Why Hillary lost the presidential election

It was more about the media NOT interviewing Johnson & Stein @Morleyhunt . A lot of people didn't know about them because of it. To me that is "media bias".

@nanette64 the media has a lot to answer for. The general public believes almost everything the hear and read on the mainstream media. They forget the agenda the media moguls have.

Morley: the United States lacks the parliamentary system you enjoy in Canada... but does have first-past-the-post voting. The combination of factors effectively ensures a two-party system down here. That said, Question 5 in Maine (for tiered voting) did pass, and I hope to see it spread to other states; that's the first genuine step toward effective third parties and eventually formation of coalition governments on the state and federal level.

A friend just told me that only 56% of all registered voters voted for Hillary or Donald.

@JamesHxstatic We were discussing that possibility at work.

I signed a petition today to drop the EC.

@TheHorse .....Yes, and I am sick of thinking about it Clintons are crooks and Trump is who knows what. I hope he isn't a part of the government conspiracy and we can get through the next four years okay.

We'll see what happens.

He has nothing to offer except lies and a big mouth.

Seriously, you're concerned about Christians being offended when Trump has been offending every group possible for a year and a half? Also, Kellyanne Conway is a total hypocrite, she'll say anything she's asked to say by whomever can offer her the most money. I'd laugh if Donald stiffed her since I'm not sure if she was being paid upfront or not.

Good points. I'd have to look more closely to see what percentage were Libertarians v. Green Party people. Choosing Bernie for VP would have been a cool move. But mightn't have alienated "the middle," which Bill was able to court?

@nanette64 i agree with ya hon. they should all start with'n e'en 'playin' field' fundin' wise. what?? ya mean actually go'n record 's to their plans? 're ya kiddin'? ;) nothin' like's tellin' our young'uns not to be bullies 'n then've those so called professional paradin' 'round showin' 'em jest how low ya can go...

I believe in a flat fee @crazyhorseladycx . $1 million PERIOD!! With TV, radio and the internet, candidates don't need to travel across the country 50 times. Maybe if they concentrated on stipulating in their commercials what they plan to do instead of insulting each other, the people would actually know what their candidate stands for.

Yes, I think it's called either "ranked voting" or "tiered voting." It may have been used out here in CA for some of our Mayoral elections.

@Raelove Will that be for all elections, including presidential?

@Raelove That sounds very similar to our system. It's supposed to make it fairer but I'm not sure how it actually works.

Very true. I'm sure that those interested could come up with a decent estimate though.

@TheHorse .. I don't know if you heard the song Not in fatalistic way ...but every hardship makes us strong I suppose in someway and we learn methods to overcome it, whether we use it at the time or think of it later on, after failing. So we are wiser, and capable of handling more ..in nutshell, moving to other places is not going to solve the problem, running away is not the solution..if I had a kid, I would say face it, there is a possibility of failing yes, but there is more to be gained by being brave. And in any event you are not guaranteed success at the other end, so why not face it.

@vandana7 Oh yes. I've heard this song! Im actually being pretty philosophical about the presidential election. Will trumps character change? Is his public persona different from his true self? If we don't get nuked, this will be an interesting and educational ride.

Many of us a joking about moving to Canada or Europe now.

Put which to sleep?

But I thought of Bernie as TOO far to the left to elect in this country.

@TheHorse He was, I believe, though not fpr me.

Ah yes. I remember Mr. Perot.

Your last sentence is what Ive been surprising friends with. I think (and hope) you're right.

@Fleurnight because politicians often have had no career outside politics. A country is, essentially, a big business. If someone can get to be a billionaire they have some business skill so that could be translated to government. Personally, I belive if I want a nice country our elected officials need to be real people not career politicians. The medical analogy doesn't fly for me...

Why did the "liberal media" help Trump and hurt Hillary? Did they really not think he had a chance?

@CaptAlbertWhisker They get paid money for getting a percentage of the vote? That sounds weird, and potentially corrupting.

