[Thought Prompt] The Electoral College

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

aka "It changed the moment my candidate won," I bet.

 

Trump whined about it too at the very prospect of Obama winning the EC and losing the PV. Then, he deleted the tweets where he did whine, what do you have to say regarding that?

Nah, it changed the minute I realized the two states I've lived in for a good portion of my life, Iowa and Virginia should not be silenced by New York Jew, Texas Cowboys or California Nutcases

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

It makes the medium ones with centrist politics matter is the more accurate claim.

Don't consider the following question an attack, it is simply a clarification.

 

Would I be right in interpreting your above statement as "the electoral college is good because it favors ideals I identify with"?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Don't consider the following question an attack, it is simply a clarification.

 

Would I be right in interpreting your above statement as "the electoral college is good because it favors ideals I identify with"?

Yeah sure, I think it prevent both Sanders and Cruzites from running the table, and I'm thankful for that. The EC makes it so it ranges from Trump to Obama, which I think it a good range to be in

[a bad post]

I mean I really can't say anything that Agro didn't already say. Never has the electoral college actually served its purpose, which like Agro said was to prevent the American people from voting for someone unqualified. Also like many parts of the voting process it's extremely outdated and built around things that made sense in the 18th century, but they really don't make much sense now. Back then it wasn't only about 6 states that mattered, all 13 states had an about equal share in the democratic process. Even then though small states were ridiculously outclassed by bigger states.

 

Personally, I feel that we should switch to a popular vote system. If more people in a country vote for you than that person should be president. Plus this takes away the idea that you really only need to worry about appealing 6 states rather than trying to appeal to the entire country as a whole. I mean I suppose I can be called bias because 3 out of the 4 times the electoral vote has beaten out the popular democrats have suffered because of it, BUT I still honestly believe this is the way we should go.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean I really can't say anything that Agro didn't already say. Never has the electoral college actually served its purpose, which like Agro said was to prevent the American people from voting for someone unqualified. Also like many parts of the voting process it's extremely outdated and built around things that made sense in the 18th century, but they really don't make much sense now. Back then it wasn't only about 6 states that mattered, all 13 states had an about equal share in the democratic process. Even then though small states were ridiculously outclassed by bigger states.

 

Personally, I feel that we should switch to a popular vote system. If more people in a country vote for you than that person should be president. Plus this takes away the idea that you really only need to worry about appealing 6 states rather than trying to appeal to the entire country as a whole. I mean I suppose I can be called bias because 3 out of the 4 times the electoral vote has beaten out the popular democrats have suffered because of it, BUT I still honestly believe this is the way we should go.

God knows how many illegals voted in cali

[vla1ne]

I mean I really can't say anything that Agro didn't already say. Never has the electoral college actually served its purpose, which like Agro said was to prevent the American people from voting for someone unqualified. Also like many parts of the voting process it's extremely outdated and built around things that made sense in the 18th century, but they really don't make much sense now. Back then it wasn't only about 6 states that mattered, all 13 states had an about equal share in the democratic process. Even then though small states were ridiculously outclassed by bigger states.

 

Personally, I feel that we should switch to a popular vote system. If more people in a country vote for you than that person should be president. Plus this takes away the idea that you really only need to worry about appealing 6 states rather than trying to appeal to the entire country as a whole. I mean I suppose I can be called bias because 3 out of the 4 times the electoral vote has beaten out the popular democrats have suffered because of it, BUT I still honestly believe this is the way we should go.

so you're saying somebody you don't like then? because what you are saying here boils down to: unless you have literally run a country before, you are not qualified to run a country. trump has run everything but a state of his own, and has commanded multiple businesses (some failed, some prospered, but that's what business is, trump took far more risks, it's expected that he'd have more failures than the average entrepreneur). he might not be as qualified as you like, and you are still free to disagree, but for the EC to literally stomp the will of the people, when trump has already given a plan, and has experience running multiple franchises, would be all i need to see to forever hold the belief that the election system is unquestionably rigged. he's given a plan, and VCR was good enough to post it in the new election thread for you all to go over. it's not 100% detailed, but it pushes through many changes that can definitely prove healthy for the country, even at bare info they're healthy looking, and i can't see them being all that bad (with a few exceptions).

