The electoral college needs to go, its broken and only serves to disenfranchise voters

Thank you for confirming you cannot meaningfully address these points, made in reference to your statements:

- Someone voting in WY is not voting in the same election as someone voting in NY, so your comparison is invalid and unsound.
- No one has ever won a "national vote" - your term - as there is no "national vote" - all elections are state elections.
- What governmental entity, empowered by law, certified the 'popular vote'?

I again accept your concession.

 

As you know, the NPVC violates the constitutional prohibition against states entering into an agreement or compact with other states.

 

You said your statement is easily proven.
It is up to -you- to prove it.
Get busy.

 

You cannot cite any such debate, and you cannot explain how the NPVC does not violate the plain language of the Constitution.

Why haven't the states, currently party to the NPVC, do this now?

 

Haven't you already embarrassed yourself enough?

 

But, this "many" apparently not enough to make a constitutional amendment a worthwhile pursuit.
So much for that.

 

Please point out where any names of states are mentioned and how this is different than the trigger laws with Roe v Wade that would ban abortion when the court over turns Roe?

Both are trigger laws. Simple as that.

 

You are fully aware of the fact your statement, above, is false, because you are fully aware of the fact the people in WY and the people in NY do not vote in the same election.
Why do you repeat statements you know are not true?

 

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot show this to be true.

 

So, no, you -haven't- embarrassed yourself enough.
Please - continue.

 

Lets do math
WY- 577,737/3 = 192,579 people per electoral vote
NY- 8,623,000/29 = 297,344 people per electoral vote
Difference of 64%

 

LOL deflection instead of proving how my comparison was different

 

The people in WY and the people in NY do not vote in the same election.
Thus, the comparison is unsound and therefore irrelevant.

 

You have my pity.

 

They don't? so their vote has no effect on my life as who they elect is not also running for a position we elect interesting

 

Correct.
All elections are state elections; the people in WY do not, ever, vote in the same election as the people in NY.

 

So why do we elect one president?

 

Because that is how the Founders set up our system of governance.

 

Because we have a unitary executive.

 

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

 

Their failure to understand is intentional.

 

If you don't know why, then why are you on a political blog? He beat her 30 states to 20. Majority rule.

 

Hey! Don't question him!
He's a highly-intelligent, well-educated man of the world - just ask him!

 

Most of those states can not fund them self and are empty land with nothing but farms. But yeah I guess land counts more than people. We can't have different elections if we elect the same person,

If Califonia has all but 49 people and each other state had 1 person should those 49 count more than everyone else?

 

You cannot show this to be true.

How can a highly-intelligent, well-educated man of the world - such as yourself - not understand the US election system?