What is a bit strange and something I'm not sure I will completely understand, is that Clinton gets more votes but doesn't win.
Admittedly though a similar thing occurs in Britain, as it's about having a certain number of constituencies to get in and some yield a lot more voters than others, so in theory you could have more constituencies declared in your parties name and still lead, even if the aggregate number of voters for you was quite a bit less than the second placed party.
So I assume it's a similar thing in America I would hazard, which allowed Clinton to lose even though she had more votes.
Boss Man wrote:What is a bit strange and something I'm not sure I will completely understand, is that Clinton gets more votes but doesn't win..
It's this thing called... Electoral Votes that will get the candidate to the White House.
"The candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is said to have won the popular vote. But the winner of the popular vote may end up losing the election... This is because although Americans vote directly for their chosen candidate in the presidential election every 4 years, the president is elected by the institution called the Electoral College."
I hate voting for presidency but that doesn't mean I don't vote. It's just heart breaking that there's this glass ceiling for women. Let's see how America will be the next 4 years.... so far there's already protests everywhere...
If by climate change they mean increasing global temperatures and sea levels, then that could happen, so ignoring it is foolish, but then humans with the power to change things often do ignore risk, then have to deal with the consequences and do so in sometimes ineffectual ways, whilst those afraid of such potential consequences, who warned of their potential to exist, look on in dismay waiting to be told their concerns should have been addressed better, by not acting out of a necessity to at least prevent further proliferation of the problems caused, regardless of whether said problems could be partially or completely reversed, but rather to act out of necessity to prevent the occurrence of those problems in the first place, before they could exist to any level of severity.
If however by climate change they mean changing the countries social climate, by swapping a mild mannered president for a totally unhinged one, then surely they can't ignore that as it's happening right now.