------------------------------------------------------------ ------

Who gets to decide who has the right morals and therefore gets a vote?

Taking away someone's vote because you don't like the way they think is a road that leads to a very dark place.

Who decides on morality? Well, I don't use racist or homophobic slurs, but I know people who do. I've known of people who have advocated some horrible things (a neighbour I knew advocated forced repatriation of black people from the UK). Sure, he gets a vote, but it irks me that he does. I hate the thought of someone like him getting access to a ballot box.

****

I have similar wishes... more specifically, I wish the right to vote INCLUDED being properly educated on current issues/policies plus understand how the system works so everyone is well aware of how elected officials will effect our nation. Still, I'm well aware of how the lies told during the election process clouds one's judgment - but still voters should be able to make an educated decision and NOT just vote based on a person's personality/charisma/popularity.

-C!

Voters can vote or not vote as they prefer.

The only qualifier to vote is to be an American citizen.

Voters don't have to have the least idea about candidates when they vote.

Had a large percentage of Americans voted (90%+), I have reason to suspect the outcome might have been different.. Had the popular vote been the qualifier, I'm certain that, whatever percentage voted,m the outcome would have been different. Had the United States more valid parties and qualified candidates, the outcome would have been different.

But when we have two "real" candidates and the selection is, quite legitimately, the lesser of two evils - people will choose not to vote. People will pick the candidate with emotional appeal. People will vote for the better liar.

Keith Olbermann pointed out in one of his analyses that right now, 10% of the Trump voters are dissatisfied with him. Had that margin applied in the election in the swing states, Trump would be a distant memory right now.

A lot of it is indeed the citizens' fault... but the way the game is set right now, the most qualified and capable candidates don't even seem to have a chance to be recognized. And "the lesser of two evils" is a hell of a crappy way to select a leader for a government.

——-

It bears repeating that if 80,000 people among Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton instead of Trump, the Electoral College would have gone in the other direction. 

------------------------------------------

But it's not wrong! The hypothetical point you propose is fundamentally undemocratic -- the notion that someone's vote should count for less than yours because you don't like the way they think.

Unless everyone's votes are equal, there's little point in having a vote, because the person who decides whose vote counts for less is the person deciding the election. Furthermore, there could be no reforms over time, because the Authority That Decides would always dictate what thinking was allowed to vote. That authority would be behaving as if it were infallible, proceeding on an assumption that its morality was the same as absolute morality. 

Again, yes he has a vote and it shouldn't be taken away, but I certainly hate the thought of people like that having a vote. It's something that I find distasteful.