What is the best reason for keeping the Electoral College?

[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.

That would be the easiest and the most profound change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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+.

So United states of America - California is fine with you? The reality is 1 Million plus voters are disenfranchised. You are Ok with that? How are small state voters disenfranchised when their voters are counted in a popular vote democracy? The senate is created as a voice for the small states. How much more should small states need? CA should really get out of this union that takes everything from its revenue and innovation and in return disenfranchises it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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+.

So United states of America - California is fine with you? The reality is 1 Million plus voters are disenfranchised. You are Ok with that? How are small state voters disenfranchised when their voters are counted in a popular vote democracy? The senate is created as a voice for the small states. How much more should small states need? CA should really get out of this union that takes everything from its revenue and innovation and in return disenfranchises it.

How are they disenfranchised? They weren't denied their right to vote or the power of their vote within the system.

This argument about the popular vote is erroneous.

No one can know what the popular vote would have been had the rules of winning the election been one to win the popular vote. Both candidates played the system that was in effect when the election took place.

It would be like saying the Carolina Panthers should have won the Super Bowl because the game should have been decided by time of possession or number of first downs instead of points. Both teams knew the rules of what it took to win when they engaged in the game. If the objective was different than winning required the most points, then the game would have been played very differently.

The same is true of the election. All this speculation about the popular vote is meaningless considering the President is not elected by popular vote.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

PP - You're still grabbing at straws here. It would be like this. Say Team A has 4 field goals and Team B has 2 touchdowns (including extra point).

Then, after the game is over, you want to say the team that got 4 "goals" should win over the team that got "2". Or, it's like saying a field goal should be worth 6 points instead of 3 because both versions of points should count the same.

Voters within the state of California are not disenfranchised. Their votes determine who the electors are for the state of California.

[Anonymous]

The Presidential election is not a national election.

It is 51 separate elections.

[Anonymous]

You don't need a constitutional amendment to fix this. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 can be modified to increase the number of representatives in each state, thus equalizing the number of EC electors for each state. Since 1929 (actually 1911), the number of representatives has been fixed at 435.

Also, by reducing the number of constituents in each congressional district, you open the opportunity for third parties to get into Congress, reduce the pernicious effects of gerrymandering, and make the "people's house" more representative of the will of the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And there's more than a few of us who don't think the voters of New York and California should have that much power.

How about Texas? That is the state that is the most heavily penalized by the Electoral College system. Across the board, it doesn't seem fair that populous states have their votes discounted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP - You're still grabbing at straws here. It would be like this. Say Team A has 4 field goals and Team B has 2 touchdowns (including extra point).

Then, after the game is over, you want to say the team that got 4 "goals" should win over the team that got "2". Or, it's like saying a field goal should be worth 6 points instead of 3 because both versions of points should count the same.

Voters within the state of California are not disenfranchised. Their votes determine who the electors are for the state of California.

Wrong analogy very simplistic. Well , over 1 million voters are disenfranchised because their vote didn't matter as the LOSER was elected president anyways. That's a fact. Can you name any other country In the world that picked the LOSER by over 1 million votes as their leader?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Presidential election is not a national election.

It is 51 separate elections.

Do you know how stupid and simplistic you sound? If they are separate elections then why is it held on the same day? Why are the candidates the same? Why are the issues the same? Why are local state issues not discussed? Cmon even for you don't you see that you are reaching too far out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Presidential election is not a national election.

It is 51 separate elections.

Do you know how stupid and simplistic you sound? If they are separate elections then why is it held on the same day? Why are the candidates the same? Why are the issues the same? Why are local state issues not discussed? Cmon even for you don't you see that you are reaching too far out.

NP. You seem to confuse separate and different. It's called dictionary. Please use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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+.

So United states of America - California is fine with you? The reality is 1 Million plus voters are disenfranchised. You are Ok with that? How are small state voters disenfranchised when their voters are counted in a popular vote democracy? The senate is created as a voice for the small states. How much more should small states need? CA should really get out of this union that takes everything from its revenue and innovation and in return disenfranchises it.

California's R make up a little under a 1/3, yet they didn't have a say during this last election, as they were overshadowed by the EC.

thing is - She WON the popular vote. That should be enough to make Dems angry tbh. Even if she won by a few hundred thousand votes, she still won.

I get the EC philosophy. It forces candidates to travel all over the US, hearing the concerns of Middle America in areas that aren't as densely populated. As it traditionally stands, however, the coastal areas are more densely populated and they tend to lean liberal. So it was a no brainer for Hillary to canvass those states and to - imo - pander to the Hollywood elite.

But again, therein lies the problem. While she may have won the popular vote (and they're still counting), she wasn't one to draw in those who felt marginalized. So however you feel about Trump or Hillary is one thing. But you can't ignore that both processes - EC and popular vote - are flawed, especially in our divided country.

quite the conundrum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Presidential election is not a national election.

It is 51 separate elections.

Do you know how stupid and simplistic you sound? If they are separate elections then why is it held on the same day? Why are the candidates the same? Why are the issues the same? Why are local state issues not discussed? Cmon even for you don't you see that you are reaching too far out.

NP. You seem to confuse separate and different. It's called dictionary. Please use it.

+1.

And it makes perfect sense, given the history and creation of our country.

I'm all for improving things...but let's not delude ourselves. Trump won with the system we have and I'm pretty sure he would have equally won with a popular vote system -- he would have just had more huge rallies in NY and CA.