The Electoral College was genius of the Founding Fathers

a reply to: DBCowboy

No more then you dictate me. So why are you happy when it happens on a National level?

Electoral votes fall under states rights, same as why the senate was set up how it was. They were both used to quell dissent of small states from being squashed by the big pop states.
A lot of states do not have states in the same concept as the USA does.
The electoral college is one of the unique features in the US system to keep the Federal government in check

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: DBCowboy

No more then you dictate me. So why are you happy when it happens on a National level?

I put up with it for 8 years of bush and 8 years of Obama.

Guess what?

Now you and I will have to deal with 4 years of Trump.

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Painterz
Sorry, this just smacks of desperation. The Electoral Collage system is not fit for purpose, it was designed for a different era with different technology. It's outdated and obsolete. And really should be replaced with a straight first-past-the-post system.

Dude just outlined exactly why it works and that's all you got? Please re-read the post. Hillary won 18 out of 50 states. It doesn't matter if 100% of the New York and California population voted for her and pushed her popular vote over the top. The other 32 states should and do get a say in the election.

The people in those states technically do get an equal say in the election. One person gets one vote, but really what does one persons vote equate to in consideration of the electoral college? Is it fair that one persons vote has less say in the final decision because they happen to live in a more populated area? My logic says no. If anything, at this moment, people's votes aren't treated equally.

The electoral system is flawed. We know that. One remedy is to change the winner takes all outcomes. If the electors votes were split up according to the proportion of each states popular vote it would solve a lot of problems. NH splits 50/50 in their popular vote? Trump gets 2, Clinton gets 2. How can it get anymore simple than that?

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.

And that's exactly what the democrat party has been counting on for decades. A smart move for Trump would be to deport only the criminal illegals and then make a system that reaches out to the rest to become legal, basically play nice with these guys and turn them into Republican supporters.

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.

You're missing the point. That's exactly what it's fore. Geography. The large urban center doesn't reflect all of America! This way everyone has a voice.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Painterz
Sorry, this just smacks of desperation. The Electoral Collage system is not fit for purpose, it was designed for a different era with different technology. It's outdated and obsolete. And really should be replaced with a straight first-past-the-post system.

Dude just outlined exactly why it works and that's all you got? Please re-read the post. Hillary won 18 out of 50 states. It doesn't matter if 100% of the New York and California population voted for her and pushed her popular vote over the top. The other 32 states should and do get a say in the election.

The people in those states technically do get an equal say in the election. One person gets one vote, but really what does one persons vote equate to in consideration of the electoral college? Is it fair that one persons vote has less say in the final decision because they happen to live in a more populated area? My logic says no. If anything, at this moment, people's votes aren't treated equally.

The electoral system is flawed. We know that. One remedy is to change the winner takes all outcomes. If the electors votes were split up according to the proportion of each states popular vote it would solve a lot of problems. NH splits 50/50 in their popular vote? Trump gets 2, Clinton gets 2. How can it get anymore simple than that?

Because, it's about the State - your popular vote wins that state - then the votes of that state carry for that candidate - so one person doesn't have any less say than another who lives in a populated area. You live in New York - I live in Wisconsin, my vote counts with the rest of my state as only 10 votes while your state gets 29. So, your STATE has a larger voice than mine.

What's the difference.

Each states electoral votes are won by each states individual collective popular vote

Most popular votes percentages come from useless numbers, because after a certain point it becomes that a candidate has already mathematically won A state. And and the votes after that point don't count, because the candidate already has won majority vote from the state.

Take Washington, D.C. For example Hillary won by like 92%. At a point much lower than 92% Hillary had already mathematically won the state.

And anyone who can't see why she won the popular vote and still loss horribly obviously doesent understand numbers PM and I can elaborate.

There is a major flaw in this theory- before the 20th century more people lived outside of major cities than inside them.

Most likely it was set up this way because it would be too time consuming and difficult to count and deliver everyone's votes to the capitol back then.

originally posted by: CB328
There is a major flaw in this theory- before the 20th century more people lived outside of major cities than inside them.

You might want to reconsider your statement:



www.census.gov...

originally posted by: CB328
Most likely it was set up this way because it would be too time consuming and difficult to count and deliver everyone's votes to the capitol back then.

That is not the reason at all.

In Federalist Number 10 Madison stated "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" was the reason the Founder's supported the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is not genius. Its basically the same style of monarchy rule that England had in place. The only difference is the people are allowed to vote hoping that their vote convinces the EC to vote for who ever had the most votes. The Electoral College in no way shape or form has to vote the way the American people have voted for them to vote.

Back door trades and large donations from those campaigning is how the Electoral College determines its votes. You will enver hear about the EC receiving donations out in the open though. Donations to the EC to have a particular presidential candidate elected is done through lobby groups attached to pork barrel projects. Granted some lobbying groups are legitimate.

But when you have an electoral system that basically says the vote of the people really doesn't matter and that the EC can vote who ever it chooses to vote for then like I said trades and money changing hands going on behind closed doors is what really gets a president elected.

originally posted by: Dryson
The Electoral College is not genius. Its basically the same style of monarchy rule that England had in place. The only difference is the people are allowed to vote hoping that their vote convinces the EC to vote for who ever had the most votes. The Electoral College in no way shape or form has to vote the way the American people have voted for them to vote.

Back door trades and large donations from those campaigning is how the Electoral College determines its votes. You will enver hear about the EC receiving donations out in the open though. Donations to the EC to have a particular presidential candidate elected is done through lobby groups attached to pork barrel projects. Granted some lobbying groups are legitimate.

But when you have an electoral system that basically says the vote of the people really doesn't matter and that the EC can vote who ever it chooses to vote for then like I said trades and money changing hands going on behind closed doors is what really gets a president elected.

Complete and utter nonsense. The Electorals have voted 99% of the time with what the people of their districts have voted. It works. Rarely will they go outside the will of their people. 29 states have laws requiring them to vote with the popular vote of their state and the others should have the same laws, but it doesn't matter, they rarely go against the will of the people. Trump won, it's over and everyone needs to get over it, move on and stop whining!