Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » PET represents a win mechanically. He lost the popular vote. The majority lost. How is that democracy?
RosieG

PET represents a win mechanically. He lost the popular vote. The majority lost. How is that democracy?

Posted - November 12, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • Bush lost the majority vote to Gore but still got elected. 
      November 12, 2016 8:47 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    That is because SCOTUS intervened Karen and Gore decided to stop fighting it. Thank you for your reply and Happy Sunday! :).
      November 13, 2016 4:34 AM MST
    1

  • It was because of the fight in Florida over all the 'hanging chads' and what-not. I guess Gore withdrew because Bush's brother just happened to be the Governor of that state. This is not the first time someone was elected who didn't get the popular vote.  
      November 13, 2016 6:39 AM MST
    0

  • 6988
    As did R.B. Hayes.
      November 12, 2016 10:37 AM MST
    2

  • 113301
    Most recently it was Al Gore in 2000 who won the popular vote but GW Bush became prez after SCOTUS intervened. Thank you for your reply!
      November 13, 2016 4:34 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    As the political right is typically eager to point out when anti-democratic structures mean they win, "The USA is NOT a democracy. It's a Republic."

    Over the evolution of US history, the principles of universal sufferage (not just Rich White Christian Landowners) and "one person, one vote" (as opposed to smoke-filled party conference rooms selecting Senators) have made the USA more democratic, but some vestiges of the original Rich White Christian Landowners-only...ahem, republican, structures of the government remain.

    Two prominent examples are Senators who are elected by state rather than by proportional means (so Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan represent 740,000 people, while Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer represent 39 MILLION) and, of course, the Electoral College.

    Thems the facts, and there are SOME valid arguments why a republican (definitely small "R" this time) is better than a pure democracy. There are also valid defenses (at least in abstract terms) of structures like the US Senate and the Electoral College. Without them, rural voters and low-population states would be essentially powerless in national politics.

    But, yes, it is a bit confounding when our President-elect loses the popular vote...and still wins the election. That doesn't jibe with our moral notions of what constitutes democracy.
      November 12, 2016 10:56 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Mahalo for your thoughtful reply OS. Maybe the Electoral College served a purpose once upon a time. What purpose does it serve now that benefits we the people? Happy Sunday!  :)
      November 13, 2016 4:36 AM MST
    0

  • 1615

    Look it up Rosie it actually makes sense once you understand why it is that way. 

      November 12, 2016 11:30 AM MST
    3

  • 113301
     THe Electoral College might have served a purpose once upon a time Tom. What purpose does it serve now? Thank you for your reply.
      November 13, 2016 4:37 AM MST
    0

  • 1615
    Rosie read GLis response it is short and to the point and makes a lot of sense, our forefathers were quite clever.
      November 13, 2016 9:23 AM MST
    0

  • It's part of our checks and balances.  To try and ensure that the will of the majority doesn't oppress the voice of the minority.

    It's an attempt to make the process work for the whole country instead of just being ruled by the interest of a few urban centers with large populations while large swaths of the nation are left unrepresented.

    That's the idea anyways.
      November 13, 2016 4:51 AM MST
    1