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

You want the Republican party to change? You mean become liberals?
Again, no. There is more to life than new york and California.

I'd further suggest that the Republican party has gone as far left as it can both legally and Morally.

 

Yeah. Used to be common courtesy long before PF was a glimmer in someone's eyes

 

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a fan of either Secretary Clinton nor President Trump. I voted third party in the last election, and I've been a right leaning independent most of my life. While I certainly agree with the idea behind the electoral college I don't think that it's really working. The reality of the matter is that there are still a small number of "swing states" that are deciding elections one way or the other. Sure, it may not be California and New York, but it's still a minority. I think that the system would be improved if it wasn't winner take all. That way the "smaller" states still matter, but you can't win by just focusing your message and effort on a relatively small sector of the population, those residing in the "swing states".

 

Translation:
We lost, please change the system.

 

1. No its the minority keeps winning with less and less votes
2. We shall see how you guys like the EC when Texas turns blue.

 

Uh...one possible other fix

Stop the winner take all choice of State's Electors rather than having it be proportional. There is nothing in the Constitution saying that such is compulsory and some states in fact don't follow it but use a proportional system. This would be a change at the State level and not require any Constitutional changes at all.

 

Or impliment rank choice voting allowing for all parties to have a fair chance because people could vote for their favorite party without risk of splitting the vote

 

I may be wrong but I don't think who votes is in the Constitution, It's a State matter. I think one State actually allowed WOMEN to vote at the time of the Constitution

 

i've always been an advocate for proportional, even though that would have given hillary the win in '16...

 

So change the rules so Democrats can win? Why not just run candidates that don't suck?

 

Many of the Founding Fathers, including Washington, warned against the dangers of political parties. The original way of choosing the Veep, that is by having him be the next closest losing candidate, seems to be designed to make Parties more difficult.

 

Yep Vermont granted equal rights (they were like the 14th or 15th state) to both sexes and all races.

 

yep, with progressives, liberals, moderates, & conservatives running under the dnc's moniker, yes folks, there are conservative dem politicians, all mashed together and then only one gets the nod for the general, bs, put one from each subset on the ticket, that way we'll see what americans really prefer

 

I would be down to go back to that. Everyone having to cast two votes, one for pres and one for vice without a distinguishing ballot. Political parties are unfortunatly a natural creation of democracy. People vote in unison to get their common goals passed easier.

 

RCV for the president and senate, and proportional representation for the house (raising the number to 1000) as for the dem ticket featuring all those different canidates each group would probably have their own party under the new system.

 

Were Bernie's ancestors around?

 

Nope lol first generation american.

They had Universal male suffrage not female suffrage

 

The majority of voters thought that TRUMP was the sucking candidate in 2016. You need candidates that somehow know who lives in what State.

 

Know the difference happening candidates if you want to the majority of States not just the five biggest cities. that was why the electoral college was instituted in the first place.

Why in the hell are you pissed off at your retarded candidates they know this it's nothing new. get they still piss around in the five biggest cities in failed to speak to the average person living and that detestable flyover country.

 

Considering 90% of the country was rural farmers when the constitution was written that was not the reason for the EC. the EC was to be frank the only thing they could come up with, basically, the states get to decide how their electors are chosen equal to the number of congresspersons. One side wanted congress to chose the president and the others wanted the popular vote, so they just said leave it up to the states to decide.

The rural vs city argument was a creation of the GOP when they realized they were becoming ever more unpopular with the people,

 

Exactly, most people don't like Republicans so Republicans like the system that gives an unfair advantage to those areas with fewer people., To put it another way, they can't win ordinary elections so they like elections where the loser wins.

 

The thing is the "average person" doesn't live in "flyover country" they live in the big cities, That's WHY they're average, there's more of them.

 

So Democrats need to appeal to fly over country. They didn't. They know how the electoral system works.

 

I didn't make the rural verses City argument. It's the California and new York verses the rest of the country.