If Obama won electorally but not popularly would you still support electoral college?

As I understand it, the system was created because it was the most practical way to have elections done at the time. Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=18

However it's obsolete and troublesome in the modern world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=19

 

(accidental double post)

 

I didn't like the EC when Bush sorta beat Gore. Republicans supported it at the time, why should they be able to go bat **** crazy now?

 

Do you know why they created the EC?

 

I don't understand why everyone thinks of the founding fathers as possessing superhuman intelligence anyway. If they were foolish enough to think owning slaves was morally acceptable, then we can probably conclude they're as human as anyone else.

 

ROFL actually their wisdom is even more evident now as the minorities in countries around the world have voted themselves largesse's paid for by taxing the few they envy so and now their economies collapse, as we see on our horizon.

 

He did fairly well until the nonsense at the end.

There is nothing obsolete about the states electing the President of THE UNITED STATES. And in fact we should abolish the 17th amendment and go back to the state legislatures selecting the Senators.

 

The "state" is made up of the "people" of that state.

 

Anyone who doesn't understand is grossly lacking in the history of our founding and the design of our federal government.

Most didn't, remember it was other countries who believe slavery was morally acceptable and brought slaves here and maintained slavery here. But the reality at our founding was that there was a HUGH amount of private property called slaves. They had monetary value just like anything else of monetary value, how would you compensate the owners of that property had the United States on it's birth declared slavery illegal? What we did, as envisioned by they founding fathers was go through the transition to an elimination of slavery. And it was a hard battle that nearly tore the country apart but without the wisdom of the founding fathers and a certain President would have.

 

without the EC, california and new york could choose the president.

 

Not true.

 

As long as the Electoral College is the law of the land and mandated by the Constitution, I must support it.

I didn't vote for Obama, but that doesn't mean that the Electoral College is invalid just because he only won 51% of the popular vote. If I had my way, we'd change our form of government to one that is a lot more like a Parliamentary one -- where a regime can be thrown out at any time that they lose the "confidence" of most of the peoples' representatives. That way we wouldn't be stuck for four full years with an autocrat like Obama when he throws a trillion dollars down a "stimulus" rathole, conducts illegal bailouts of private corporations with public money, or breaks the War Powers Act like he did in 2011 in Libya.

But, we've got to change the system legally and formally! "Palace coups" and illegal changes in government processes are for oppressive, crappy third world countries....

 

I agree we ought to move to a parliamentary system, but you do realize that the bailouts were approved by Congress, right?

 

I really don't get this sentiment. It's REALLY easy to go back and look at what the results of each election would be without the electoral college. And 95% of the time it'd be the same.

 

The problem is, they are just going by the population of the states. Since CA and NY are our most populous states and are always hard blue, they assume that the popular vote would go the same way.

The thing they miss is that states are only relevant with the EC. Take away the EC, and nobody decides the election except individual voters. In fact, it could be argued that the big states like CA, NY, and TX decide the election with the EC. I remember them counting the EC votes on Election Night as the states came in, and Romney was way ahead of Obama on EC votes until CA and NY came in.

 

The STATES are the PEOPLE speaking as their STATE, is that concept beyond your ability to reason? The STATE says what the PEOPLE of that STATE have decided through whatever means the legislature of that state, the one elected by the PEOPLE, have decided to use.

 

OH then we could be like Italy which has had what 50 governments in the last 40 years?

 

Perhaps, but looking at the so-called "popular vote", ie tallying up all the votes of the 50 states and saying one candidate won is a fallacy. There are 50 entirely separate and distinct elections on election day. I never voted for Bush43 since he was going to win my state handily I vote libertarian in order to ease their ballot access for the next elections. Had it been close in my state I would have voted for him. Some people will not vote at all if their state is heavily leaning to one candidate or the other. So the so called "popular vote" while interesting trivia does not have much accuracy and a mandate is only declared when one candidate wins by a large margin.

 

Then why was it that smaller states decided this election? Candidates had to campaign in other states including smaller states like Iowa that were in play in order to grab those electoral votes.

 

The US had to induce the territories to join the Union. Otherwise a continental sized country could not have been formed. Why would people in Kansas want to ruled in perpetuity by NYers and Californians. I just gave you a history lesson for free. Don't say I never did anything for you.