Trump wins, but...

[Monster]

For the second time in two decades, the Republicans lost the popular vote (likely) but still won the presidency. More proof that the system needs to change.

And before anybody says anything, I'd be saying the same thing if Clinton won but Trump won the popular. How can a person become president when more than half the votes were against them? It's ridiculous.

 

[Spartanmack]

More than half the votes were cast against Hillary too.

 

[Mitchrapp]

For the second time in two decades, the Republicans lost the popular vote (likely) but still won the presidency. More proof that the system needs to change.

And before anybody says anything, I'd be saying the same thing if Clinton won but Trump won the popular. How can a person become president when more than half the votes were against them? It's ridiculous.

Neither had the majority. And the difference probably falls with the +/-.

 

[Monster]

What I'm saying is that she had the most overall votes. Just like Gore did. And as I said, if it was the other way around, I'd still object to it.

Popular vote should win. Every time.

 

[Mitchrapp]

What I'm saying is that she had the most overall votes. Just like Gore did. And as I said, if it was the other way around, I'd still object to it.

Popular vote should win. Every time.

I think you might have a point if one had a majority. I guess you could just go with more states won?

 

[tinselwolverine]

What I'm saying is that she had the most overall votes. Just like Gore did. And as I said, if it was the other way around, I'd still object to it.

Popular vote should win. Every time.

The system will never be changed.

The only people with the power under the law to change it - lawmakers in the United States Senate from small less populous states, and the lawmakers in the state assemblies of those smaller states - and of course the voters who elect them - are exactly the same people who believe that it protects their interests with regard to presidential elections.

What the electoral college did in two out of the last four elections is exactly what it was designed to do when it was adopted in 1789 as part of the great compromise that paved the path for this country to be established under the constitution in the first place.

 

[biggunsbob]

She is up around 200,000 last I looked . But he could still catch her. I wonder if Chuck Schumer will cave like all minority democrats? He can hold up alot of stuff. At least blowhard Mitch McConnell sounded reasonable under his giddy quivering lip unlike what he did when Obama was elected. It's a Delicate balance for Chuck because team GOP never seems to punished for obstructionism.

 

[Monster]

I think you might have a point if one had a majority. I guess you could just go with more states won?

That still makes no sense. She got the most votes. Majority shouldn't matter and if it does, the top two candidates should go to another vote alone so that there will be a majority. The whole system is ridiculous from primaries to the general election.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think you might have a point if one had a majority. I guess you could just go with more states won?

This would give voters in smaller states even more representation than the electoral college does.

In this model, New York counts as one.

Wyoming counts as one.

California counts as one.

North Dakota counts as one.

Texas counts as one.

Montana counts as one.

Illinois counts as one.

South Dakota counts as one.

See the problem we get into here?

The electoral college, by assigning electoral votes per state by the number of representatives in each house of Congress by state, strikes a balance between representation by population and equal representation per state.

 

[Mitchrapp]

That still makes no sense. She got the most votes. Majority shouldn't matter and if it does, the top two candidates should go to another vote alone so that there will be a majority. The whole system is ridiculous from primaries to the general election.

I'd just agree with Tinsel on this. My "most states" was just to compare with "popular vote." Neither is a good idea.. but popular vote just means bigger states matter more..

 

[Spartanmack]

That still makes no sense. She got the most votes. Majority shouldn't matter and if it does, the top two candidates should go to another vote alone so that there will be a majority. The whole system is ridiculous from primaries to the general election.

that's how a lot of multi-party systems work. If nobody gets a majority, then there is a runoff between the top 2 or something along those lines.

 

[adam86107]

If it weren't for the electoral college then the large heavily populated cities would always choose the president since they always tend to lean toward the same party. The electoral college gives the little guys vote more power.

 

[Monster]

that's how a lot of multi-party systems work. If nobody gets a majority, then there is a runoff between the top 2 or something along those lines.

That's exactly how it should work.

