So you still cannot see the “hard reality” . A handful of states that are bulging with enough people, could elect by popular vote, someone who would simply cater to their wants, and allow less populated states to end up under their thumb. I suppose you never studied logic. There may be something better than the EC, but popular vote isn’t it. Already far too much illegal shit rotating around the popular vote. If not, why do so many liberals wish to squash voter ID, etc. ?
You do not believe illegal voting on large scales exists? Unless every single illegal vole is eliminated, we could never trust the popular vote completely; and even then my previous statement holds true ( states bulging with voters ).
1 Like
Do you believe serious voter ID, etc. should be instituted across the country? And do you believe serious penalties should exist for illegal voting? AND I MEAN SERIOUS ! The fate of a country cannot be in the hands of anyone who votes illegally.
Again Jim, you support the EC because it favors the Republican Party.
No. It merely protects rural areas from being dictated to by big cities.
Exactly, California provided the margin of “victory” for Hillary in the 2016 Presidential election. If the EC was abolished, why would any candidate spend time campaigning in smaller states? They could get 100% of Montana’s vote only to we wiped out by less than 10% of California’s.
The EC was fine as long as Hillary was thought to have an impregnable firewall of 5 states Trump would have to win to get elected. When Trump flipped them all it was an insult to democracy to have the President chosen by the EC. 
Remember the 2000 election where a handful of Florida counties hand picked by Democrats decided the Presidency? Project that on to a nationwide scale where sore loser Democrats launch a national recount campaign with wave after wave of lawsuits disputing the results. Of course if there was a Democrat incumbent like in 2016 their term would have to be “extended” until the rightful President could be determined not by the voters but by an army of lawyers pleading to out judicial overlords. 
1 Like
“But delegates also had an anti-majoritarian concern in mind. At a time when many people were not well-educated, they wanted a body of wise men (women lacked the franchise) who would deliberate over leading contenders and choose the best man for the presidency. They explicitly rejected a popular vote for president because they did not trust voters to make a wise choice.“
This type attitude would normally be repulsive to conservatives, but again because the EC favors republicans, they support it.
And the popular vote favors Democrats therefore you support it! Got anymore embellished talkings points that satisfies your blatant partisanship?
That the EC isn’t a level playing field, which is why there’s a move a foot to remedy it.
Exactly, it’s just another hit job on the Constitution and the Electoral College. 
“Hamilton, James Madison and the other designers of the electoral college never expected the emergence of organized political parties who would choose their candidates in competition with each other. By 1796, the Federalists and Republicans were rapidly being organized-- with leadership provided by Hamilton and Madison-- making the electoral college a minor adjunct of little importance.“
Not to get off track; but are men with dicks competing in women’s sports considered a level playing field. Seems liberals believe it is.
1 Like
Yeah, there’s an open active thread on that.
So what are your thoughts on what I just posted above?
Gt past the political game and look at how will small states and sparsely states be represented if there is no electoral college?
States are different, What California and NY wants doesn’t reflect what Montana and South Dakota needs.
Rural vs Urban.
Costal vs. Fly over.
You mean like the impeachment fiasco cancelling out the vote in 2016?
That’s a republican talking point with no basis in reality. Your vote for president is valid regardless of your address.
In Federalist 10, Alexander Hamilton writes on factions and majorities in the American populous. Hamilton defines factions as “a number of citizens whether amounting of a majority or minority of the whole who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate unrests of the community.” When opponents of the Electoral College say that a popular vote makes every vote equal, they forget the concept of sectionalism also predicted in this document. This phenomenon exists on a political and sociological level as individuals tend to have a proclivity for living around others that are similar racially and politically. One can take, for example, North Minneapolis and the suburb of Edina.
Hamilton feared in a popular vote that non-majoritarian interests, when closely clustered, might overpower the majority. As the policy needs of metropolitan cities across the country have become more and more similar, it is entirely possible for Democratic candidates to build coalitions that play only to these certain groups. Even Tim Ryan, the congressman who attempted to become the new Democratic Minority Leader, acknowledges that the Democratic Party has become a coastal party and needs to reach into middle America. In my view, a benefit of the Electoral College is that it forces candidates to build geographically diverse coalitions. A popular vote ultimately relieves this burden and gives more power to the counties out of touch with needs of rural America. Based on the Hamilton definition of factions as both majority and minority groups, it is clear that even though the Democrats may win the majority of the vote based in this population, Hamilton and the Founders believe that this is a dangerous way to win an election.
This phenomenon is easily displayed in a compelling way mathematically. Over 2,330,000 people voted for Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles County alone in the 2016 election. This county by itself accounts for vote totals equal to or more than that of many states across the midwest. This begs the question of why should the voters in a county, which has very specific policy needs that differ with, for example, Wisconsin, have a greater impact on the election than all the diverse needs of Wisconsin combined? The Electoral College protects the interests of Wisconsin from this faction. Whether we choose to agree with it or not, the United States is founded on the idea of states’ rights and the protection of small and large states in government. If the Founding Fathers were here today, they might be unhappy with the candidate we elected, but they would likely believe in the fundamental mechanism driving Trump’s electoral win.
1 Like
Not if they lost the popular vote, no.
As always unchecked BULLSHIT:
In the 1888 election, Grover Clevelandof New York, the incumbent president and a Democrat, tried to secure a second term against the Republican nominee Benjamin Harrison, a former U.S. Senatorfrom Indiana. The economy was prosperous and the nation was at peace, but although Cleveland received 90,596 more votes than Harrison, he lost in the Electoral College. Harrison won 233 electoral votes, Cleveland only 168.
2 Likes
Doesn’t it all boil down to the way the cards are dealt & how the hand is played? We all know if it was reversed & Hillary ( I cringe at the name ) won, all would be well in Liberal Land. At least be honest. Sour grapes & sore losers. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I’m telling my mom. If Hillary nailed the EV, she would be in office. The way it is. But she didn’t.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I expect mass liberal suicides when Trump wins the next election.
1 Like