The Electoral College was genius of the Founding Fathers

I used to hate the electoral collage, but could you imagine if these rioting idiots were in charge of electing our leaders? No wonder they dont bother with California or Oregon for elections. Im now glad the battle ground states are back east and dont have any sanctuary cities.

Double post

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Without the electoral college, the blue areas would have determined the future for the grey areas.

Thank you for showing that map. It really puts things into perspective. And these people call it outdated when it couldn't be anymore relevant.

Trump supporters: "The people have spoken!"









***Ignore that the people chose Hillary according to the popular vote though***

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
Trump supporters: "The people have spoken!"









***Ignore that the people chose Hillary according to the popular vote though***

You clearly don't understand what's been discussed here, do you?

OP is absolutely right. Here's a map of the election by county:



I've said this before, but t bears repeating. This is the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. It's not all about you. I know that's hard to take because you think you're so important, but that's the way it is. Lots of people are under the mistaken impression that the Electoral College was put in place to "protect slavery." That's not true at all. It was the exact opposite. When the original 13 colonies decided to band together the southern slave-holding states dominated the landscape both in terms of land area and population. Virginia was HUGE and, in fact, for the first 50 years most every President came from Virginia.

But it was the NORTHERN states that were small with small populations: Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts. Compared to southern states they are all TINY, so they are the ones who lobbied for a Senate where every state was equally represented, and in matters of voting, was the same size. The House was left to be "The People's House" based solely on population.

In real-life terms what this means is that the presidential campaign must take into consideration ALL states because any one of them could turn out to be a decisive one in terms of the Electoral College vote. If this were NOT The case the candidates could concentrate on both coasts and ignore most of the country. But as it stands the Electoral College gives a very slight advantage to the less populous and smaller states. Look at the Electoral College Map for this election. It's available nearly everywhere. What you see is a mass of red states all across the country with a smattering of blue on the West Coast plus Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, and the northeast plus Virginia, Minnesota, and Illinois. That's all. 20 states are blue; 30 states are red. And most of the really tiny sates that the Electoral College was designed to help? They're all blue.

The United States was set up as a Republic ("What have you given us?" "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."--Benjamin Franklin), not a "Democracy," where you suffer under the illusion that all voters are equal, when half of them are stupid and easily led, as every election shows. "Democracy" is Mob Rule, two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. God save us from that. The Electoral College was set up to provide for a majority of people AND STATES to elect the President with as broad a mandate as possible from the entire United States--not just the population of a minority of states on both coasts.

It is a great idea for a country as large as the USA.

Or you would have Urban areas ruling the country with rural citizens being little more than second class citizens.


BUT

What concerns me is the fact that in a number of states electoral representatives don’t have to vote the way there state does plus the way that party’s can pretty much dominate it.

a reply to: Rezlooper

In 2012, Trump seemed to think it was a HORRIBLE system, actually calling for a REVOLUTION when he thought that Romney had won the popular vote only to lose the election to the electoral college.

How incredibly ironic and hypocritical.

In 2012 Trump called for a revolution saying "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy".

And can someone explain to me how a "winner takes all" system is the least bit representative?

For example, 44% of the people in Colorado voted for Trump yet ALL of the electoral votes went to Hillary...

And why wouldnt the same logic apply to state senators or Governors?

Theyre elected based on the popular vote. If the system is so unfair, lets enact an electoral system on the state level so "urban centers" cant decide every other elected position.

Best video, awesome explanation how and why the electoral college works.

youtu.be...

On mobile, can't embed.

originally posted by: schuyler
OP is absolutely right. Here's a map of the election by county:

I've said this before, but t bears repeating. This is the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. It's not all about you. I know that's hard to take because you think you're so important, but that's the way it is. Lots of people are under the mistaken impression that the Electoral College was put in place to "protect slavery." That's not true at all. It was the exact opposite. When the original 13 colonies decided to band together the southern slave-holding states dominated the landscape both in terms of land area and population. Virginia was HUGE and, in fact, for the first 50 years most every President came from Virginia.

But it was the NORTHERN states that were small with small populations: Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts. Compared to southern states they are all TINY, so they are the ones who lobbied for a Senate where every state was equally represented, and in matters of voting, was the same size. The House was left to be "The People's House" based solely on population.

In real-life terms what this means is that the presidential campaign must take into consideration ALL states because any one of them could turn out to be a decisive one in terms of the Electoral College vote. If this were NOT The case the candidates could concentrate on both coasts and ignore most of the country. But as it stands the Electoral College gives a very slight advantage to the less populous and smaller states. Look at the Electoral College Map for this election. It's available nearly everywhere. What you see is a mass of red states all across the country with a smattering of blue on the West Coast plus Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, and the northeast plus Virginia, Minnesota, and Illinois. That's all. 20 states are blue; 30 states are red. And most of the really tiny sates that the Electoral College was designed to help? They're all blue.

