So you want to justify crybaby nonsense by suggesting that others would be worse with no actual evidence to base that on? Interesting. The thought going into this election was that the natural advantages Democrats have in the electoral college would lead to a Hilary Clinton win no matter what the popular vote was.....but since she did so horribly she managed to screw it up. I think if Trump had lost the electoral vote, it would have been expected and perhaps there would be some crybaby nonsense from the fringes, but nowhere near like has been expressed by the left.
That's actually a good point, and the reason we have the electoral college in the first place. You can't run the score up in one state and have it count as more than numerous others.
Let me be the first here to say ... Bullshit. The unamended Consituition is chocked full of compromises. The South had slaves and had a vested economic interest in maintaining slavery. The South also by population were a decided minority. The South by compromise from The North got expanded representation by counting each slave as 3/5 of a citizen (albeit a citizen without any constitutionally guaranteed rights). The South also got the Electoral College, since they feared the tyranny of the majority (who were not slave holders).
Umm.....you just called BS and then went on to explain exactly what he was talking about. When the states initially joined the union, most of the population was in Virginia, in fact the population of the bottom 6 states didn't equal that of Virginia and more than half of the population of the entire US was in just 4 states. The less populous states knew that if they went on a raw popular vote, they'd have no voice whatsoever, so they wouldn't join without a system like the electoral college to prevent just one or two states from dominating all of government. It's still that way.
You can't make laws, and then apply them backwards. Also...making said changes is going to take..years? Finally, isn't it up to each state to decide how their EC votes are handled? In which case, the change you will see, because it is all that is really possible, is that some states (NY, CA?) would be left with deciding whether to assign their EC votes proportionally, much like the primaries work. This would take EC votes away from Dems and give them to Republicans. Is that what anybody wants (well, anybody that is asking for this change, anyway)?
Well in theory they could pass a constitutional amendment to change the electoral college and destroy it entirely (which is the current liberal plan), of course there's literally no chance they could get enough support to make that happen and it still wouldn't be retroactively enforced so they'd still have to deal with a Trump presidency. Honestly the whole issue is a non-starter, the people who are whining the most about it are in states that swing heavily to the Democrats and if they go to a proportional system, they'll prevent a Democrat from being elected any time soon.
It doesn't count less. Wyoming has 3? EC votes? No one cares. Did either candidate even campaign in Wyoming? YES! People need to think really long and hard before even suggesting this get changed. The EC system was set up for much the same reason the House and Senate were set up the way they are. Yes. IF the system needs to be changed, it needs to be looked at holistically, not because some people didn't like the results of this particular election. It would be changes that will last...centuries?
Currently, yes. Blame analytics, not the system. Analytics allow candidates to focus on those places that will have the biggest impact. Those places will be undecided voters in key swing states. So, it's worse than just a few states....it is really only a small percentage of votes in those few states. Hint: if you've voted for the same party every election...your party doesn't really care about you. Your vote is a given. If you are in a state that always votes the same way (NY, CA, etc)...then your party doesn't really care about you, either, your vote is even more of a given.
Sure, you say that, but states like Michigan and Pennsylvania are in the category of "always voting the same way".....but they flipped this time. No one thought there was any chance of that, but it happened.
You don't need advanced analytics. Just look at the voting trends for the last 16 years. States with 2 or 3 electoral votes don't matter. States that Vote D or R don't matter so only the states that matter are the 2 or 3 large-ish swing states.
Hyperbole much? Using a raw popular vote, voters in each state would count the same. We are now in a system where only the swing state voters matter. The current EC system puts states rights above voter rights. Clearly the reason for the original constitutional compromise (slavery) is no longer a meaningful states issue and has not been since the end of the Civil War.
That's not really true. The key to this election was the rust belt, and those aren't typically swing states, they are solid blue states in presidential elections. Sure Trump won in blowout fashion, but states like Pennsylvania and Michigan going red indicated that Hillary had no hope of winning. Of course, if Trump hadn't won all of those small states he wouldn't have had the foundation for getting over the top, so in fact, all states mattered. Taking states for granted is kind of what screwed Hillary in the end. She spent all her time and energy in a few swing states like North Carolina and Virginia, and neglected states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and that ended up costing her any chance she ever had. You simply can't take states for granted.
No, it's not hyperbole at all. When the states first joined, if the president was elected based on popular vote only, those in Virgina, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts would determine every presidential election and that was seen as unacceptable and it wasn't unacceptable because of slavery. I get it though, you are upset that your candidate lost and it is causing you to be short sighted. That kind of thing happens. I just hope that you get over it fairly quickly.
You don't get it. You are fool to think you do. My point is this. (Bobster, you stop reading here and fill in the blanks as you wish, seeing that is how you roll.) The Electoral College is antiquated and needs to go. Not retroactively, but soon. Shine on, you cray diamond, shine on.
To be a simple national majority vote? No, it has to be going fwd. Retroactive would tear this country apart.