 

legislation for term limits is a very good policy. it would continue to introduce fresh blood into the political system, instead of the current staling that we have, wherein people turn politics into a life career, and hold themselves up by owning the media while screwing the american people over.

a hiring freeze in the government would actually be a decent benefit if he were planning on phasing in the increase to medicare deductions from their checks, it would allow you to get the entire deal settled before hiring new blood into the system, so everybody's accustomed to it in the same manner. the freeze should last no longer than a year though, since getting the new to learn at least something from the old would likely be a boon to the country as a whole in any regard. 

eliminating federal regulations is a slippery slope. i cannot agree with him there, especially not before seeing what would be on the table, but loosening the noose is not always a bad idea.

would you say a 5 year ban on becoming a lobbyist is a bad thing? when paired with term limits, it could combo into a rather effective tactic against the current corruption in the white house.

the lifetime foreign ban is something i can only half agree with, on one hand, you can say that it prevents foreign governments from getting what were once inner keys of congress and the like, but on the other, a lifetime ban seem a couple decades too far. maybe a 15-20 year ban instead, since by then, anything they would have known would be up in smoke anyways... although why they would lobby for another government is questionable in the first place.

foreign money out of the elections sounds damn good to me don't you think?

*i'd keep going, but i can save that particular rant for the white house discussion, so let's take the other track*

 

hillary lost by electoral votes, and is on track to lose the popular vote once everything's been tallied. so tell me; what reason, what right, does the electoral college have to reject him the position? especially since the way this election has been so far, it has already been considered corrupt af in favor of hillary. the videos i posted in the prior thread have already been nearly wiped off youtube (luckily i had already downloaded those 2 of in particular, among others, so funk the DNC and any news corporations that tried to hide this sheet) his plans seem, for the most part, good, the worst of his plans require the compliance of the republican party, who would not willingly destroy the country any more than he wants to, and as such, will likely have him modify the worst of his plans (like the tax plan, which is horrible af imo, but has a lot of room for revision and improvement, such as those i listed when discussing it last thread).

 

you also contradict yourself almost immediately after saying that all states should have an equal voice. an equal voice for each state would be 3 delegates for every state across the board, winner gets 2, loser gets 1 if they were close enough, that is an equal voice, and equal division. no swing states, no nothing. but you then vouch for popular vote as the sole method. which literally fucks over the smaller states. you think a farming state has anywhere near the population of california and new york? your solution would literally be to let the bigger states influence, simply because they have more people. well listen please. the smaller states might have less people, but they also have the majority of farming land, and are the backbone of this country. their jobs are as, if not more, important as the people in california (the only large democratic farming state, and has an insane population count in comparison to the other farming states), new york, and texas (another farming state, with a large population, but still not comparable to cali.) when going by popular vote, you drown out the voices of the smaller states, whether you like it or not.

 

that being said, the electoral college, the one on the 19th, is indeed unnecessary, unlice the electoral delegate system, it has no reliance on the american people, and should it ever overrule the vote, it would be a betrayal of the deal between the people and the elected. they have done right by america up to this point, and this is not the election to go against the will of the people. because all it would serve to do, is act as the fail-safe for corruption in the government. the people voted trump because we want no more corruption, they would have voted bernie against trump, hands-down. he was the only credible threat to trump. but guess what? he lost in the primaries, his own party betrayed him, and that is the reason the DNC lost. they were so in love with their corruption that they threw away the only shot they had at winning. and i told you as much long before the election took place, before even the debates, i told you all how this would go. i don't like trump, but i would have voted nearly anybody who wasn't hillary after what she did, and i know enough people felt the same that she was going to lose, no matter how much the media hyped her and her fans up.

