2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

>There are legitimate questions that need to be asked about how democratic the US actually is.
Why is this a legitimate question? Anyone who has any knowledge of the US system knows it's a representative confederated republic, and they deliberately shied away from simple democracy. It's as democratic as the EU is.

>Now is the time to ask those questions and not just of the Republicans but of both sides. The electoral college system is not truly democratic and the Senate elections are not democratic, one man does not equal one vote. The house elections are a joke thanks to horrific gerrymandering by both sides.

One man does equal one vote. In my body politic of California, my vote here in urban Alameda County weighs just as equally as one vote over in the mountains of Amador county. Complaining that my vote weighs less than that of someone in Rhode Island ignores the fact that it's irrelevant to the organisation of the fifty united states.Senators represent the States, not the population, that's why they have two each, regardless of size of population. Voters in the Presidential Election are instructing their State representatives how the State should vote, not casting a direct vote themselves. The gerrymandering statement is correct (Though we're starting to fix it in California a bit), but irrelevant to the electoral theory of just who is voting for what. Changing the Presidential or Senate structure isn't a minor tweak to the electoral process, it's a fundamental change in the very nature of what the USA is as a country.

>Convicted felons cannot vote in some states, disenfranchising them from the electoral system:

It can be argued that they disenfranchised themselves by acting in a nature contrary to the good order of society. Although I happen to personally agree with a position no stricter than 40 of the States, I do accept the difference between active disenfranchisement, and willfully acting in a manner which has life-time consequences to bring it on themselves. In any case, as the US Supreme Court observed, it very clearly says in the Constitution that committing a crime can result in a loss of voting rights. It doesn't have to, but it can. (Which is why the bans continue in place).

>People are entitled to protest a man they don't feel truly represents them and given the fact that more people voted for Hillary it's hard to argue with them. You want to champion free speech in one line and then criticise others for exercising their right to free speech on another, stop the hypocrisy.

Two points here. Firstly, they had plenty of time to make their objections clear before the election. Doing it afterwards achieves nothing but make them look petulant. Most protests have a desired effect, to change something. This does not, the election has already happened. Secondly, they have a right to peaceably assemble, but I don't think the business owners around my neck of the woods (who chances are voted for Clinton) are particularly on the side of free speech when the expression of free speech is the damage or destruction of their businesses. Similarly, if I'm the way to the hospital, or just otherwise conducting my normal business, I'm not convinced I can entirely sympathise with people blocking my route because they're upset about something which cannot be changed.

>These deep, cavernous flaws and many others need to be addressed. The sad thing is they won't. The anger will subside and the system will roll on as it is.
We have significant issues, don't get me wrong, and I also suspect that they won't be fixed. I'm less convinced, however, that what you see as an issue is necessarily what I see as one.