Electoral College Revolt Growing Into 'Powerful Show of Force'

I think mandate refers to winning so handily and easily that it proves that the vigorous pursuit of your agenda is what the voters want. In a more even contest, the implication is that to avoid alienating people you try to govern more by consensus and compromise. Trump's electoral victory margin was unremarkable except in the sense it was unexpected and he lost the popular vote, so saying he has a mandate is a stretch.

 

You mistake California's wishes as the country's wishes.

 

Let them keep using that excuse. And I hope they continue to campaign for California. They can win every single vote in that state for all I care

The left forgot how to win an election. Now they have to pretend the popular vote means something lol!

 

Nor are the country's wishes reflected only by the few closely divided states who actually decide these elections. It must be convenient to just discount people in a state that is larger than most countries just because it does not align with your values. The popular vote includes people in all states.

 

The Presidential election is not one large election, but 51 small elections.
The will of the people is expressed by the vote in each of these elections individually, not as an aggregate across the whole.

If you're behind one run at the end of game seven, it doesn't matter that you won games 1, 3 and 5 by 15 runs each.

 

Without California Trump wins the popular vote, nuff said.

 

I understand that, I just find it to be a completely illogical historical artifact, particularly if we start with the premise that people's votes should count the same. While unofficial, handily losing the popular vote does make it more of a mixed victory than a crushing one. And the percentage standards for electoral college victories are quite different than the standards for popular vote elections. The victory is usually more one-sided in the electoral college, with a crushing victory being almost every state like Reagan in 1980 with almost 90% of electoral votes. A crushing victory, not just an average or mixed one, is what would suggest a mandate.

 

Feel free to amend the constitution.

 

It should be. Unfortunately I don't have that kind of power.

 

Nor does the idea enjoy popular support across the population as a whole.
It -certainly- does not enjoy sufficient support to get 38 states to vote for it.

 

There is NO THE POPULAR VOTE!!!!!!!

Why is that so hard to grasp?

The STATES elect the President not the PEOPLE.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

We are a union of states and each state decides who that state shall support for the Presidency. Those 51 separate decisions are made however that state decides it will regardless of what other states choose and the outcome of one state has nothing to do with another. Were there one single national popular vote the results would be entirely different from adding up all those unique and separate elections into one tally.

The Electoral college serves it's purpose well and will not be repealed so it is a totally useless exercise to discuss such a possiblity.

 

More revisionist fiction you are good at that

 

I'm not sure what makes you think I don't understand the reality. I only question the logic of such a system. States are collections of people and deserve no rights in themselves. Why should they deserve rights above and beyond those of people in general?

 

States rights allow people in the coastal states to live their lives as vapid zombies if they want to and individuals in the mid-west to live as bloviating hillbillies if they want to.

If you don't believe it's a good idea for citizens people in one state to dictate how others in another state to live, congradulations; you believe in states rights.

 

This is such BS. I'm sure everyone knows if Hillary had won by EC votes, the libs would not be here whining. Liberals are THE worst people.

 

Face it liberals. Trump won because America considered him better than your horrible candidate. Now, before you go disparaging Trump, maybe you should think about that and come up with some better candidates that aren't so extreme next time.

 

That has more to do with limitations on government in general. And it's probably also a positive thing that states have a secondary government that can customize local laws. I take more issue with giving less populous states a disproportionate say in electing the president. And the winner-take-all per state is also an issue that makes the interests of people in less divided states less important since they'll always vote for the democrat or republican anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean Americans in purple states fell for the smear campaign against Clinton so much that they were willing to elect an insane clown, whose bold lying was mistaken for confident honesty.

 

Less populous states have less electoral votes, so that assessment is not grounded in reality. The entire point of state rights is to prevent citizens in another state from dictating how citizens in another state should live, via referendum.

I do agree that the winner-take-all system is a problem and should be allocated by both the popular vote (for the 2 electoral votes for the Senate) and each electoral vote is based on who wins the popular vote in each district.

 

Yes, we know, only liberals are smart enough to know who to vote for.

 

Smear campaign against Clinton?

You didn't pay much attention to the entire news establishment who admittedly actively worked to defeat Trump. I guess you didn't watch much network commentary or read many news articles that called Trump Fascist, Racist, Homophobe. woman hater, and all the other isms and ias that leftists visit on any body who is not a leftist.

 

The rise of show business in recent years in the form of ideological entertainment media reaches its illogical conclusion with the installation of a show business performer in the presidency. The political establishment was vanquished, and soon Americans get to discover to what extent an entertainer's sales pitch lives up to the reality.

With Trump's election so dependent upon disgruntled white, blue-collar males, his sales pitch to them will be subjected to special scrutiny. Resurrecting high-paying jobs in coal mining, steel production, and large-scale manufacturing whilst providing "beautiful" health care coverage for "everybody" is in the spotlight.

His cult will not care whether it's reality or reality tv, but others will not be satisfied with glittery show-biz fairy dust.

 

Where on earth did you learn that the States are not Constitutional enities. It was the states that formed the union not the other way around. The STATES elect the President not the PEOPLE.

 

There was no smear campaign against Trump? And what was the smear against Clinton?

 

States were states before the union existed. They were known as the colonies, each with their own laws and governors. That's why we're called the United States of America instead of America of United States.

 

In order to learn from your mistakes, you must first admit you made one.
I see you aren't there yet.

- - - Updated - - -

The United States is a republic of 50 sovereign states.
What do they teach in civics classes these days?