[Withano]

What do you think works better?

Clinton received more votes than Trump but lost because of how the electoral vote works, kind of similar to UKIP voters claiming they were under-represented by only winning one chair despite having 3.8m votes.

Would you feel more represented by a country-wide vote, or your constinuency/state having their collective say.

[armand.kay]

As frustrating as it can be a constituency vote is what works the best to ensure the entire country is represented and not just the big populated cities. Especially in a country as big as America where I imagine different states probably have different issues and concerns from each other.

[Withano]

Yeh, I also think constituency works better. Partially because I feel like it would be predominantly London boys chosen under a popular vote, and people would feel more under-represented than ever. having one person from your contituency making it to parliament works well, and UKIP voters can arrange for their vote to take place in a different area if they really wanted to.

But then again, I think it would be interesting to see how many more votes Green would get if people felt as if they stood a chance. And in Americas case, the more qualified person won the most votes but lost and that must feel awful for Americans.

Theres an argument for both sides for sure.

[Brother Leon]

College vote. Otherwise California,New York and Texas would decide every election. Pointless for anyone else to bother. Plus it is so much more exciting. Tracking the vote for states when they were separated by hundreds of votes only was so thrilling.

[joeysteele]

As with our own elections and now 2 USA going this way in half of the 4 elections held there since 2000.
I think the popular vote result Countrywide should be the main deciding element to victory.

No individual should, in my view,be given or assume power if they have not at the very least come top of the voting across a whole Country.

I say the same here in the UK,of course normally here the govt; does at least consist of the party who gets the most votes, usually taking power either singly or in coalition.
However our flaw is that such govts; can at present in our now outdated electoral system, take power only getting just over a third of all votes cast.

The USA or anywhere that claims to be a democracy at all, should never have an instance where someone not getting the most votes across the Nation in a election can then, because of a clearly unrepresentative electoral college system, get a really strong mandate for taking power from that.
Even worse still is that neither got over 50% of the votes anyway.

[Vicky.]

Popular vote seems fairer to me tbh. I mean, I definitely didn't support UKIP but it seems quite unfair that they had so many votes in our election and got nowhere? Dunno..just seems a bit crap tbh

[arista]

"Clinton received
more votes than Trump "

Withano this has
happened before, Al Gore Vs GW Bush
so any Young Americans, moaning about
the Trump Win
must Learn History.



I say
Learn History
to be ready to Correct The Future.


Can you Feel this LT?

[jennyjuniper]

I clicked on the wrong vote. I blame it on the fact that I'm only on my second cup of coffee and therefore my eyes are only halfway open.

[Cal.]

Whatever makes Green win

[Nicky91]

Constituency vote