 

the electoral college should not be a tool to take down people you don't like, and whether you want to realize it or not, trump will not destroy the country. this is not the person that the electoral college should be after. because all they would be removing, at this point is the caricature that the media made of him. look past the bull, loot at the votes. trump voters were indeed taking this seriously, and they have faith that he can run the country, and get it on track. they won, and they didn't have to cheat to do it. stop acting like it's the end of the world.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

She wasn't even attacking Trump. That's not what this thread is about. She was talking about why she believes a popular vote would be a better system. She never said she thought Trump was unqualified, and even if/though she does, that isn't what she is saying here.

 

The discussion is bigger than the 2016 election.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Had the country decided to abandon the electoral college in time to affect this cycle, the candidates would have spent their time in high population states. You make the assumption that because you won X more overall a re-run w/ pop vote would have yielded high population states. You make the assumption that because you won X more overall a re-run w/ pop vote would have yielded you think Trump wouldn't have spent more time in Long Island, Upstate New York, Southern Illinois, the Inland Empire, etc?

 

Note, he won all those, but I'm glad you and elly think the best thing for the US is for Trump to camp out in NY, while HRC stays in NYC, SanFran, and LA

 

What lovely ideas

[a bad post]

God knows how many illegals voted in cali

Is this really all you had to respond with...?

 

@vla1ne 

 

I'm not going to try to quote that monster of a post, and I don't have that much to say in response anyway. First of all, I really don't understand how you arrived at the first half of your post. I made no mention of Trump, and like I said whether I like or dislike the president-elect has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. Second of all your second paragraph goes into your opinion on his policies which I also gave no opinion on, so I really don't understand what the point was there.

 

To address, the last half of your post never did I contradict myself. Small states will never have the same voice as large states, that's just how it is. However what I am saying is that by going to a popular vote system we can make the election fairer, I'll even give an example out of a historically blue state. 

Now this is a picture of how counties voted in 2012. Now by all accounts Mitt Romney most definitely took more counties than President Obama, however, he still ended up losing Illinois because of high population areas like Chicago voting democrat. Now would it not be better for Romney or any other Republican for that matter if we switched to a system that allowed them to make use of that vote, and give voice to those people? 

 

Nothing I am saying is a contradiction. A popular vote system gives the most amount of people a voice in who the next president of the united states should be.

 

Had the country decided to abandon the electoral college in time to affect this cycle, the candidates would have spent their time in high population states. You make the assumption that because you won X more overall a re-run w/ pop vote would have yielded high population states. You make the assumption that because you won X more overall a re-run w/ pop vote would have yielded you think Trump wouldn't have spent more time in Long Island, Upstate New York, Southern Illinois, the Inland Empire, etc?

 

Note, he won all those, but I'm glad you and elly think the best thing for the US is for Trump to camp out in NY, while HRC stays in NYC, SanFran, and LA

 

What lovely ideas

As if the system we have currently is any better. I'm glad you think what it best for the US is to use an archaic 18th-century system that wipes out the voices of millions of people every 4 years because they are unfortunate enough to live in a state that has a few high population dense counties that think opposite to what they do.

 

Honestly, if you and vla1ne could, please unlatch yourselves from Trump's dick for long enough to realize that nobody is talking about the election that just happened, except for you two. This is a far larger issue than that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm sorry, I'd rather have political candidates come and talk to me instead of just dickrolling urban centers

 

Kill the EC and all you will see is candidates go to the top 5 population states and forget the rest of us

 

Nice

[Dad]

I'm sorry, I'd rather have political candidates come and talk to me instead of just dickrolling urban centers

 

Kill the EC and all you will see is candidates go to the top 5 population states and forget the rest of us

 

Nice

 

That's a bit of an over exaggeration.  You alienate the rest of the country and you're literally talking about a hell of a mess.  If you thought Ferguson was bad.  And for the record, that's what like every candidate did in this election.  Urban Center popping and stadium drive-bys.  From Bernie to Trump, and Clinton to Cruz, they all did it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's a bit of an over exaggeration.  You alienate the rest of the country and you're literally talking about a hell of a mess.  If you thought Ferguson was bad.  And for the record, that's what like every candidate did in this election.  Urban Center popping and stadium drive-bys.  From Bernie to Trump, and Clinton to Cruz, they all did it.

