The Electoral College in the US: modify, keep, or discard it?

So the only way Trump wins, is if we go by how Presidential elections actually work.

Now what?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So the only way Trump wins, is if we go by how Presidential elections actually work.

Now what?

Your post reads very familiar:

Originally posted by dadudemon
The only way Trump wins this election is through the current system even though Hillary barely won the popular vote. Sorry, that's the way it is when you analyze the numbers.

Edit - Based on the voting in this thread, seems a comfortable majority want a straight popular vote. I think the proportional system I just used is a better idea because I do not think it is fair to marginalize smaller states in a Federal Republic. The larger populist states should be marginalized by just a bit.

Originally posted by Surtur
I find this system old and not needed. However, I'm quite sure that if Clinton won the election, but lost the popular vote people would be PRAISING the electoral college.

So the hypocrisy is still quite funny.

Most people truly didn't give this system much thought until the unthinkable happened. What a disturbing lack of foresight.

Plus: funny!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your post reads very familiar:

Edit - Based on the voting in this thread, seems a comfortable majority want a straight popular vote. I think the proportional system I just used is a better idea because I do not think it is fair to marginalize smaller states in a Federal Republic. The larger populist states should be marginalized by just a bit.

They only want to change how Elections work because their person didn't win.

Saying Clinton deserves the win is stupid, Trump won with the rules in place, that's juts that.

Having said that, going forward we should go with popular vote. Each citizen gets one vote; the candidate with the most votes wins. Easy.

Neither of them "deserved" to win. Both of them should be in jail. When our political system gets us two candidates most people hate, you kinda know it's dicked.

If you want to talk about government corruption, that's an entirely different conversation. But they both got there with the rules in place and they both won or lost with the rules in place.

Bernie Sanders might just disagree with you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
They only want to change how Elections work because their person didn't win.

I agree.

Originally posted by Robtard
Saying Clinton deserves the win is stupid, Trump won with the rules in place, that's juts that.

Having said that, going forward we should go with popular vote. Each citizen gets one vote; the candidate with the most votes wins. Easy.

I disagree. I like my proposed system, the best. That still gives us the ability to give the smaller states a bit more of a say since we are a Federal Republic. This slightly marginalizes the more populous states, sure, but not too much and it still gives a bit more of a proportional voice to the smaller states.

I don't think we are geographically and populously (is this even a word?) small enough to justify a straight popular vote especially since we vary so much across the US in culture.

Not everyone changes their paradigm on the fly to justify to themselves what they believe. If Clinton won because of the electoral college, I'd be happy Trump didn't win, but I'd still disapprove of the electoral college.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Bernie Sanders might just disagree with you.

And he's likely correct, imo. But that's just more claims that can't be fully confirmed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I like my proposed system, the best. That still gives us the ability to give the smaller states a bit more of a say since we are a Federal Republic. This slightly marginalizes the more populous states, sure, but not too much and it still gives a bit more of a proportional voice to the smaller states.

I don't think we are geographically and populously (***is this even a word?) small enough to justify a straight popular vote especially since we vary so much across the US in culture.

Didn't read it, jumped in on the page and didn't read back. No mal intent, just letting you know.

I don't see the problem, or maybe I just don't care. But one vote per citizen where no one's vote is more or less important seems fit to me.

***Dictionary says it's a word, adjective for "populous". It does look wrong though.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Bernie Sanders might just disagree with you.

Just a little RE-Edgumuhcation for everybody on how the Electoral Really works.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nah, I think Clinton's the lesser of two evils, but I always thought this system was dicked.

Maybe you would, but I'm guessing at least half these shitheads crying about this would be praising it if it netted their corrupt woman the win.

Actually, according to Hamilton, the reason we have an electoral college is because the founding fathers thought the public was full of too many dumb asses to elect a good president and wanted to restrict it to the "elite". Land area has noting to do with it. 👆

In my opinion, I can't really think of a better alternative to the electoral college with the sole exception of the popular vote. I know there was a reason that it was established but my knowledge stops there. Anyone feel free to educate me on the matter. I'd welcome it. I do think senate and house terms should be limited though. And, ridiculous lifetime checks received by them, to me, seems very unnecessary.

Edit: ares just answered my question. But the specific, technical reason would be appreciated.

Originally posted by ares834
Actually, according to Hamilton, the reason we have an electoral college is because the founding fathers thought the public was full of too many dumb asses to elect a good president and wanted to restrict it to the "elite". Land area has noting to do with it. 👆

We don't let average Joe's run the Large Hadron Collider.

Why should we let them decide how to run the country?

I am not excluded from this. I doubt I have the necessary knowledge to adequately make decisions for our nation's future.

The ignorant should not have a voice.

Originally posted by NemeBro
It's a shame that that's not how the system actually works.

We don't let average Joe's run the Large Hadron Collider.

Why should we let them decide how to run the country?

I am not excluded from this. I doubt I have the necessary knowledge to adequately make decisions for our nation's future.

The ignorant should not have a voice.

Do you propose American's should be required to take some sort of IQ and proficiency test before they're allowed to vote?