Presidential election results

Voting population, this last election: only 58% of eligible voters. Is ours the laziest democracy on earth? See for yourself here. Find the US historical voter-turnout ninth from the bottom.

From here: Over 90 Million Eligible Voters Didn’t Vote in the 2016 Presidential Election, excerpt:

CONSEQUENCE

The Electoral College must BE DONE AWAY WITH. This election shows once again (for the 6th time in our history as a nation) how the voting system is so corrupted by its mechanism of Electoral College "winner-takes-all" as to allow political gaming.

The notion of "winner-takes-all-votes" clearly weakens the fundamental democratic rule of one-person = one-vote. Which means that the popular vote has been reduced to a by-product of an election too easily manipulated.

MY POINT?

Gaming the electoral system of any kind should not happen in a real democracy. America needs badly to repeal the 17th Amendment that instituted this rule during the youth-era of our nation (1804!) - since which we have sufficiently evolved. But perhaps not enough given our rate of voter turnout in national elections?

Yes, evolved. But perhaps in the wrong direction manipulated by individuals who have learned how to "game a democracy" into evolving the "right vote" for those who "pull the right strings" in the "right states". And it is all legal.

React! It is YOUR democracy that is being sacrificed to the political will of plutocrat muney-muney-muney to maintain the status-quo ...

 

We're not a democracy. We are a Republic.

Electoral system performed as designed/expected.

 

So Obama gamed the system. You loved it then.

 

Why would anyone in France give a hoot as to our election process? It's not like France is some utopian society. There are problems there that need fixing. Make France perfect, get back to us and we'll take a look.

 

Simply scrapping the Electoral College and going for a national-level direct vote for President would give you many very similar problems, just in slightly different ways. You’d still have geographically small areas where an election would be won or lost (largely the populous cities) and I don’t see how this change alone would improve turn out in the long term.

One thing I’ve found odd about the Electoral College and thought might be an improvement is the winner-takes all system for electoral votes in each state. In a state with 10 electors, a candidates who wins 51% of the state-wide vote (typically) gets all 10 College votes. How about attributing the College votes differently on the basis of vote share. So, if one candidate gets 60% and another gets 40%, they get six and four College votes respectively. It would need more consideration where the maths gets more complicated, especially if you ever get more than two viable candidates but I think it could work.

 

It will be a very cold nation that allows only a few states to choose the president. The Electoral process works as designed.

 

Some how the word democracy became a synonym of freedom and liberty when in reality a true democracy can be as nefarious as a dictatorship
A true democracy will create a tyrannical majority and an oppressed minority
the founding fathers knew what a true democracy can create so they put checks and balances in place to avoid that and the Electoral College is one of those checks and balances. It is to keep the heavily populated urban areas from oppressing the lightly populated rural areas

 

Electoral college is and always has been a brilliant system.
Otherwise California and New York would pick our President

However, a modified electoral system may be in order,
A states electoral college votes could be divided by percentage of popular vote

 

Since each individual state decides how they pick the president it is up to the states to decide how the electoral votes are counted. Some states do have proportional count. That is why Hillary only one 29 1/2 states. Some liberal states are considering that their electoral votes will only go to whoever wins the popular vote.

 

False. There is no such thing as a "checks and balance" when it comes to electing one's political representatives. None are needed in a democracy of intelligent voters who are able to understand a political system. This archaic institution, first conceived in 1804, because tallying a vote and reporting it was both difficult and arduous.

In ours, also, the Electoral College "winner-take-all" vote is tantamount to election falsification of the vote. Only the popular vote must be valid in a real democracy.

The failing of America is also one of education. As shown in the infographic below, turning out to vote is NOT considered that great a "political duty". Whatever happened in Civics Class to not underscore the fact that voting was indeed the foremost requirement of any real democracy?

From here: The Myth Underlying Common Core – And How to Fix It, excerpt:

It seems the Average American hasn't the foggiest notion about how our governance works, or worse yet, even cares either how it works. Because if we all did really care, then this historical voter turnout record of the US would be far better than shown here in this list (ninth from the bottom): By International Standards, U.S. Voter Turnout is Low

- - - Updated - - -

Bollocks. The US is both a republic and a democracy.

Buy a dictionary ...

 

True, many here still think the overwhelming vote in California should decide the election.

 

If the libs won the electoral college, it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread and if we got rid of it and they lost the popular vote, they would want it back. Hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds and they have no shame about it.

 

you talk about the uneducated when you yourself has demonstrated that it is you that is the uneducated one


Article II of the Constitution lists the specifics of the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers included the Electoral College as one of the famous "checks and balances" for two reasons: 1) to give states with small populations more of an equal weight in the presidential election and 2) they didn't trust the common man (Remember, women couldn't vote then.) to be able to make an informed decision on which candidate would make the best president.
http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/government/theelectoralcollege.htm


you know if your going to talk about a subject you need to educate your self on the subject especially when you refer to others as being uneducated when you your self has proven it is you that is uneducated on the subject

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Typical Replicant nonsense, when no valid rebuttal is available.

All humans, and especially the Common Man, have the inherent right to a free and fair election. THAT is an inherent right of any democratic nation. Period.

The Electoral College is a desecration of democracy because of its "winner-take-all" nature that corrupts the popular vote.

ONLY THE POPULAR VOTE IN A DEMOCRACY IS VALID.

 

Nonsense.

Pure unadulterated nonsense ...

- - - Updated - - -

Rubbish and sarcasm. Sarcasm and rubbish ...

 

Quite right.

The Electoral College elected the wrong candidate as PotUS ...

 

A Republic, with democratically elected representatives.

You're welcome.

 

we can belabor that point, but it did so according to the laws of the land. keep in mind the winner of the World Series is the team that wins 4 games, not the team that scores the most runs in the series.

 

And now you are contrasting a democracy with baseball.

Wow. Where in the world do you (plural) get your education?

Out of comic books ... ?

 

It's almost as if you are completely unaware of what the election looks like.

Here's a hint. Red for Trump, Blue for Hillary.



Now what?

ETA: Quoted wrong person. :/

 

Since we are a republic of individual states the only popular vote that counts is the popular vote in each state. Sorry you don't understand that the popular vote in California is irrelevant to any other state.

 

I see that simple math escapes you as well as basic logic. Insults are your only tool.

 

French calling US lazy, who woulda thought?

 

Our constitution worked as intended. The economics needs of ALL the country was considered not just New York and LA.

Also, I will add that Trump won every single battleground. It was a quiet sweep. If votes mattered elsewhere he probably would have won the popular, too.

 

First. The US is a constitutional republic. Not a democracy. We are not a singular nation but a collection of 50 unified states each with equal say in the future of our country. Learn the difference.

Second. The idea of a ''mob rule' mentality as a form of government is foolish at best and will always end badly.

Third. My democracy is exactly how it has always been since the dawn of my country as guaranteed by the US constitution. Trumps inauguration in 2 days is living proof of this.

Fourth. Maybe worry about your own country's government?