The electoral college needs to go, its broken and only serves to disenfranchise voters

It still makes it nonsense because the founders didn't think the EC was some grand idea and means that you can't invoke them as a reason why its worth keeping.

Also the NY and CA don't have the majority of the population

 

Kentucky just turned blue soon the EC will doom you as more and more red states turn blue.

 

If the states with the highest population get to rule the country all the other states are subservient. That's not okay this is the United States.

 

Not my point. Trump voters are NOT the "average" voter. They are elitists, through and through

 

New York or LA. But over the rest of the country yes.

 

No. It's candidates with two neurons to rub together who win. Trump conceded CA, NY, and IL ,,, did not spend a dime on campaigning in those states in 2016. Change the rules and he'll still win. He was smarter than Hillary and it showed. It helped than he has a command of mathematics and demonstrated it by determining which states he had to win. He ended up winning in an electoral college landslide.

It's up to the states to determine how their electors are allocated.2 states are proportional, the rest winner take all. Right off the top Republicans lose the states with the largest number of electors, all are winner take all.

The best way to improve the electoral process is to refuse to allow Democrats on state ballots since they refuse to accept the results of elections when they lose. I've never seen a bunch of crybabies like today's Democrats in my entire life.

 

3M less voted shows he is a better candidate?

I though it was Republicans that don't concede

 

The electoral college was designed to keep large unbalanced states like califiornia from forcing its will on smaller states, its ideal was to balance the states so they all had a say in national elections.

 

Actually it was the compromise between congress voting for the president an the popular vote. North wanted popular vote, south wanted congress to vote because they had extra representation due to slavery, so they gave the states control over the electors.

 

Absolutely. That he didn't spend a dime in the most populous states he knew he couldn't win demonstrates that he towers over Democrats intellectually. He beat MI6, the KGB, our Ambassador to Ukraine, Obama's FBI, CIA, DOJ --- Obama pulled out all the stops meddling in the election to win his third term --- and Trump did what he had to do: Crush Hillary's electoral college tally. Those are the rules. Change the rules and he'll still win.

Republicans have never thrown a temper tantrum like the 3 years blubbering Democrats have treated us to.

 

Republicans impeached President Clinton essentially for getting a BJ. Yes, I know it was because he lied about it, but I'm not sure why the questions were worth asking in the first place. I'm not a huge fan of the Clintons, but your point deserves a counterpoint.

 

If the Dallas Cowboys beat the New Orleans Saints 30-23 on the scoreboard, but the Saints outgained the Cowboys 396 yards to 378.....who do you think won the game? Does the diverging score and yardage total somehow invalidate the football game? Who was the better team on that day? Should the Saints try to change the rules so that yards gained replaces the scoring system? Instead of killing out the clock by taking a knee, do you suppose that the Cowboys may have instead thrown some passes with a minute left if yardage gained was the prevailing scoring system?

Why or why not?

FYI the proportions above are spot on.

 

As has been said previously, President Trump pretty much ignored California and New York along with a lot of other places. He focused primarily on a certain number of swing states. As the current system is set up that turned out to be a smart move. My question is, why is it ok that Wisconsin, Michigan, and a couple of others determine who is going to be President, but people get all up in arms if it might be California and New York? Why should people always say "well, the Democrats should concentrate more on the middle of the country"? Why isn't it just as valid that Republicans should have to concentrate more on the coasts?

I think that awarding electors proportionally would allow middle America to maintain relevance while still requiring an effort by candidates to appeal to a broader swath of the country.

 

Perjury was the crime for which Clinton was impeached. Trump's crime was winning the 2016 election.

 

No it didn't. Bevin, a transplant, was not popular. He was not a likable guy.

 

I believe that obstruction of Congress is a crime. The Executive branch isn't allowed to just tell Congress that they're not going to produce documents and/or witnesses that are requested even if they're innocent. One of the articles of impeachment against President Nixon was for the exact same thing.

 

In which election? There are 51 separate and unique elections on election day. These is NO national popular vote, never has been. Tallying up the results of each of those separate unique votes and saying that is the same result as would have been had there been a national popular vote is utter folly. Youvhave no idea who, Clinton or Trump, would have won.

I won't like the outcome of that vote. That's it. I won't be crying about it 3 years later and demanding we change our system of electing the President.

 

Separation of powers, executive privilege, gives the President the power to tell Congress to pound sand when their request is 100% political and serves 0% legislative purpose.

 

He really doesn't have the power to do that. The Congress has oversight responsibility. If they think that there may be wrongdoing then they can investigate it. If the investigation doesn't turn anything up then that's where it should end, but the President isn't allowed to essentially tell Congress "I'm not going to let you investigate me."

 

They should vote to launch a formal inquiry. They made believe they did by affirming the corrupt process starring Schiff for Honesty, smearing Trump by lying about the testimony. No inquiry, no subpoena power.

 

Yes he does the Congress does not oversee the President nor does the President report to or work for the Congress. They are coequal branches, can the President demand Schiff and his staff report to the White House and answer questions to him about their actions here? If they want to impeach then start an impeachment.

 

Yes, the Congress does oversee the President and the entire executive branch. They can't tell him what to do, but they can ensure that he's not breaking the rules and investigate him if they think that he is.

https://www.thoughtco.com/congressional-oversight-4177013

 

This is something I've thought about often.

 

It oversees the executive branch and those whom the confirm not the elected President and his staff of advisers and legal counsels. They are co-equal to the President. The President also has executive privilege that has existed from the getgo and confirmed by the SCOTUS on several occasions.

 

It actually does oversee the President and his staff in the performance of his official duties. Also, executive privilege is not absolute. The President isn't allowed to say "we're not giving you anything".