What's wrong with elections based off of the Popular Vote?

Who did the American people really want in 2016%. 54% didn't want Trump, 52% didn't want Hillary Clinton. The majority of Americans voted against both. Neither was wanted by the majority of Americans.

I also disagree about the electoral college giving the Republicans an advantage. The top four states more or less guaranteed to go Democratic, California 55 electoral votes, New York 29, Pennsylvania 20, Illinois another 20. 124 electoral votes. The top four states to more or less guaranteed to go Republican, Texas 38, Georgia 16, North Carolina 15, Tennessee 11. 80 electoral votes. One could say in any given election the Democrats are starting out with a 124 to 80 advantage in the electoral college.

Want to add 6 more more or less guaranteed to make it an even 10. Add Washington, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland and Virginia to the Democratic column, 200 electoral votes. Add Indiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky and Arizona to the GOP column, 138 electoral votes. That's 10 more or less guaranteed states to each party with the GOP trailing by 62 electoral votes. This means with 30 states left the Democrats have to win enough of them to add 70 electoral votes, the Republicans have to win enough of them to add 132 electoral votes. Rough go for the GOP.

Fact is Trump won by taking three solid Democratic states, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania because Hillary pretty much ignored all three. She took them for granted. Campaign appearances by Trump in those three solid Democratic states 19. Campaign appearance for Hillary in those three states, 9. When you throw in Florida with its 29 electoral votes, Hillary ceded that state to Trump also, 13 campaign appearances for Trump, 8 for Hillary. Nationwide from 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016, Trump made 116 campaign appearances/stops/visits to Hillary's 71. That 71 looks larger than what it was as it includes fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. My take on the above, Hillary was kind of lazy, Trump energetic. That made all the difference.

 

To address the argument that cities would determine the popular vote.

The nation’s 5 largest cities account for only 6% of the population. The 50 largest cities account for just 15%.

A candidate can win the electoral college with only 23% of the population voting for them.

 

Small areas with the biggest giveaways can't be allowed to control the rest of the country.

 

Very misleading. For example, the Los Angeles Metro area has around nineteen million people. The population Las Angeles is only about four million people. The Los Angeles Metro area alone accounts for around six percent of the population.

 

You have a strange definition of fair.

I believe our impasse may be because we disagree on the definition of fair.

You believe it is fair representation for a citizen to be worth a quarter of another.
I do not.

You believe it is perfectly acceptable to have large populations of partisan states not even bother to vote because their voice has already been silenced.
I do not.

I don’t believe our opinions are reconcilable

 

Look at all that wide open unpopulated empty space trump won! Why on earth should empty space determine the president, instead of actual American citizens?

 

Look at all the absolutely nothing Hillary won

 

Huh? She received almost 3 million more votes than trump did, lol.

 

This is the United STATES of America, not the Satrap of Crazyfornia.

 

She won by 4 million in California lost by one million everywhere else.

 

So that's the big win? I thought winning the White House was the big win.

I'm glad you're satisfied with her massive victory

 

Probably so. I believe that one person is just as important as the ten people elsewhere. However, any one person in that ten people is just as important as any other ten people elsewhere. That is pretty much the basis of our whole society. We don't penalize the minority for the majority.

 

Perhaps your perception would change if you looked at it this way:
Let's say that there was a world government. Would you want China, Indonesia, and India to make laws for everyone else in the world, according to the way they think things should be, just because they decided to breed into the billions?

 

Many smaller states would not have joined the union without guarantees that their voice would not be ignored. The bicameral system and the EC are the assurances of that. It was debated and negotiated before it was approved. If you want to get rid of it, the fair thing would be to let states have the option to leave the union if the EC is dissolved. Let everyone put their money where their mouth is.

 

Didn’t you just get through saying “That's the liberal/democratic perspective”, that doesn’t match with your statement in bold, and certainly doesn’t match with the graph I posted.

No one comes here because of a system that overrules the voice of the people 10% of the time. While your statement is true that it is part of a larger system that allowed economic prosperity the EC has had very little to do with the success of that bigger picture. It more likely has caused more damage to the nation than we know — for examples look at the last two interventions, an idiot and a lying adulterous bankrupt third rate reality tv star / con artist.

 

What did she win with those 3 million votes? lol.

 

You're looking at it backwards. All that open space is located in a lot of states. Even if a state only had a population of 1, that 1 guy would have absolutely no reason to agree to a popular vote.

So it doesn't matter what you think. What matters as far as that guy is concerned is what's in it for him and his lone wolf state?

So far, I'm not hearing much of a reason for him to agree to a popular vote.

 

That’s definitely an interesting example...

One that has made me rethink my position somewhat. Instead of a complete repeal maybe it needs to simply be amended to better account for individual votes instead of making them the only only metric. If you are a Republican living in California or a Democrat living in Alabama under the current system your vote is immediately voided at the state level so many of these individuals do not vote at all for their president. Why waste the time? That’s an unjust system that I think most will agree on.

 

Doesn't and didn't matter! Not the way the system is designed! Democrats, ALL democrats want to get the brass ring by doing nothing to earn it.. They rely on a few pockets of followers that want the same brass ring with no effort, Trump worked his ass off and won the election by winning the hearts and minds of a nation whereas Granny simply never left the hog farms

 

Thats the exact opposite of what the electoral college does

 

Your argument might have more credibility if it weren't so obvious that you are a rabid Trump hater. That simply reinforces my argument.

 

What is wrong with elections based on the popular vote, is that it is nothing more than mob mentality made legitimate, where dissenting opinions are crushed, and the minority have no protections against the tyranny of the majority.

If the popular vote were utilized, blacks would still be slaves, and homosexuals could still be put to death for engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

The will of the people is also that illegal aliens should not be allowed to remain in the country, nor should they be provided with anything in the way of assistance. Should such be honored and accepted?

 

No matter! But you might as well learn to choose a candidate that is smart enough to include rural America because Trump schooled the Democrats on how and why it's important to have minds of all Americans on your side..

But I don't think the left have leaned anything from the last spanking they got