Discussion: Why do normal people vote when the final decision is not...

Rick

Look I'm French and know very little about the American voting system. But I keep seeing :"oh Hillary won the popular vote, Trump was chosen by the electoral college.." I'd like to get a clear explanation, please. And if I understand this correctly , my question is. Why do normal people vote when the electoral college always take the final decision? It's like the people's vote does not really mean anything at the end of the day. Or is it worth something?

Pardon my English but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

OnikaSlays

Our votes determine the electoral college's vote

The popular vote is just the actual number of people who voted

KittyCat

The popular vote in each individual state decides who that state elects as president. Then, the winner receives the electoral votes from that state, which are decided upon based on the state's population. The argument for the electoral college is that urban areas/cities are the most densely populated and also heavily democratic so middle America would have no say in the election.

DivaCup

Your English is great, btw.

I read normally the electoral college is supposed to go with who won the popular vote. The electoral college is going to vote for who becomes president on December 19. Right now, Hillary is winning the popular vote. However, a lot of people think it's unlikely that they would pick Hillary. She already conceded.

King Maxx

Because the US has a FEDERAL not NATIONAL system.

National = popular vote of the entire country

Federal = popular vote of a particular state

Aurora

Quote:

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

― Aristotle

It makes no sense to add up the popular vote of each particular state rather than listening to the people as a whole.

Hazard

Trump won more states

Electoral college will choose him

If for some obscure reason Hillary is chosen the country is be 10x more divided than it is right now but it won't happen so there's no point protesting

Bey Admired

The electoral college system is so dumb and undemocratic. A vote in one state should never be worth more than a vote in another. It creates an environment in which certain states are totally abandoned during the election season by a party depending on if it's a blue or red state. Take Texas for example, there are literally millions of Democrats living in Texas. However, Hillary didn't speak personally to Texan Democrats once in this election because she knew it would be a red state. It's just not a good environment that leads to positive change and perception of elected officials.

If it was just based on popular vote, you'd have a situation in which the candidates are speaking to all its people, not just those in a particular state. They would be free to travel and rally in states that aren't deemed 'red' or 'blue'. The aim would be to get as many people as possible to vote for you. That's democracy at work.

VOSS

Quote:

Originally posted by Bey Admired

The electoral college system is so dumb and undemocratic. A vote in one state should never be worth more than a vote in another. It creates an environment in which certain states are totally abandoned during the election season by a party depending on if it's a blue or red state. Take Texas for example, there are literally millions of Democrats living in Texas. However, Hillary didn't speak personally to Texan Democrats once in this election because she knew it would be a red state. It's just not a good environment that leads to positive change and perception of elected officials.

If it was just based on popular vote, you'd have a situation in which the candidates are speaking to all its people, not just those in a particular state. They would be free to travel and rally in states that aren't deemed 'red' or 'blue'. The aim would be to get as many people as possible to vote for you. That's democracy at work.

Well, in that situation candidates would really just go to major metropolitan areas. Not that it would be any worse than them just going to swing states which is what they pretty much do now.

Bey Admired

Quote:

Originally posted by VOSS

Well, in that situation candidates would really just go to major metropolitan areas. Not that it would be any worse than them just going to swing states which is what they pretty much do now.

But they would be able to broaden perspectives and relay their message more effectively. Going to just swing states like they do now is really not doing anything to build up trust with these communities that feel disenfranchised.

Reza

Hillary got more votes OVERALL but Trump won more votes in certain states. For example in California Hillary got 5 million votes and trump got 3 million so she won the 55 electoral votes and got 2 million more votes than him.

Now in a state like Wisconsin the vote was much closer.. Trump got 1,409,000 and Hillary got 1,382,000. thats only a difference of about 27,000 votes but he won the state. This happened in a few other states too where he beat her by a few thousand votes and won those states. Adding all those up its still way less than the 2 million votes she beat him by in California.

LoKoPaNdA

Quote:

Originally posted by KittyCat

The popular vote in each individual state decides who that state elects as president. Then, the winner receives the electoral votes from that state, which are decided upon based on the state's population. The argument for the electoral college is that urban areas/cities are the most densely populated and also heavily democratic so middle America would have no say in the election.

yeah that's the way it should be