Abolish the electorial college?

The popular vote determined the outcome of exactly -0- presidential elections.

The people do not have electoral votes - states do.
The people in those states -may- have a vote on which electors are sent to the EC; when they do have such a vote, their vote counts exactly the same as everyone else so voting.

<Rule 2>

 

Close to 100% of those extra votes she got came from California. We don't need one state deciding for us; especially the hot mess that is California. Yikes.

 

Yes - she won CA by ~4 million and the 'popular vote' by ~3 million.
This means she LOST the other 50 elections by a net of ~1 million.
Electoral college, working as intended.

 

What a completely silly thing to say! Four of the five presidents who won without getting the popular vote were Republican. The only one that wasn't was John Quincy Adams, when the R party wasn't a thing. The D team has never won without getting the popular vote.

 

<Mod Edit>

If you really don't understand what I mean I will try to explain it more clearly.

In every presidential election, except for 5, the winner received a higher proportion of the popular vote. In the other 5 elections, the winner did not receive a higher proportion of the popular vote. In the two most recent elections in which that happened we got two of the worst presidents of all time, George W. Bush and Donald Trump. In my opinion, this is bad.

Every state has X # of electoral votes. The states with less people have a higher number of electoral votes per capita. The electoral votes are given out according to the votes of the people in the state. This means that the people in a small state have a more valuable vote according to the electoral college. You can think of it another, even simpler way. Smaller states get a disproportionately larger number of electoral votes. In my opinion, this is bad.

Does it make sense now? Do you care to actually debate the topic at hand or do you just want to continue this nonsense?

 

I hate the electorial college. I'm all for the Electoral College.

 

Yes.
This means the popular vote correlated with the winner of those elections.
The popular vote did not, however determine the winner of those elections - the electoral college did.
Thus, the popular vote has given us exactly -0- Presidents .
Do you choose to not understand this, or are you simply ignorant of the procedure for electing the President?

 

Well, until the last election, every time that the electoral college had a different result than the popular vote, the election results were a statistical tie, like the 2000 election. In those cases it makes sense for the EC to rule, as in the case of a tie, the winner should be the one with the most geographic popularity. The 2016 election was an aberration caused by an incompetent candidate. Hillary Clinton is the reason those results were that way. She refused to campaign in too much of the country, somehow not realizing that she was running for the President of the United States, not just California.

 

Clearly I understand it, clearly you don't understand how to have an interesting or productive discussion.

I'm done with your nonsense.

 

Because the Founders wanted to disperse power. They didn't want any group (even the people) to have too much say. Also, the Constitution would never have been ratified if not for the Great Compromise. Even when we only had 16 states (i.e. when the first census was done), it was easy to see that without the EC, the populous states would dominate the government, and we are created as a union of states, not just people. If you don't like it, move to a state that has more say. You'll lose out on influence in the House.

 

The process for determining how many representatives each state gets is pretty fair, IMO.

https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/how.html

 

No doubt the left would like to abolish the electoral college... then folks in public housing could choose our representatives and we'd always have a Dem majority.

 

I accept your concession of the points made.
Run along, now.

 

I disagree, the fact that smaller states recieve a higher ratio of electoral votes per capita gives them a higher weight in presidential elections. This gives a minority party power over the majority. That power has resulted in control of the supreme court, as well as a couple of really crappy presidents.

 

It seems you'd rather they have no representation. The method seems fair to me. Did you read it?

Using the methodology, Rhode Island didn't get it's 2nd seat assigned until # 419, where as California was given its' second seat at 51. (all states get 1 by default.)

 

Your non-seq aside...
The Constitution directly grants the minority the power over the majority in several different ways.

 

Absurd distortion. No, as a matter of fact it does not. It allows smaller states to have a voice in central, federal government when they would have no voice at all otherwise. It levels a playing field.

Without the EC, the U.S. would never have existed and without it today, it would cease to exist near instantly.

 

No one has an issue with the EC, so long as the Democrats win.

 

My preference would be that they each receive 1 vote per eligible voter. In other words, a popular vote. That is still representation, it's a fairer and more accurate representation.

 

Let us know when you amend the constitution.

 

The Republican party represents a 'minority' of the population of the US. They are a minority party.

The smaller states should get representation equal to their population. All the states should.

The historical statement about the US not existing without an electoral college is most likely true, but if the states voted to amend the constitution and end the electoral college there is next to 0% chance that would dissolve the US. That's just absurd.

 

As it is divided out, I think the EC is not a good method for determining a leader of the country. I felt that way before the election and maintain my view now.

 

By your logic, most states shouldn't have any representation at all. Seven states only get three votes (2 senator + 1 rep.) How much less representation would you like them to have?

Wyoming has 568,00 people and they have one vote in the house. In order to get every citizen the same ratio, we'd need almost 600 representatives. Do you think having that many people trying to legislate would work better?

 

Let us know when you amend the Constitution.

 

Just depends on how close to the threshold, there are some small states that end up getting less representation than others.

For example in terms of the 2010 census, Wyoming has a population of 568k with one House seat, Montana has a population of 994k with one House seat, Rhode Island has a population of 1.055 million with two house seats. The baseline is 710K per House seat (population divided by 435). California has 704k per House seat, so they are doing much better than Montana. It is not small state vs. large state, it has to do with rounding, etc. My state of FL is at about 700k per House seat.


https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/HouseAndElectors.phtml