Electoral College.

[Sculptor]

Trump lost twice in number of votes cast. When is the US going to realise that the POTAS is a Pan-USA office, and that the Electoral Collage is unfair, and unbalanced? The only thing that matters is the actual share of the vote. The fact that some states get more electors is not reflected in any meaningful sense concerned with the size of state or population. It always favours RED. But the Presidential vote is not a state issue; states are only arbitrary divisions. It is an American issue, and if the US wants to truly reflect that it is "One Nation" - under god or otherwise then it ought to have this one vote where all share equally in the decision.

[Agent Smith]

A house burnt down in the early hours of the morning today. Firefighters reached the scene and attempted to douse the conflagration but were sadly unsuccessful. According to the forensics team the electric heater shortcircuited and ignited the carpet, the flames then easily spread throughout the doomed house. The houseowner and her pet dog were pulled out and are in stable condition in the local hospital, getting treated for smoke inhalation.

[Iwannaplato]

I generally agree. Some states would become utterly unimportant during campaigns and perhaps no candidate would even waste time going there. This might also affect the way their problems are treated at a federal level. But, then, they have smaller populations. I'd probably end the 2 senators per state set up also. I think it's not a bad idea to have a House and Senate (and also executive and judicial branches too) so that power is divvied. But this gives small population states too much representation since they get the same number of senators as more populous states. This would shift power in the states to the coasts, even more. I have no idea what the consequences would be.

Certainly grumbling in parts of the West and midwest.

[Impenitent]

the constitutional republic is not a democracy...

-Imp

[promethean75]

i never went to college but if i did i wouldn't go to no 'electoral' college, whatever the hell that is.

what do they even teach in electoral college... what's the degree in? what, election management or something like that?

well a career as an electoralist doesn't sound promising so far but perhaps i can be convinced that the field is lucrative, interesting and pays well.

[Iwannaplato]

i never went to college but if i did i wouldn't go to no 'electoral' college, whatever the hell that is.

what do they even teach in electoral college... what's the degree in? what, election management or something like that?

well a career as an electoralist doesn't sound promising so far but perhaps i can be convinced that the field is lucrative, interesting and pays well.

You'd probably be better off going to a collage.

[wtf]

Trump lost twice in number of votes cast. When is the US going to realise that the POTAS is a Pan-USA office, and that the Electoral Collage is unfair, and unbalanced? The only thing that matters is the actual share of the vote. The fact that some states get more electors is not reflected in any meaningful sense concerned with the size of state or population. It always favours RED. But the Presidential vote is not a state issue; states are only arbitrary divisions. It is an American issue, and if the US wants to truly reflect that it is "One Nation" - under god or otherwise then it ought to have this one vote where all share equally in the decision.

Did you make this same complaint in 1992 when Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the popular vote? Asking for a friend. To save you the trouble of looking it up, he did very narrowly get a plurality of the popular vote, but not nearly a majority. In his 1996 reelection he also failed to get a popular majority. What do you think about that?

In a nationwide popular vote system where the winner only needed a plurality but not a majority, wouldn't that just encourage many regionally popular candidates to run, resulting in someone becoming president who was only popular in a couple of states?

The electoral college serves as a statistical smoothing mechanism, revealing broad consensus in ways the popular vote doesn't.

[Sculptor]

Trump lost twice in number of votes cast. When is the US going to realise that the POTAS is a Pan-USA office, and that the Electoral Collage is unfair, and unbalanced? The only thing that matters is the actual share of the vote. The fact that some states get more electors is not reflected in any meaningful sense concerned with the size of state or population. It always favours RED. But the Presidential vote is not a state issue; states are only arbitrary divisions. It is an American issue, and if the US wants to truly reflect that it is "One Nation" - under god or otherwise then it ought to have this one vote where all share equally in the decision.

Did you make this same complaint in 1992 when Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the popular vote?

Well of course not. SInce he won 6% more than Bush FFS. That's 5 milloin more than Bush.
If you care to remember Perrot ran and got 18% of the vote in that election.
Nonetheless. The electoral collage is out of date, and gives more votes to smaller, and redder states than big blue ones.
If you are so worried about a 3 horse race-- or did you conveniently forget about Ross Perot - civilised countries have a preferential vote, so that if their candidate cames last their second vote counts. This way, if one political spectrum is split then those votes get to join together.
It answers the question - WHo might have won had RP not stood for President.
It avoids a stalking horse who tries to split the vote.

Asking for a friend. To save you the trouble of looking it up, he did very narrowly get a plurality of the popular vote, but not nearly a majority. In his 1996 reelection he also failed to get a popular majority. What do you think about that?

DUH!

In a nationwide popular vote system where the winner only needed a plurality but not a majority, wouldn't that just encourage many regionally popular candidates to run, resulting in someone becoming president who was only popular in a couple of states?

The electoral college serves as a statistical smoothing mechanism, revealing broad consensus in ways the popular vote doesn't.

SMoothly?? You mean it smooths out the race for the Republican horse, and gives stoney ground for the Democrat.



THe electoral college is a corrupt dinosaur.

California is the most populous state in the United States, with a population of approximately 39.5 million people

There is only ONE elector for every 750k Californians, whilst there is ONE elector for every 192k Wyoming resident.
In general the Republican states have the advantage.
It was once the case that the electors were more closely matched to the population, but Republican states tend to be economic backwaters, which Democratic states are more successful and people flock to them for a better life.

[Sculptor]

i never went to college but if i did i wouldn't go to no 'electoral' college, whatever the hell that is.

what do they even teach in electoral college... what's the degree in? what, election management or something like that?

well a career as an electoralist doesn't sound promising so far but perhaps i can be convinced that the field is lucrative, interesting and pays well.

I hope this is irony.
You do not see it much in Americans, but you do see a lot of ignorance.