Do you really think Trump or Clinton would go to diners in small towns in Ohio (Trump did, but I'm sure HRC had stuff like that too) and eat with the common people if they could win just by carrying NYC? States like Iowa and Virginia which do a LOT for the US would get ignored since they only have 6 and 13 ev 

 

You don't need them when behemoths like FL, TX, NY, CA exist.

 

Yes Trump went to cities, but hardly just urbanite areas

 

 

Cities =/= Urbanite areas

[Dad]

That wasn't my point at all.  My point is that you would have the entire nation against the candidates if they only visited five states.  There's not a chance in hell that millions of people will sit by idly and allow something like that to take place.  That's absurd.

 

And yes, I do Trump or Clinton would go to small town diners to visit with the people.  Trump more so because he actually gives a sheet about the lower class, and I would fully expect him to live up to that.  I'm surprised that you don't.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ok, so they're pissed...now what? What can they do? Move to Texas/FL/NY/CA?

 

Well I think he does care about the lower class, but think of it this way

 

You have to visit 20 small towns, to get the same result of just camping out in NYC

 

Realistically it would become infeasible to do so the former. 

 

The EC is built on the same principle as the senate, it gives a voice to us non-urbanites

[Dad]

Ok, so they're pissed...now what? What can they do? Move to Texas/FL/NY/CA?

 

Well I think he does care about the lower class, but think of it this way

 

You have to visit 20 small towns, to get the same result of just camping out in NYC

 

Realistically it would become infeasible to do so the former. 

 

The EC is built on the same principle as the senate, it gives a voice to us non-urbanites

 

Well a few million people from he rest of the country not including Florida, New York, Texas, or Cali, is no longer a riot or a protest.  We're talking millions of people from 40+ states that didn't have their vote counted.  That I think would make the whole 5 state thing sort of unrealistic.  But I do understand what you're saying.  With a poplar vote, it becomes inefficient to visit states outside of the mass population states, and would lead candidates to do some scumbag things like this.

 

Again, I doubt it would be that extreme, but I can see the passing on states entirely, like Kansas.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well a few million people from he rest of the country not including Florida, New York, Texas, or Cali, is no longer a riot or a protest.  We're talking millions of people from 40+ states that didn't have their vote counted.  That I think would make the whole 5 state thing sort of unrealistic.  But I do understand what you're saying.  With a poplar vote, it becomes inefficient to visit states outside of the mass population states, and would lead candidates to do some scumbag things like this.

 

Again, I doubt it would be that extreme, but I can see the passing on states entirely, like Kansas.

Sure, I mean it's highly unrealistic that someone would be able to get every vote from the top 5, but I do agree with you that it would be a bottleneck 

 

Those states with 3-5 ev? funk em is what'll happen

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

By the way, did the math. The top five states doesn't hold up. To reach majority among American population, you would need to go all the way to Michigan, which is ninth. This doesn't even take into account that some of these 9 already lean republican, such as Texas and Georgia.

 

And yes. Places with more people should absolutely have greater say. There are more people. You are viewing all of these states as separate entities, portraying it as State vs State, urban vs rural, when in reality we are all the same country. That any vote would have higher weight than another is preposterous, not to mention the fact that the defense of "x vote won't matter if it is decided by PV" doesn't make any sense when trying to justify a system in which there is no impact to outlying votes, aside from a select few states that form the electoral battleground.

