The most important thing we can learn from Trump may be how much we were benefitting from representative rather than direct democracy. Shifting just a little closer to direct democracy, in the form of a candidate who did an end run around party bosses, has been a disaster.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This is a fallacy I see repeated over and over. Since candidates know the electoral vote is what matters, that's what they campaign for. If the popular vote mattered, the Trump campaign wouldn't have ignored California, for example.
Maybe the election would have turned out differently if it were decided by the popular vote, but your default assumption has to be that the more powerful campaign would convert its power into whatever form mattered.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
The more logical default assumption is that he was only electable in the first place due to a quirk in the system (EC). He continues to hold at around 36%, yet is still a threat. This is wildly problematic for democracy, essentially disenfranchising millions of votes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If Trump had to appeal to a broad general majority. he'd have to get rid of the worst aspects of Trumpism. Yes with a popular vote the strategy changes, but that's a good thing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I genuinely don't get the reasoning. Popular vote and Electorial college aren't respectively closer/further to direct democracy, they're both different mechanism for achieving representative democracy. Real question is which one is fairer, independently of how campaigns are run
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.