SMH so you are saying that you'd support it if Hillary won the election but the electors chose Trump instead? Don't be a flat out liar on top of being a hypocrite.
Like virtually all of them where the president is the person who wins the most votes for the office.. Give me a counter example or two if it makes you feel better.
This. "Having a mandate" is a rhetorical argument to put pressure on Congress to do what the President wants. No telling if it is even effective at all. Mandate or no mandate, Trump has real power because he has party allies in control of the House and Senate, and soon the Supreme Court. Sure a bunch of folks in California won't like what he does with it. But, if you want to talk mandates, consider this: aside from the aforementioned dominance, Republicans also dominate state governorships and state congresses. And these aren't just old-school real Republicans either. We've been getting these tea party Republicans winning offices since 2010. If people really didn't want this government, why did they keep electing it for the past 6 years? On balance, we've been reactionary since Obama took office, voting in his ideological opposition with every election cycle in state and federal races. And now they're everywhere. How is it not a mandate because California was so lopsided? It's a mandate when the Republican party has been granted control of most of government. I don't say that to rub it in the Democrats' face either. If they succeed in taking moral victories they'll continue to fail at taking electoral victories. Democrats shouldn't be telling themselves that they won this election in spirit. They shouldn't bother telling one another that Trump's decisions are illegitimate because he didn't meet this arbitrary measure in the election process. They should focus on the fact that they've lost a lot, over and over again -- the presidency, House seats, Senate seats, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity on the Supreme Court, state governorships, and state legislatures -- and start working on what it takes to win outside of California and New York. It's not enough to control the White House and the mayor's office. They need to control states, which after all are the basic organizational unit of our country. It doesn't do folks in Kansas a damn bit of good that the Democrats have overwhelming dominance in California. Forget mandates and try to win a freaking election.
Excellent points, and excellent post. Would add, though, that the reactionary nature now falls on Republicans. They've got all this power, they'd better use it to effect positive change, or the worm will turn, and bite them in the backside.
After 44 presidents, it's time to change the electoral because why? Typical idiot beliefs. Don't like the results so change the rules. Hahahaha Who ever sells these can make a killing here.
Realclearpolitics is a lot less biased than many other websites. I find their postings to be less frothing angry than pigeon feeding Breitbart articles. Do you know why they threw out Michigan's totals or why the DNC penalized Michigan during 08 primaries?
Simpleton logic right here. Should college football have kept the BCS since it was producing champions? I understand though, it's much less mentally challenging to call people sore losers than to actually examine the flaws of a broken system.
Agreed, arguing to throw the entire system out merely because your candidate lost is absolutely simpleton logic.....but you kind of have to expect that from some.
Pretty easy to understand why this system is in need of reform. Also pretty easy to understand why the usual suspects are having difficulty understanding why.
While I'm sure there are some feeble minded individuals who can't grasp the need for the electoral college or why it exists the way it does, I'd bet most who are against it are just salty about not getting the result they wanted. That kind of BS never fails. If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the election, we'd have different people whining about the system and all of those just salty about losing would then magically see the light.
Not at all, I am not saying anything. This is about you, not me. You are the one complaining that the electoral college is the be all and end all, and that the popular vote doesn't matter. But then when confronted with the fact that the electoral college doesn't have to follow the actual vote in their state, you seem to think it's unfair - even though that is how the system was designed. You are trying to deflect from your hypocrisy by attacking me instead when I haven't taken a position on the issue, only pointing something out. Yet somehow you can call me a liar when I haven't said anything!!!!!
Exactly as I thought, you are just being a hypocrite due to being salty about your candidate losing. Thanks for finally admitting it.
I'm not sure they know the difference, and I'm not sure they care. For the most part they are just upset they didn't get their way and are now throwing a temper tantrum about it.
That's fine, but it doesn't mean the electoral college can't (or shouldn't) be made better. I've seen that video as well. Every single point it raises (protecting low population areas, preventing fraud, increasing diversity, etc) is refuted and debunked in the video I posted. You should also note that the video you posted was created by PragerU (a front for conservative ideologue Dennis Prager), whereas the video I posted is from an un-affiliated, non-partisan source. Follow-up:
Who has said they believe this? Again, you're just trying to simplify the argument instead of actually discussing it. Electing a president by strictly a popular vote is not indicative of being a direct democracy. Anyways, prior to 2000, the loser of the popular vote had only won the presidency 3 times and it hadn't happened since 1888. Now it's happened twice in the last 5 elections and this time by a margin of over 2 million votes. It's a broken system.
Give us all a freakin' break. If Trump had lost the Electoral College, but had a 2,000,000 vote lead, you would be screaming bloody murder, cursing the system.