 

In trying to avoid a system in which campaigns focus too highly on urban locations, the electoral college has twisted the system into one in which campaigns focus on contested states, which in many cases do not properly represent the majority of The American People.

 

As a Sidenote that may be better suited for its own thread, I believe the best system is a popular vote, making use of preferential voting. Preferential voting eliminates the oft-cited risk of a vote for third party not mattering, as it allows one to properly express support for their chosen candidate without necessarily taking away from a candidate who appeals to similar demographics.

[VCR_CAT]

As a Sidenote that may be better suited for its own thread, I believe the best system is a popular vote, making use of preferential voting. Preferential voting eliminates the oft-cited risk of a vote for third party not mattering, as it allows one to properly express support for their chosen candidate without necessarily taking away from a candidate who appeals to similar demographics.

 

This kind of system, over First Past the Post, is one I highly wish Canada still did; but y'know, Harper to get rid of it. It works very well in countries that have a lot of parties, and while this means more minority governments, I honestly believe that to be a much better thing than more majority governments. The winning party has to actually listen to/appeal to other parties to get the votes to pass bills, and even if X party won the election, the interests of party Y are still being taken into account. It's far more democratic, overall.

 

On the topic of the electoral college, it's unfortunate that there won't be, at least off the top of my head, a system that only allows different communities to have equal and fair weight. While the current electoral college system allows the smaller states to have a bigger say, this means the say of those individual people is going to be heavier than the say of those in the more dense states; which while the vote becomes more equal it's no longer fair.

 

There's something to say for both systems, honestly, but I myself lean towards the idea that if an election is supposed to be the voice of the people than it should be more focused on the popular vote than a proportional vote. Otherwise, we get situations where the minority of the population is deciding the majority rule; which is a little messed up.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

California is batshit crazy and doesn't speak for the rest of us. If they wanna mess up their state, they can. But them being able to silence states that do a ton for the US is stupid

 

Also, not taking the Pv srsly until stricter voter ID laws are in place

[Fusion X. Denver]

I'll admit, there are some facets to this that I didn't consider at first. I think small states making their voice heard was a huge point behind this election and stemming from a long period of time where the rest of the country and government hasn't cared for them. And I would love to see that change over time. I still find myself preferring a popular vote because proportional voting still renders several people's votes moot. But I noticed this point vla1ne mentioned:

all states should have an equal voice. an equal voice for each state would be 3 delegates for every state across the board, winner gets 2, loser gets 1 if they were close enough, that is an equal voice, and equal division. no swing states, no nothing. 

What if they were to do that? You have 3 votes per state, and if there's a small amount of difference between the two primary candidates' votes in that state, the loser could earn one electoral vote. So even if a red voter lives in a blue state, they could still be motivated to vote to try and increase their candidate's chance rather than being jaded and not voting because their vote wouldn't matter. Smaller states can still make an impact, and everyone's vote would carry weight.

If the two candidates are somehow tied in electoral votes by the end, then popular vote serves as a tiebreaker.

 

Is there a flaw to that that I'm overlooking? I think that could be a good compromise.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

California is batshit crazy and doesn't speak for the rest of us. If they wanna mess up their state, they can. But them being able to silence states that do a ton for the US is stupid

Okay so what is it you're saying with this, exactly?

[vla1ne]

EDIT: to Fusion: i do think that would actually be a very interesting system, possibly even a great system, since popular vote would still be the way to win, but the smaller states wouldn't be as massively overshadowed. to add different levels, you could have the smallest states keep the 3, and do that split as required, but the larger states could have maybe 5 or 6, which would signify their advantage, and maintain the ability to distribute, but not be so overwhelming as to unbalance the entire system. it might need work though, and i have to look into how the seats would work out under such a system, 
 

@vla1ne 
 
I'm not going to try to quote that monster of a post, and I don't have that much to say in response anyway. First of all, I really don't understand how you arrived at the first half of your post. I made no mention of Trump, and like I said whether I like or dislike the president-elect has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. Second of all your second paragraph goes into your opinion on his policies which I also gave no opinion on, so I really don't understand what the point was there.
 
