Founding fathers were genius. Electoral college is here to stay.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

When you're talking about popular vote you're talking about mob rule.

California and New York would rule forever on population alone.

In the case of the 2016 election, the electoral college worked as the founding fathers planned. According to Hamilton:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Federalist Papers

A public induced to think according to what a hostile press has taught them is not informed enough, or in this case, misinformed, to decide on their leaders. The electors will most likely possess the information and discernment to make those decisions. Hell a direct democracy would have put another Clinton in office.

a reply to: projectvxn

Again like I have said, I am not suggesting an alternative only that the current system is about as dumb as a sack of bricks

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Ok you have stated that it needs to be changed... what would you change?

Straight democracy does not work beyond about city state size so I hope that is not your choice. (my opinion obviously)

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: projectvxn

Again like I have said, I am not suggesting an alternative only that the current system is about as dumb as a sack of bricks

So you're just complaining about a system you obviously don't understand.

Gotcha.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Again like I have said, I am not suggesting an alternative only that the current system is about as dumb as a sack of bricks

The US is one of the longest running, if not the longest running, representative democracies in the world. If the system is so bad it would have imploded long ago, but has worked without problem for centuries.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: projectvxn

Again like I have said, I am not suggesting an alternative only that the current system is about as dumb as a sack of bricks

So you're just complaining about a system you obviously don't understand.

Gotcha.

No I understand it, and I happen to think it is a flawed system and I have stated my reasons for believing so and provided a video link that explains it further.

By all means feel free to disagree with me, but please don't be so arrogant as to confuse a alternative view to your own as being a ignorant view.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Again like I have said, I am not suggesting an alternative only that the current system is about as dumb as a sack of bricks

The US is one of the longest running, if not the longest running, representative democracies in the world. If the system is so bad it would have imploded long ago, but has worked without problem for centuries.

Yeah I guess that is a fair point so far it has been working but I would still maintain that a system that says a persons vote counts for more than another's and it's technically possible to win with 22% of the popular vote can and should be improved on or changed

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yeah I guess that is a fair point so far it has been working but I would still maintain that a system that says a persons vote counts for more than another's and it's technically possible to win with 22% of the popular vote can and should be improved on or changed

It is technically possible, but highly unlikely. It is also technically possible that someone unrelated to you has the exact same genetic code, but so improbable as to not warranting further consideration.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Actually, they were not a homogeneous group.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Again like I have said, I am not suggesting an alternative only that the current system is about as dumb as a sack of bricks

The US is one of the longest running, if not the longest running, representative democracies in the world. If the system is so bad it would have imploded long ago, but has worked without problem for centuries.

Yeah I guess that is a fair point so far it has been working but I would still maintain that a system that says a persons vote counts for more than another's and it's technically possible to win with 22% of the popular vote can and should be improved on or changed

So dismantle the the longest running and most successful representative democracy in the world because there is a miniscule chance that 22% of the popular vote could elect a President? Seems like an odd reason to jump to a conclusion that the system is "dumb as a sack of bricks".

The only system that avoids what you seem to dislike is a system of mob rule, pitchforks at the ready. Some painful lessons through history have made that system all but obsolete in the civilised world. You realise that in the UK a Prime Minister can be elected with a majority in the house with a tiny % of the popular vote (much lower than 22%), technically speaking.

a reply to: Krakatoa

The EC should remain, however something needs to be done to balance it out ( I don't know what). Trump won the EC by 77K votes whereas Hillary won the popular vote by 2.3M. Essentially one county in each of three states outweighed millions of people.

*Not a democrat
**Didn't vote for Hillary

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Big states are socialist because poor people stay home on welfare with nothing to do and have lots of kids. Look at Syria. Because of socialism, Syria population went from 4 million in 1960 to 20 million in 2010. Too many people, not enough natural resources. War.

Why look at Syria when we can look at red states?

The alternative that the libtarded WANT is: all peoples of impoverished nations should be able to enter the USA WITHOUT showing a passport, and LIVE here and raise families here with absolutely no documentation whatsoever, they MUST be allowed to take welfare checks FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIFE without paying one cent in tax.

That way, there will at least be SOMEONE to vote for pathetic, racist, openly corrupt leftist politicians

Thankfully though, the current administration is putting the kybosh on that pathetic dream so the USA can be just like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH and only allow actual citizens (not including dead citizens of course) to vote in elections

According to leftists, that's racist.

a reply to: Kali74

Here is my reply to that...

Consider how it had to be a perfect storm for him to win at all.. if you adjust things even a bit to give more weight to other areas of the country you just told the middle of the country their opinion does not matter.

As it is right now the Republicans have to flip some states to win the oval office... they cannot just depend on their base, they must convince democrats to vote for them.

Democrats just need to hold their base states (and get them out to vote)... and not run the worst campaign since I dont know maybe mondale and they win.

Is the EC perfect... no not at all... but I cannot see any changes that do not tell a bunch of states they do not matter.

originally posted by: Kali74
Why look at Syria when we can look at red states?

Question...
What America city more closely resembles Syria.
Austin or Detroit?
Your blind ignorance towards conservatism is annoying to no end here.
I can point out facts to you all damn day that disprove your mentality that liberalism is this shining beacon of moral justice and conservatism is bad.

People like you drive people like me away from any sort of legitimate debate because you are so blind to anything out side your narrow set of ideals.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Is the EC perfect... no not at all... but I cannot see any changes that do not tell a bunch of states they do not matter.

But telling millions of people that they don't matter is ok?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Is the EC perfect... no not at all... but I cannot see any changes that do not tell a bunch of states they do not matter.

But telling millions of people that they don't matter is ok?

Considering the majority of those voters came from 2 states (I think it was) and both states were won easily by the Democrats... how were they told they do not matter?

a reply to: Breakthestreak

That's one hell of a huge straw man you've constructed there.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I have no interest in telling anyone that their vote doesn't matter but the fact is with the EC the way it is now doesn't quite balance things out. Somehow that needs to change, though currently and probably for the foreseeable future it's best to leave it alone. I don't trust anyone to fix it right now.