady'? Mine is 'something of doubtful honesty or legality'. It's a bad way to run a national election, but that doesn't make it dishonest or illegal.

[Deesse23]

Can be a dangerous thing if a guy who didnt actually get elected by a majority comes into office due to some shady group using  loopholes in ones´ process of determining who is supposed to be the head of executive after said elections, particularly if you allow this to happen twice.
Just sayin´

Twice?!?

We've "allowed" it four fucking times, so far!

So you guys are literally asking for it!? Splendid.

[Ivan Denisovich]

The whole point is that he did lose them by getting less votes but was handed power by some shady group. Person who get less votes in presidential elections isn't usually called winner unless something deeply undemocratic happens.

The 'shady group' being large states with low populations? Maybe we're using different definitions of 'shady'? Mine is 'something of doubtful honesty or legality'. It's a bad way to run a national election, but that doesn't make it dishonest or illegal.

Shady group being Electoral College. But I use this as a shorthand. I don't really give a shit if trump presidency happened thanks to institutions, form of governance, peculiarity of voting system or anything else but I certainly do not consider someone getting less votes to be victor of elections. I see popular vote as paramount and results of it were clear.