Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Legit question for understanding...

Is it really a majority if more people didn't vote for the winner? Considering votes for other candidates and non voters, I think there's a message in that that shouldn't be overlooked.

Like maybe the people needing more choices. And the government not being run by one or two parties...

This is a non bias question, looking for thoughtful answers. Thank you.
We need a third party ...but they never seem to get off the ground...

It's the same thing everytime ...nothing changes for the better and we just just keep chasing our tails . Migrants are not our biggest problem ...there are bigger things going on here .
@pripyatamusementpark Absolutely. And I think even if the majority is white consumers, they still aren't seeing the bigger picture, only what affects them.

Personally I think it's wrong how our system works and it's the reason the bigots can point and laugh at anyone they consider beneath them aka not exactly like them.

It amazes me. It's like our country is run by adults with the mentality of kindergartners.
Adogslife · 61-69, M
The two party system is designed to have checks and balances. That doesn’t mean there aren’t inherent flaws. But, in presidential election, the sum of a few minority candidates’ votes doesn’t equal a majority either. It just means there’s a lack of conviction amongst voters. That would be less true in the House of Representatives.

Also, a “majority” is somewhat misconstrued in a US election as it’s the Electoral College that determines a winner. In that system, except for Maine and Nebraska, it’s a winner take all system - a race to 270 votes (of 538). The 538 mirrors the structure of House, 435 Representatives, and the Senate, 100 Senators. The 3 additional electoral votes are for DC, which isn’t a state. So, it’s not the sum of individual’s votes tabulated for the nation to see who wins. It’s the sum of individual votes in a state that gives the state to a candidate who then strives to hit the goal of 270.
I didn't feel like I wanted to support either. It seems like past few years a big part of the voting base in the US has not really voted 'for' anyone, but almost always 'against' someone else.

We really need more political parties. Maybe with some sort of tiered elections so that unless someone gets 70+%, the lowest two results are dropped and another vote happens.

Something different anyway
@stound yeah just voting to oppose wasn't very inspirational this year.

I like that idea, but definitely something different that represents the vast majority and not a narrow agenda.
@MarbleMarvel single issue voting is the worst.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
I feel like these type of questions and concerns come from the side that lost.

You're not wrong. But lamenting about it after your side lost is not the way to affect change.

You mention 3rd party candidates. You belong to any 3rd parties? You advocate for them? Support them? Sign up, go to the meetings, go out and knock on doors for them? If not, how do you expect them to be a force in politics?

This isn't something you pine about after bitter loss. It's a calling. It requires people to be serious about it and spend years getting this off the ground.

What seems to happen is the moment a legitimate 3rd party crops up, it gets subsumed into one of the 2 major parties.
@SumKindaMunster I'm not affiliated with any party, hence why I mentioned not being bias.

If I'm bias against anything it's our system in general.

Thanks for the input anyway.
I don't understand the way it's done, Hillary Clinton won by amounts of votes, but Trump won in the correct states.. Anyhue it makes no sense to me
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
@AbsolutelyFabulous Bill Clinton won by Electoral votes but lost the majority of popular votes and this happened twice
Madmonk · M
We only have one party. They run everything. We only have the illusion of choice.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Madmonk · M
@MarbleMarvel lol yep
Starcrossed · 41-45, F
I'm very very much for ranked choice voting. I think we need to do away with the two party system and with the electoral college.
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
@Starcrossed I think this
Pinkstarburst · 51-55, F
I believe the winner should be president and the runner up should be vice President.
LunarOrbit · 56-60, M
@Pinkstarburst Sounds like a marriage. 🥴
@Pinkstarburst oh I like it! Have us learn to cooperate and understand.
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
I didn’t hear this after Bill Clinton on the Electoral vote but not the popular votes not only once but twice
Jeephikelove · 51-55, F
You guys absolutely need more choices!
Jeephikelove · 51-55, F
@MarbleMarvel We have a Green Party up here that has been around for decades but doesn’t gain much traction either except for areas like the Sunshine Coast.
@Jeephikelove Just makes me feel like some things should be reevaluated to include the whole picture. Not one narrow vision. Ideally, we could all work together.
Jeephikelove · 51-55, F
@MarbleMarvel you’re 100% correct!
We need to have rank-choice voting. Without that, we'll only ever have two choices in the general elections.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@tenente Agreed 💯

 
Post Comment