To address, the last half of your post never did I contradict myself. Small states will never have the same voice as large states, that's just how it is. However what I am saying is that by going to a popular vote system we can make the election fairer, I'll even give an example out of a historically blue state. 

Now this is a picture of how counties voted in 2012. Now by all accounts Mitt Romney most definitely took more counties than President Obama, however, he still ended up losing Illinois because of high population areas like Chicago voting democrat. Now would it not be better for Romney or any other Republican for that matter if we switched to a system that allowed them to make use of that vote, and give voice to those people? 
 
Nothing I am saying is a contradiction. A popular vote system gives the most amount of people a voice in who the next president of the united states should be.
 
 
Honestly, if you and vla1ne could, please unlatch yourselves from Trump's dick for long enough to realize that nobody is talking about the election that just happened, except for you two. This is a far larger issue than that.

To converse with me is to face massive walls of text from time to time. it is simply how i am when i have a discussion. 
 
Your statement was essentially an agreement with agro correct? Which would mean you essentially backed his own words correct? Then this particular line: If there were any election to act as that buffer– to stop the voters from electing someone deemed too dangerous and/or unqualified for the position, it would be this election, so if the electoral college is the same after December 19 as projected on election night, then I can't imagine any reason to keep it around, since it doesn't actually act as that buffer.  Is the origin of my own statement regarding trump. The above was clearly a shot at trump, and I took it as such and questioned it under the assumption that that was a statement that you were in agreement with. Understand? Good, now we can leave that much alone for this thread unless you or your friend wish to further expand upon it.(which i can happily take into the election thread.)
 
Alright, with that bit out the way, first off, You want to know what needs to be fixed in the system? This kind of problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mJ5KutY8s
There needs to be far stricter punishment for fraud in an election, because it throws off the accuracy of the Electoral College AND the popular vote in large elections. The Electoral College is not the largest problem, it’s by far more balanced than the above problem by all means. If you’ll notice, the electoral college overall is rarely out of alignment with the will of the people, the winner of the election often also has the popular vote, and yeah: https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/ it rarely breaks step with the actual result. Bush being the only exception in the largest elections of recent years (recent being turn of century for the context of this discussion).  You want to know why the Electoral College gets so much flack? Because candidates diverting attention from the fraud committed by candidates is by FAR the larger problem, the dishonest folk at your local news station are simply allergic to handing out proper facts.
 
But onto the main topic, and you and friend agro are simply wrong in that area. It was not meant to be a buffer ever. The many of the masses couldn’t even vote when this system was established. Landowners (and I believe soldiers as well) were the main ones who could vote, and their voce counted for their house just as each of the states represent themselves only. The Electoral College, both the people and the state portions, work exactly how they were meant to, they were made the way they work today because they couldn’t count votes fast enough back then, so instead they chose somebody to represent the county/state and sent them to tell the rest of the government exactly how the state voted once votes were tallied (which took far longer back then, which is the origin of the delay between the actual vote and the electoral college vote.) it can be used to influence an election, but it was never meant to be a direct buffer, that would be the same as falsifying an election. How would you like it if your region voted for somebody, and the person you sent out said “I think the other guy deserves to win more”? That is still what you are essentially suggesting. Such votes, which went against the overall will of the people, have indeed been both made, and nulled before, for varying reasons (usually involving the death or other health related problem of a candidate).
 
