Hillary Clinton: Time to abolish the Electoral College

Jeez, kinda unfair to all those vets living on their pensions who risked their lives for the country.

 

better then Trump's sore loser tour when he lost the popular vote... what a loser

wait to see Trump's sore loser tour when he becomes a one term President

 

yeah and anyone that supports tax cuts for the rich counts as 1\2 a vote.... lol

I can't believe someone is saying every Americana's vote should not count equally

 

the electoral college is affirmative action for the states, Trump is a affirmative action President - most Americans voted against the less experienced Trump and he still won

trumps views on the electoral college when he thought Obama woudl win because of it

 

Hillary was chosen by delegates and superdelegates, but lib/progs are all OMG ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

(Had Her Majesty won, we wouldn't have heard an effing peep from them about the electoral system)

 

No...but the snowflake conservatives would have cried at the top of their lungs. Just look at the snowflake-in-chief's Tweet.

 

No it was a compromise between the heavily populated states and the not so heavily populated states
the lightly populated states want as equal representation when electing the nations leader

 

Better a one term POTUS than a no term one.

 

Pensions and Social Security are not welfare., But you know that or should....

 

Well it is an option to doing away with the Electoral College.

 

I didn't ask any questions in that post. Are you confused, or did you just quote the wrong person?

 

Republicans do have super delegates but they function much differently than democratic party super delegates who are unbound. Republican super delegates are all members of the RNC. There are 3 from each state that are considered super delegates. Although they don't have to, they are asked to vote for the candidate who won their states and normally do. Democrat super delegates are far less predictable.

 

They are "unbound" in the RNC vernacular, but they serve the very same purpose. Trump even talked about them during the campaign saying that he had to "win some of them over to get the nomination".

Both sides do it, and both sides are as corrupt as the day is long.

 

That's precisely the point! The United States is not a democracy, nor do we ever want it to be.

 

You clearly hate women, and people with cancer as well apparently. That makes you a mysogynistic cancerphobe, or cancerist... or something like that. (Just trying to think like a leftie)

 

But today that is not only outdated, it actually gives them disproportionate representation opposite of its designed intention.

if you look at it pragmatically, you only need to look at the senate. Why does a state like Alaska with 737,000 people have the same amount of votes as California with 39,000,000 ?

This explains it pretty well:

http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes

 

The issue with the Electoral College is that it gives entirely too MUCH voice to small states with small populations.

If those states want a bigger say they ought to incentivize people to move there.

 

You don't think it's hypocritical, then, to occupy all these nations in the name of "democracy" ?

 

You are right on one count I do hate the fact that I had two types of cancers so yes I must be a cancerphobe...LOL

 

I proved otherwise.

1+1=3 < False statement

No... I said that in 2 of the elections, the Dem won the majority of the popular vote (2008-2012), just like the GOP (1998-2004)
This is absolutely true.

 

You'll have to amend the Constitution. 13 states can stop your effort.
The 13 states most likely to do so contain about 7% of the population of the US.
Good luck

 

Instead, they ALL use any number of systems -other- than a popular vote of the people to select their head of government.
Why do you suppose that is?

 

Most Americans voted against Hillary as well.

 

Many democracies of the world are based on the British Parliamentary system which also doesn't directly elect the Prime Minster. The Founders wanted to improve on the British system and came up with the Electoral College. All States are represented equally with two Senators while Congress is based on population also. Those countries which don;t have the EC may well wish they had because, in Canada for example, the most populous provinces dominate the entire country.

They are equal in some areas and unequal in others. We cn understand why Californa can get more EC votes than Wyoming, and they do, but the people of Wyoming are protected from the "tyranny of the majority" by the Senate. And as we have seen, one State can often make a difference in the election of a President. That's why the Presidential Candidates should take them all into consideration rather than only the most populous.

There is no reason why electors should be "faithful". In fact it's a problem. And as mentioned by many politicians need only campaign in the most populous states and promise them benefits unavailable to smaller populations. They could take North Dakota's oil, for example, nationalize it, and promise cheap gas to the people of New York and California.

That they haven't changed the EC in 230 years suggests that it's working well, and it is. The Senate, btw, worked much better under the previous system.

 

it is why we have two houses one that represents states according to population and the other with equal representation no matter the states population size
and again done this way as a compromise so small less populated states wouldn't get steam rolled by the larger more populated states

if a presidential election was based just on popular vote candidates would only require to campaign and appear to the voters in just 4 to 5 states and the other 45 states can go to hell don't need their vote so who cares what they want or need