Probably my math The Midwest was not that surprising to be honestly. Let's wait a few months and I think we get a fully picture of what happen there.
Sure. He was super passionate about it. But then he comes off that ways in nearly everything. Can't really take him that literally... anymore
The EC was no more antiquated than it was 200 years ago. You realize the top 15 MSA's account for 1/3 of the population. Its just not going to happen. Mob rule is not a very effective way of governing
What's funny is that it's you who don't get it.....and I think anyone who realizes the reasons for the electoral college (and shockingly enough that includes Sweet Lou) would think that what you are saying is foolish. The electoral college is still needed today and it did it's job well this election. Donald Trump won the popular vote by over a million voters in 49 states, enough to where he was winning states that hadn't been won by a Republican since 1988......but you think that their votes shouldn't count, you think that California should determine the winner of the election. It would be better if you just admitted it. This was a landslide win for Trump no matter what you or I think of him. Your notion that the electoral college is "antiquated" is merely because it didn't give you the result you wanted and it would be similar to thinking that the entire notion of people voting for their leaders is antiquated and needs to be repealed. It's short sighted, and it would be dangerous......the calling cards of many liberal half baked ideas.
Agreed, which is why you shouldn't be suggesting it. When you want a handful of cities to determine the outcome of every presidential election, that's what you are doing. You are suggesting that Hillary should have won the election carrying only 20 states. In your mind, the will of 20 states should overrule the will of 30.
It really doesn't matter how many people know something for it to be right. Even if I believed your assumption that only 1/3 of the people are smart enough to understand why we need the electoral college, which I don't, it wouldn't diminish the need. There's simply not an intelligent argument for giving a handful of cities more power than almost the entire country worth of states. This is just a knee jerk reaction to you not getting your way. Be better than this.
Oh I do understand how they work, and I know "dumb people" are factored in. You were suggesting that 2/3 of the country were those "dumb people", I was simply saying that even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that there is a need for the electoral college system to protect the voice of less populous states.
We let a "handful of cities" decide the fate of state elections. Clearly the world has not ended. Your argument is that voters in cities should count less than the other voters. Clearly your argument is not intelligent.
And you don't see the difference between state elections and national elections? Of course you don't, I have to realize your shortcomings and just accept them. My "argument" is the same argument that the country was founded upon, that in order to protect the rights of states, you need a system that will allow that to happen. What you are upset about is that the will of 20 states wasn't able to override that of the will of 30 states. You truly think that those 20 states should get their way no matter how much of the country was against them. I do hope you'll at least get a junior college education when it comes to US government so these conversations can be more productive in the future. Arguing against the very basis of what this country was founded upon is embarrassing. Arguing that it doesn't matter that 30 states voted for a person, that the results of NY and California are more important is embarrassing. Be better.
I guess when you can not win an argument with facts you resort to name calling and insults. Be better.
The problem here is that I have won the argument with facts.....you just don't seem capable of understanding that and I pointed that out. Again, you are arguing that the will of 20 states override the will of 30 states due to the high population of 2 states. Think on that a while and consider why those in the 30 states that supported one candidate might not feel like that's exactly the right way of doing things. Hell even if you never come around and see things rationally, it won't matter. There's no chance you get a constitutional amendment passed because those states that you don't think are important enough to count, would have to support giving up their voice in presidential elections....something they aren't going to do. Also, if states like New York or California decide to adopt rules that deal out their electoral votes on a proportional basis while the rest of the country sticks with the system that has worked for the entire history of the country, it would just lead to no Democrat ever winning another presidential election thus going against the only reason you want the change to begin with.
Electoral College works to a degree, but it is flawed too. However, it's much much MUCH more fair then a straight popular vote where states are under represented. With a popular vote you will have candidates only campaigning and trying to woo citizens in major cities like NYC/LA/Chicago etc.. and they will basically decide the election. The problem with that is the other part of America is barely being represented, and that is a major problem. It's a major problem because that smaller sect is undervalued and can be destroyed by a political class only catering to population dense areas whom don't understand the roll they play in society- such as feeding society. WHILE I disagree that only a few states such as Ohio etc.. usually dictate elections, I feel it's better those states do than major cities. I say that because those states are predominately bastions of the middle class, the literal life blood of American society that must be sustained, so better they decide whats best for them and America then NYC and LA But the system in general does need to be improved.
Note to Bobster. Everything below bolded is a fact.. Ah when the country was founded and black people weren't people but counted for 3/5 of one citizen just so The South could get outsized representation at the national level ... you know ... the good old times. Back then, the federal government had a very limited purview. The federal government then had to field a military as needed and interact with other nations. The President was more a figurehead than anything else. Having the states elect the President in some fashion make some sense then. Back then, the states were mostly allowed to run themselves. As time went on, this changed. (Bobster, I am sure you would argue for the worst.) The federal government "rights" increased and state "rights" decreased. Let's review. In the good old times, the states had rights, had most of the power to decide how they did business, and choose to elect via one man, one vote. Clearly minority counties and cities and political parties would lose state wide elections and have to live with "the tyranny of the majority". Today, the federal government holds almost all of the power, yet elects via the Electoral College. The responsibilities of the federal government and by extension the President have greatly change since the founding of the country. We need to make changes to the Presidential elections to reflect the realities of our times. One citizen, one vote.
A fact, but a totally and completely irrelevant one probably meant to sway overly emotional children. This is also largely true, although it still makes sense to have the states elect the president For the most part, yes....still waiting for something relevant though. Yes, states rights have been eroded over the years, that is a factual statement. Still nothing at all relevant though. Still nothing relevant, but again calling them "the good old times" is more nonsense aimed at overly emotional children. Today the federal government does hold quite a bit of power, and is always looking to expand that power at the expense of the state and at the expense of the people, yes that is true.....yet we still haven't arrived at anything relevant. You've posted nothing that suggests that we "ought" to do that. You've merely pointed out that the federal government has trampled on states rights in the past and is constantly seeking to do so. In fact, the "reality of our time" is no different than it was when the country was founded. A raw popular vote still takes the voice away from less populous states and that's still a bad thing. Basically you've typed a lot of words without saying anything at all of value.