As for your chart, that was a loss of the popular vote, the total number of votes tallied up as the population of Florida’s voice lead to him simply being less popular overall in the state. the same thing that you appear to be advocating (popular vote). It is still in effect under the current system, it simply prevents the majority from becoming a too much of a juggernaut overall (not always effective, but not a busted system either). 51%+ would become a death sentence to the opposing party under such the case of popular vote being the only system. S/He who controls media would be the one who controlled the popular opinion. Luckily we’re moving away from that being the main way of learning anything, so we can make better informed decisions, and down the line, when we have as varied a news source as possible, we might be able to go full on popular vote, but we are not at such a stage yet, and Clintons almost complete pocketing of both the rule enforcers and the media have proven as much. Many people only vote according to party lines, and not based upon the people actually running, which is a part of why you see all the people rioting. They don’t care that their party member is corrupt, of that they cheated, they only care that their party member wins. Now, when you look at the same map lines, what you see is that the lines are f***ed every which way, that Is the result of state lines being redrawn, to whatever effect that may have (I believe it provides more seats, but I’m not quite sure on that one). But I’m getting off track, put as simply as possible, the electoral college (states version) is won via popular vote, and the more states you get the popular vote in, the better your chances at winning. States speak for themselves, and to win the popular vote within said state, is to win that state’s electoral votes. As far as I understand, 270 Is not actually as arbitrary as it may seem at first glance. Looking back, those who got 270 would be the ones most likely to win the popular vote overall as well, and with the exception of the 2000 election, that has held true extremely well. It is indeed a popular vote system, the problem people seem to have is that it’s not an “all states in” popular vote system. And to that, my objection will be posted as my response to giga.
 
*Also, it’s not dickriding, it’s debating. A different opinion, or a simple misunderstanding should not provoke such a silly aside. (…Says Vla1ne as he posts his own silly aside to said silly aside…) 
 
 

By the way, did the math. The top five states doesn't hold up. To reach majority among American population, you would need to go all the way to Michigan, which is ninth. This doesn't even take into account that some of these 9 already lean republican, such as Texas and Georgia.

And yes. Places with more people should absolutely have greater say. There are more people. You are viewing all of these states as separate entities, portraying it as State vs State, urban vs rural, when in reality we are all the same country. That any vote would have higher weight than another is preposterous, not to mention the fact that the defense of "x vote won't matter if it is decided by PV" doesn't make any sense when trying to justify a system in which there is no impact to outlying votes, aside from a select few states that form the electoral battleground.

In trying to avoid a system in which campaigns focus too highly on urban locations, the electoral college has twisted the system into one in which campaigns focus on contested states, which in many cases do not properly represent the majority of The American People.

As a Sidenote that may be better suited for its own thread, I believe the best system is a popular vote, making use of preferential voting. Preferential voting eliminates the oft-cited risk of a vote for third party not mattering, as it allows one to properly express support for their chosen candidate without necessarily taking away from a candidate who appeals to similar demographics.

 
 
Even so that line of reasoning ignores the value such states have other than how many babies they can pop out. Your best bet when going strictly popular vote is to pander to the needs of those in the largest states. Such a thing is still needed to pull said states under the college, but the college mitigates the damage such a strategy can do overall. Look at the lead Hillary had in Cali, and then look at how many states were neck and neck while voting, Under the Electoral College, those states matter to an extent, because they all have a consistent value, and cut down, or add up the same amount each time, a fair practice to prevent larger states from being the exclusive rulers of the country (which they still are, but to a lesser extent) their votes matter because in a close race, they can negate the advantage of 55 delegates more easily than 5 million votes in that same close race. That is a reason that the delegates work, they mitigate the sheer might of the larger states, but do not completely erase their presence or effect while creating a clear winner overall, instead of the murky ground that we’ve had this entire election. I trust you play/ understand the basics of magic, and yugioh, correct? This is a childrens cardgame forum after all. then liken the Electoral College to the banlist, while the popular vote would be no banlist. On its own, the popular vote would be a broken mess that only seemed fair. You have to factor in the shift in campaign strategies, the change in promises and policy, and the incentive to promote reckless reproduction and mass immigration (democrats), why provide much, if anything, for the smaller states when the larger states and border states would have everything you need to win and keep winning? Your line of reasoning is like thinking of a proposed banlist, without factoring in the change it would cause to the metagame.  Yes, you can ban the electoral, but then what are you going to do when the campaign strategy becomes “benefit the bigger states, fluff the middle states, and the smallest states can do nothing to or for me at all.” By your own words, the states with the largest population should have the greater say, and what would you do for those with the largest say but pander to them if they decide your fate? Voter fraud would be far more damaging in smaller and larger races, and would be far harder to control for, or limit the damages of, since the votes would be the only thing that mattered, and the fake votes would still throw shade on what votes counted vs what votes didn’t, but on a far larger scale.such an effect, spread across the country, as it was this election, and during the primaries, would have a far greater impact than under the current electoral system. The largest states would be the real swing states according to any win surplus in them, while the smaller states would be too weak to oppose a large win in any of the larger, or even medium states. under the current system they can properly chip at them, but as popular vote? What can a city of 1,000,000 (especially when not all of them are even adults eligible to vote) do to a surplus of 5M? , the middle states would barely ever affect the race outside of landslides. Whomever wins the most larger states, unless the race was extremely close (which it rarely is in the larger states), would essentially cakewalk to the whitehouse, unless the medium states provided a stomp in the opponents favor. it mitigates the damage that larger states would have.
 