The United States was set up as a Republic ("What have you given us?" "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."--Benjamin Franklin), not a "Democracy," where you suffer under the illusion that all voters are equal, when half of them are stupid and easily led, as every election shows. "Democracy" is Mob Rule, two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. God save us from that. The Electoral College was set up to provide for a majority of people AND STATES to elect the President with as broad a mandate as possible from the entire United States--not just the population of a minority of states on both coasts.

Thanks Schuyler for a great post. With these contributions on why the Electoral system works and they still don't get it... they never will.

a reply to: Rezlooper

All I'm saying is that if Trump had won the popular vote but had lost the electoral college then Trump supporters would be saying how the electoral college is a terrible idea.

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
a reply to: Rezlooper

All I'm saying is that if Trump had won the popular vote but had lost the electoral college then Trump supporters would be saying how the electoral college is a terrible idea.

That may be, but not me because I understand the purpose of the Electoral College.

It is actually a genius move to create this system. It prevented precisely the scenario where one party could create inner city plantations to cultivate votes and dictate to the country. They were smart men.

originally posted by: schuyler
OP is absolutely right. Here's a map of the election by county:

I've said this before, but t bears repeating. This is the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. It's not all about you. I know that's hard to take because you think you're so important, but that's the way it is. Lots of people are under the mistaken impression that the Electoral College was put in place to "protect slavery." That's not true at all. It was the exact opposite. When the original 13 colonies decided to band together the southern slave-holding states dominated the landscape both in terms of land area and population. Virginia was HUGE and, in fact, for the first 50 years most every President came from Virginia.

But it was the NORTHERN states that were small with small populations: Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts. Compared to southern states they are all TINY, so they are the ones who lobbied for a Senate where every state was equally represented, and in matters of voting, was the same size. The House was left to be "The People's House" based solely on population.

In real-life terms what this means is that the presidential campaign must take into consideration ALL states because any one of them could turn out to be a decisive one in terms of the Electoral College vote. If this were NOT The case the candidates could concentrate on both coasts and ignore most of the country. But as it stands the Electoral College gives a very slight advantage to the less populous and smaller states. Look at the Electoral College Map for this election. It's available nearly everywhere. What you see is a mass of red states all across the country with a smattering of blue on the West Coast plus Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, and the northeast plus Virginia, Minnesota, and Illinois. That's all. 20 states are blue; 30 states are red. And most of the really tiny sates that the Electoral College was designed to help? They're all blue.

The United States was set up as a Republic ("What have you given us?" "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."--Benjamin Franklin), not a "Democracy," where you suffer under the illusion that all voters are equal, when half of them are stupid and easily led, as every election shows. "Democracy" is Mob Rule, two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner. God save us from that. The Electoral College was set up to provide for a majority of people AND STATES to elect the President with as broad a mandate as possible from the entire United States--not just the population of a minority of states on both coasts.

Excellent post - I seem to remember reading somewhere that the founding fathers actually used the lessons of the collapse of Rome in their thinking. They could see that a democracy could degenerate, just as Rome did, into rule by the immoral, decadent, and uninformed leading to total collapse. These men, with the system they created, might just have saved America from the same fate - from beyond the grave.

The founders wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority. I just wish they were smart enough to have include something to prevent tyranny from gerrymandering. And tyranny from parliamentary rules. And tyranny from the Federal Reserve. And tyranny from lobbyists who force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing.

a reply to: Rezlooper

If you have a large group of people, and that group overall votes a certain way (even by as slim margin) shouldn't that be reflected in the final result?

I get the "rural vs. urban" balancing of power thing. The fact is, the bulk of the population lives in urban centers, and to have their voice silenced by a smaller population isn't democracy.

Conservatives scream about minorities and "special rights", except when they aren't the majority and want their way.

Funny how that double standard works.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Rezlooper

If you have a large group of people, and that group overall votes a certain way (even by as slim margin) shouldn't that be reflected in the final result?

I get the "rural vs. urban" balancing of power thing. The fact is, the bulk of the population lives in urban centers, and to have their voice silenced by a smaller population isn't democracy.

Conservatives scream about minorities and "special rights", except when they aren't the majority and want their way.

Funny how that double standard works.

The Electoral College is well established and makes sense, protecting the union from rule via a few major conurbations.
If it was a popular vote you could win 49 states and lose 1, and the person winning the 1 state could win.

It's also worth pointing out that no one won a majority of the popular vote.

a reply to: Rezlooper

I see, well I assume Trump hates the final outcome because he said in 2012 that the electoral college was "a disaster for a democracy".

I sure as hell didn't want Clinton as president but neither did I want Trump. They (TPTB) got who they wanted though, they always do, so I guess I'll just sit back and watch the disaster that Trump will most likely be. I hope I'm wrong about that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

That maps show where 50% of the country lives. Why shouldn't 50% of the country have a say in the future of the nation?

a reply to: Pyle

We're 2 people.

I'm 50%.

Do you want to live how I dictate?