And for the people saying the current system prevents the big cities from choosing the president...too bad. 300 million people have to live under the President. I don't care if 299 million live in one single city, one person's vote should count as much as anyone else's.

I live in California. If I wanted to vote for Trump, my vote will be discarded since there is no chance he wins the state. I want my vote to count for my candidate and I don't want it thrown out just because my state didn't agree. One person, one vote. I don't care where you live.

 

[tinselwolverine]

If it weren't for the electoral college then the large heavily populated cities would always choose the president since they always tend to lean toward the same party. The electoral college gives the little guys vote more power.

Yes.

Voters in small states feel this way today, just the way they did in 1789.

The Electoral College is a Constitutional provision and it would take a Constitutional amendment to do away with it.

That would take a two thirds majority in the House of Representatives - whose membership is allocated by population - a two thirds majority in the Senate - whose membership is equal among states - and ratification by the three quarters of states in their state legislatures.

Since the majority of senators are from small states, the senate would never vote to amend the constitution to do away with the electoral college.

And of course, the majority of state assemblies are in small states too - so no chance that it would be ratified, even if somehow the senate voted in a two thirds majority to pass such an amendment.

 

[Michchamp]

Did you know when it (the electoral college) was first proposed, Thomas Jefferson described it as "the electoral gayness" because he felt it was a totally gay idea?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Democrats only say this because it works against them (at this point in history). It's not as bad, but it has no more validity than when republicans try to impose voting rules that benefit them. The idea that a straight up vote count would skew power to urban centers to the detriment of some of the most important industries in the nation is spot on and our founders were wise to establish the electoral college.

 

[byco42]

The EC is a balance between Congress electing the president and a straight popular vote.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That's exactly how it should work.

And for the people saying the current system prevents the big cities from choosing the president...too bad. 300 million people have to live under the President. I don't care if 299 million live in one single city, one person's vote should count as much as anyone else's.

I live in California. If I wanted to vote for Trump, my vote will be discarded since there is no chance he wins the state. I want my vote to count for my candidate and I don't want it thrown out just because my state didn't agree. One person, one vote. I don't care where you live.

Maybe you should split your state in half.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That's exactly how it should work.

And for the people saying the current system prevents the big cities from choosing the president...too bad. 300 million people have to live under the President. I don't care if 299 million live in one single city, one person's vote should count as much as anyone else's.

I live in California. If I wanted to vote for Trump, my vote will be discarded since there is no chance he wins the state. I want my vote to count for my candidate and I don't want it thrown out just because my state didn't agree. One person, one vote. I don't care where you live.

Non-cities play a critical role in the strength of our nation. Census says 80% of us live in urban areas. It really makes no sense to have no representation motivated to benefit our rural areas directly. People don't think, "we depend on them, let's send them subsidies in years of overproduction so they maintain capacity that we might need if next year is bad". People think, "screw them, give me my money."

 

[deathroh]

I just don't agree with one vote having more value than another. And that's what happens now because the number of electoral votes that a state is given isn't directly proportional to population. Take Alaska and Michigan for example. Alaska had 3 electoral votes with a population of 686,293, for an average of 228,764 voters per elector. Michigan had 17 votes with 10,003,422 voters, for an average of 588,436. So an individual vote in Alaska had over twice the impact as a vote in Michigan.

And if we're going back to the founding fathers, it was originally set up that the vast majority of states would just let legislatures pick whoever they want. States didn't all start using popular vote until after the civil war. So it's already been bastardized.

And then, what's the point anyway? Is there going to be any real impact once an election is all said and done? Is Alaska going to benefit in any way since Trump got their 3 electoral votes? Sure, a small state may get more stump speeches and political ads, but that's more a negative than anything. The psychological gains of residents in a few particular swing states feeling they are important are at least equaled out by the California scenario that monster points out. And the only real outcome is that some people have more say than others, when the original intention was that the general populous shouldn't really have a direct say at all.