 Go to Maine, and then go to new york, they might be part of the same USA, but they are governed differently, which is why each one has an individual voice in the election, even if some are smaller, they deserve a voice that can be heard clearly, and to claim otherwise, if that is what you are doing, is to say that each state works the exact same way, and provides the same things to this country, which is to ignore farmlands, oil fields, and other natural resources often found in those less populated states. Sure, California has more people, but the farmlands out in the rural states are what feed those people. Why ignore the food source? Just because it’s not as populated? How many people you know in new york providing even half the seafood to the people uf the US like maine does? Population is not the only indicator of value
 
 
I agree, avoiding too much focus on the urban is a strong position, but under popular  vote, those who control the urban, control the election, to a far greater extent than they do under the current rules.the college actually does change, for example, looking at the map this election, you can see, the rust belt had a significant shift towards democratic that you’d have been hard pressed to find during any other election prior. The contested states can shift easily in the election, you can address many states, and indeed they may well have to address multiple new states for each party, if the current system lines are any indication. Democrats had a decent foothold in the rust belt, showing that It may join the left one day soon.
 
but if you don't get something, please ask, it's late though. and i'm drowsy, i'll get to it tomorrow, when it's less late, and i'm less drowsy.
As for the sidenote, third parties have never affected the election, but the only reason people don’t think they matter is because they are too afraid of losing an election to work towards the change that such a candidate would bring. Looking at this race will show you as much, even with two terrible candidates, people were too afraid to actually look towards the other options. It’s like being offered two almost rotten sandwiches while there’s a fresh, well-made sandwich in the fridge 10 feet away, and instead of getting out of their comfort zone to get the better sandwich, they deciding to eat one of the two rotten sandwiches instead. it’s fine if you like one of those particular sandwiches, but the third sandwich, even if it’s not a flavor you like, would be the far healthier choice in the long run, because there’s an entire fridge waiting to be discovered with that third sandwich, while one of the other two sandwiches is more of the same rot, and the other simply has too much on it to convince you it’s an actual sandwich, but you pick it because at least it's not as rotten as the clear sandwich next to it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Founders set up electoral college to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. In this case, CA, NY and IL.

 

Read Hamilton's piece on it lol, there's a very good reason it exists

[Tentacruel]

I can see why people would want to get rid of it, but Winter is correct in that it is a good system to give less populated areas of the US a fighting chance for representation. 

 

I'm conflicted. 

[Dad]

There's a good case for both sides when you talk about representation of states.  But a lot of the Electoral System is viewed as "outdated" or "inaccurate".  Which is both true and false.  Which is why I posed the question, what changes could be made to the EC to make it more appealing and accurate?