What is the best reason for keeping the Electoral College?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Whining from the left is starting to get annoying.

+1

Buncha sore losers

Seriously, where were all these people for the past eight years? Respect for Constitution and all.

Here is a serious question, and be honest: where would you have been if it had been the other way around? Trump refused to promise that he would accept the results of the election, and this was back when most polls showed that Hillary would win the EC. Would you have been critical of Trump and his supporters then? I mean I know that on the internet everyone is a dog, so you can say whatever you want whether or not it's true, but I'm hoping to get an honest, self-aware answer here.

I'd be scared for my parents overseas whom HRC was itching to bomb the shit out of... This is your honest and (hopefully) self-aware answer. I would not be on the streets hurting people and destroying private and public property, I can guarantee that.

[Anonymous]

When republicans whine about protests I marvel at their short memory for tea party protests, anti choice protests and protests against marriage equality. But sure republicans never protest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When republicans whine about protests I marvel at their short memory for tea party protests, anti choice protests and protests against marriage equality. But sure republicans never protest

Oh course, they do. They don't involve National Guard though

[Anonymous]

Tea Party protests were against legislation that was proposed and then passed. That is probably the biggest reason that we have not had a Dem House or Senate since 2010. It was because the members who did not listen to their constituents were ignored. This is quite different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When republicans whine about protests I marvel at their short memory for tea party protests, anti choice protests and protests against marriage equality. But sure republicans never protest

Were they burning buildings, looting stores, and beating up people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something better than "this is how our founding fathers wanted it."

We are in the end ONE COUNTRY. Presidential campaigns should be nation-wide, not focused on a few key states and writing off large swaths of the country.

All votes should matter equally.

But if we went by the popular vote, candidates would just focus on the most highly populated states.

Wrong. Campaigns will still be where undecided voters are. Republicans will not campaign in VT,HI,MA etc. Dems won't campaign in Wyoming,AL,Idaho etc.

[Anonymous]

Why do you assume this will remain two party? A direct vote will encourage many more candidates and a plurality will be all that's required. Is that the goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you assume this will remain two party? A direct vote will encourage many more candidates and a plurality will be all that's required. Is that the goal?

PP you are wrong. It would not be a plurality. Even if it was changed to a direct vote, I doubt we would want to see a system where the candidate did not secure a true majority. Even if it were a direct vote, neither Clinton or Trump won. It would have had to go to a run off race with the top two vote recipients (which would have been a direct race between Clinton and Trump without any other candidates).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When republicans whine about protests I marvel at their short memory for tea party protests, anti choice protests and protests against marriage equality. But sure republicans never protest

Were they burning buildings, looting stores, and beating up people?

+1.

I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, neither white nor black, and would feel much safer in the middle of a Tea Party protest than in the middle of a BLM protest/ riot.

[Anonymous]

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/599078.page

[Anonymous]

Get rid of primaries, the Electoral College, and require a run-off election between top two candidates for EVERY federal office (House, Senate, Presidency). This is similar to the system in Louisiana.

Our entire electoral process needs a massive overhaul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? The reason to keep it is that we have no choice. The last 4 presidents would have all been democrats if it was decided by popular vote. That means the red states will never sign off on the amendment.

This. It doesn't matter that it's wrong. The Republican states will never give it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of primaries, the Electoral College, and require a run-off election between top two candidates for EVERY federal office (House, Senate, Presidency). This is similar to the system in Louisiana.

Our entire electoral process needs a massive overhaul.

How is the result any different. A republican gets elected anyways. In CA which is also similar to Louisiana a democrat gets elected anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if we went by the popular vote, candidates would just focus on the most highly populated states.

And what's wrong with that? Why should a vote in NH have more say than one in CA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if we went by the popular vote, candidates would just focus on the most highly populated states.

And what's wrong with that? Why should a vote in NH have more say than one in CA?

Because our country is called United STATES of America, not California+.