Will there be mass protests / violence post-election day?

I'm not sure what you are arguing for here. Are you suggesting that their vote would matter more if they went a straight up popular vote? If they did that there would be absolutely no incentive to care what people outside of a few metropolitan areas think. Then the vote of the rest of America wouldn't matter. The concerns and important issues for the majority of states isn't the same as the concerns and important issues of those in the top 15-20 metro areas, but that is exactly who would determine EVERY election if they did that.

With the electoral college you can still win by getting the vote of 11 or 12 states, but in order to do so, you have to appeal to a wide cross section of the country in order to win those states. With a majority vote only, you could win by pandering directly to those who live in large cities because those would be the only Americans that would matter. For example, there's more people in the Houston metro area than in all of Colorado. Does that mean that entire state shouldn't matter?

 

Because that's the minimum. You have to have a minimum.

 

How about 2 or 1? Those are less than 3. . . .

 

For you edification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

You're welcome.

 

Again, I know you want to marginalize those people due to them having different political beliefs than you do, but it doesn't make it right. The goal is to give a voice to people from all corners of the country, I know you don't share that goal, but it's one that the country was founded on.

 

Yes. Each person's vote would have the same value, and each person's vote would determine the president to an equal degree.

You're aware that this is what currently happens in "swing states" such as Florida and Ohio, the places that matter, while CA and Wyoming really are taken for granted.

Dude, you think--"LOCK HER UP!"--the electoral college--"BUILD THE WALL!"--doesn't create pandering to--"DRAIN THE SWAMP!"--sparsely populated rural areas.

Just to be clear: you are against direct democracy. Correct?

 

What are you an elementary school teacher? Follow the conversation if you can.

 

You seem confused by how we elect our president. Just trying to help out.

 

What that would do is make the opinions of those who live in densely populated areas the only opinions that matter. It would completely eliminate the voice of rural America.....which of course is acceptable to you because they generally are interested in different things than you are, but that doesn't make it okay.

Sure, but what happens when you neglect states that you think are "in the bag" such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin? Isn't that EXACTLY what went wrong for Hillary THIS election?

I think the electoral college allows sparsely populated rural areas to still matter, if only a little bit. It's the ONLY reason those people have a voice or get any attention in presidential elections.

 

No one here needs your wikipedia links. Is that the best you can do?

 

This argument took place well over 200 years ago by men much smarter and wiser than either you or I.

The "best I can do" is to state the argument is moot. Unless you can get the constitution amended, the conversation is pointless.

 

On the contrary, I want the voters of Wyoming and Montana, both part of "rural America," to be represented equally. Why don't you want that? You want to "protect" the Wyoming from Montana?

Yes. Now why should Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin be so special? Because you like those states?

 

Hoo! That's a bigger bailout than the banks got!

 

That's not what you want, or rather, that's not what you are advocating for would accomplish. The system you are pushing for would completely eliminate the voice of those in small states and allow the large states to be the only states that matter. I mean, there's no argument otherwise, it's why that system was rejected in the first place. States wouldn't have agreed to join the union under a system like that.

They weren't special, they were abandoned by the Clinton campaign because she assumed those states were in the bag and she focused her attention elsewhere and the result was losing those states. It could have been any set of states really.

 

Well, I guess I could "bailout" of banging my head against a brick wall too. Its about as pointless as this conversation.

 

Even w/ electoral college, WY way over-represented. Each WY vote= way, way more than each CA vote. Citizen of WY= more important than citizen of WY.

Very Sad!

 

Ah yes, those people from Wyoming are absolutely the one's determining who wins the presidency every year. Those 3 electoral votes just crush the voice of everyone else.

This is such a good conversation.

 

States With 3 Electoral Votes, And Their Populations

Alaska-735,132
Wyoming-582,658
Montana-1,015,165
N. Dakota-723,393
S. Dakota-844,877
DC (not a state)-646,449
Vermont-626,630

3=3=3=3=3=3=3

735,132=582,658=1,105,165=723,393=844,877=646,449=626,630

DUH! It's called DEMOCRACY!

Hey libs, why don't you quit your pottery class at the Multicultural Center and go back to Math class!

 

If it's REALLY that hard for you to understand why this is like it is then you might want to keep that to yourself.....it's kind of embarrassing. Perhaps take some classes and educate yourself. Several have already tried and failed here to do so, I think it's time for the professionals to give it a shot.

 

I want to protect the individual. You want to protect the state. I protect the individual because we are a society based on individual rights. Each person's vote should have equal value.

You know each person's vote does not have equal value under the electoral college.
You know a Democratic vote in TX this year counts for 0 in the presidential election.
You are OK with that because something about the states is more important than the individual to you.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO JUSTIFY THAT without saying "Coz that's how they made it!"

You love the people of Wyoming, evidently. What about the Democrats in Wyoming whose votes have 0 value, and the Republicans in DC (a very urban area) whose votes also have 0 value?