Ok, but what does that prove? Nothing. If ALL TOTAL VOTES, from everywhere, urban and rural areas alike, were tallied up...that would be the most accurate and fair way to vote. Every vote would count. Under the electoral college system they don't.
Democracy runs the risk of turning into mob rule where the majority of the people dictate the lives of everyone else, so you need something like a Republic to stop that from happening, e.g., through the introduction of an electoral college system. Nothing about such a system makes votes matter less if the weighting is done properly.
Seems both the GOP and Mr Trump would have faired better if he had gone independent early in the race. A brokered convention "might" stop Trump, but the party appears to be imploding and incapable of dominating Mrs Clinton. The least the Republican Party can do is to meaningfully disassociate itself from rhetoric of Donald Trump. Might be too late for that.
That seems to be a fairly common theme. I suspect it's because in large urban areas it makes more sense to share at least some resources - public transport makes sense when it takes a million cars off the roads and where there are enough people to provide a meaningful option. Out in more rural areas there aren't the people to make public transport viable, and public transport ceases to be useful when the nearest bus stop is 8 miles away and there's one bus to town every four days. In rural areas people are more self-sufficient, partly out of necessity, so are less likely to vote for more sharing. I guess in larger urban areas there's a supermarket within walking distance and property is hugely expensive, so people don't keep a longer term store. In rural areas it's further to travel to get groceries and property is cheaper, so people are more likely to put some aside to cover a longer period. In turn that sort of thing gets called "hoarding" by urbanites, especially when there's a shock to the supply chain and the villagers have food on hand while the townies don't. I know it's not as simple as that makes it sound but it does seem to be a trend. And when a city like London has a population comparable to the entire state of Pennsylvania it's clear that urban centers will tend to outweigh rural areas. London's population is roughly 16% of the entire UK population (add Birmingham and you've got more like 20%). I suspect the figures are similar if you look at cities like NYC as a proportion of New York State, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as a proportion of Pennsylvania, and so on.
This is where I think limiting the powers of government with some over-ruling document would make a lot of sense. We could call a document like that a Constitution, and require the government to follow it. In many ways democracy is little more than two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for dinner. With the vast differences between the lifestyles of city dwellers and country dwellers it is alarming when city dwellers can effectively vote to outlaw things that country dwellers consider more necessary because the city dwellers find it offensive. The most politically charged example right now is probably guns although once the ecomentalist movement gets going the chances are private transport is going to be in the firing line. The sad thing is that in the country you can't haul a load of firewood using a Prius, even if city life is entirely possible without owning any private vehicles.
Just as an FYI, Germany was refashioned as a republic similar to the US after WWII. When I was younger, much of it was a 2-party system very much like the Republicans vs Democrats (CDU -- the "Christian Democratic Union" -- and SPD -- the "Socialist Party of Deutschland/Germany" -- respectively). At some point the Green Party started gaining traction in parliament (Bundestag). They kept getting many votes, although for a long time not enough to be voted into Congress. But, people kept at it, and before you knew it the Green Party representatives actually gained a few congressional seats. Just a couple. It was pretty groundbreaking, and I still remember it. Then they grew pretty quickly, and other parties started following suit, to where nowadays the German parliament has 4 parties in attendance, and the German populace as a whole has much better representation than they used to when it was just 2 parties locking horns all the time. So if you think your non-vote doesn't matter, I really encourage you to think again. Anything can happen. People in our country are getting sick and tired of the 2-party shenanigans and getting to only vote between the lesser of two evils. The public conscience is changing. Your vote does matter. Because you are by no means the only voter who feels this way. There are thousands upon thousands of others. Those thousands need to understand that if they just go vote, and keep voting, then change can and will happen. Our President is only one part of a 3-part government. Congressional elections still matter. A lot. If Congress had a bit more variety party-wise, then we'd have more presidential candidates to choose from who can gain a much larger support system than they are now. With the 2-party system so firmly entrenched in Congress, it's almost impossible for another party candidate to gain any sort of traction. So the whole system has to change, really. And only We the People can make that change happen, if we're persistent and don't quit. But, you know, people say they want change, but their actions prove that they'd rather gripe about the establishment than change it, because over 200 years later we still only have 2 parties to choose from, and so here we all are.
Maybe vote for Thelma Hopkins as President and Gracie Allen as VP. Sounds like a winning combination to me.
Donald Duck for President with Mickey Mouse as VP. We seem to be headed that way with either of the major parties...
I don't think Garcie Allen is but Thelma Hopkins was Mama on Mama's Family and Carol Bernette show and I think she is still around. She was the youngest of the cast members on Mama's Family. Gracie even dead would be a better VP than some we've had.
Well, now that Cruz is officially out, the Donald is going to be the GOP nominee. I'll have to eat crow on that because I really could not see him hanging around and being considered serious. So it's an almost certainty it'll be Clinton vs. Trump for the general. I still think Clinton will defeat him in a general election.
From what I could tell Cruz was into the whole seven mountains dominionism thing, which ruled him out as a candidate for me. Franky I'd rather have a nutjob in Trump than a dominionist nutjob. Trump vs Clinton is a terrifying proposition. Of the two I'd prefer Trump, but only using the same reasoning that says I'd rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye with a sharp stick.
I know it was Cruz's father who was more into the dominionism thing, as far as I read about it anyway. I did not care for Cruz at all regardless of that.
Make that two orders of crow. I likewise believe Mrs. Clinton will defeat Trump. Like being between a rock and a hard place - while I cannot stand Clinton, I cannot even tolerate Trump. Think Ima gonna either be very depressed or completely tuned out of the US political scenario for some time.
I think Hillary represents just about everything that's wrong with politics. Trump seems like little more than a loudmouthed buffoon. As the line in Ghostbusters said, "Choose the form of the destroyer".
It is interesting that even in light of the looming prospect of Trump, members of the Senate never did thaw their cold assessments of Cruz - they never forgave him for his unwarranted efforts to shut down the government as a means of defeating Obamacare. While he is a constitutional scholar and an idealist, he is perhaps a more menacing nut-job than the alternative.
Looking at the election process from a distance with only limited information since I live in a different country I noticed this bizarre tendency, just tell me if I am wrong on this. Trump seems to get away with almost anything while I think that if Clinton makes a (similar) mistake it will backfire on her much more heavy.