@egdcltd That is the system, the point of that means they will become a legit party. That money will be their start up. Also both republicans and democrats also get funds.

They want 3rd parties to get 5 percent votes because if they got 5 percent, they will be given 10 million dollars fund next election.

@TheHorse In every country, I have noticed that the "moderate" voters are those that cause the fanatic parties to grow and finally win.

Right. Courting the middle is important. In this case, both candidates were generally seen as repugnant, so even more votes than usual (so they say) went to third party candidates.

Did you think she had a chance of winning?

@TheHorse No and that's only because the MEDIA didn't bother giving her a chance verbally or visually. The media already picked who they wanted.

@nanette64 So... you don't think that Dr. Stein's lack of a chance had anything to do with, say, there being less than a quarter million registered Green voters in the U.S. (248k at last count)? Or the dearth of elected Greens in Congress, in state legislatures, in local government? Or a failure by the various minor parties to pursue via referendum voting methods other than first-past-the-post (with the notable exception of this year in Maine)? Or perhaps the absence of any actual effort at party-building and grassroots growth outside of the quadrennial quixotic White House run? No, instead you think that the only reason Dr. Stein didn't have a real chance at winning the Presidency of the United States is that the media didn't cover her -- a candidate with an exceedingly small electoral base and no downticket elected base -- to a greater extent?

Do you think the "third parties" will ever be viable here in larger elections?

As things stand, third-party candidates stand precisely zero chance of winning a Presidential election. Not because of corruption, or media collusion, or any of the usual roster of conspiracy theories. Rather, they stand precisely zero chance because of the reality of our winner-take-all voting method and the practical consequences of the Electoral College system as defined in the 12th Amendment. The unfortunate consequence of the combination of those two factors is that we are systemically geared for two-party politics. This is particularly true for the Presidential election, where a clear majority (rather than a mere plurality) of Electoral votes are necessary to secure the election; without it, the election is decided by the House of Representatives rather than the voting public, and that is sadly the most likely result of an actual three-way race with three strong candidates (and given the current structure of the House, that means a Republican President, every time). Not, mind you, that Dr. Stein was a particularly strong candidate. It's bad enough when any candidate cozies up with anti-vaccination types, promotes homeopathy, and condemns GMOs out of hand; it's worse when that candidate is also a trained M.D. She was also entirely too happy to stand with TERFs. Her foreign policy statements are somewhere between laughable and sad. And she frankly had *no* platform on broad swaths of what comprise our political reality, because they fall outside of the somewhat limited focus of the Green Party. Gov. Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, frankly wasn't much better, given that the Libertarian platform amounts to a nightmarish embrace of an Ayn Rand wet dream. It didn't help that he was regularly caught flat-footed when asked about any policy point where the answer wasn't "deregulate". The minor party candidates this year -- as in most years -- were junior varsity in a major league game. They were so because when a party doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, it doesn't attract competent candidates. I get it; nobody likes being told, "That candidate you like, the one on the minor party or independent ticket? There's no way he can win the Presidency because they're not in one of the two major parties." But the uncomfortable truth is that because of our voting methods and the 12th Amendment, it's true: there's no remotely realistic way a third-party or independent candidate can win the Presidency. Now, do you want to change this? Step one is to work hard at the local level to get independents and third-party members elected locally. School board, city council, etc. Then work just as hard at the county level. Then do it again at the state level. Then again at the national level. At each and every point, while you're doing this, push as well to replace winner-takes-all voting with either Instant Runoff Voting or Approval Voting. And when at long last you have significant third-party representation in state governments and Congress, push to reform the 12th Amendment to switch it as well to Instant Runoff or Approval voting. It's not a fast process. It's not an easy process. And there's no guarantee that it will pay off in the end; mustering the kind of political will to do these things is difficult in a country where most people won't bother voting in local elections or primaries, and half skip even the top ticket. But it's the only realistic avenue to get what you want: a realistic chance for votes for third-party candidates to do anything better than act as spoilers (and usually benefiting the majority party least closely aligned with you).