The Trump Presidency

[Joust Williams]

I don't know, "one person = one vote" seems simpler since people don't seem to be on the same page as to how it works.

[kedawa]

Yeah, there's no way anyone's vote would count less by going with a simple system like that.

[gameoverDude]

Popular vote winners have gotten screwed over 5 times by the electoral college. These 5 were all Democrats.
That 50 separate state elections decide the national winner is senseless, especially when there are gimmes in there for both sides like Texas (R) & California (D).
Decision by popular vote would be more fair, making it so all candidates must campaign in all states.

Hillary had 43% of Texas' presidential vote but ended up with nothing to show for it. Trump had 52% & took all. If this alone doesn't show how broken the electoral college system is, what will?

[Drewbacca]

The issues and ideals of large cities would mandate the rest of the country. If that's OK with you then this system works. I don't think that's accurately representative of problems and perspectives.

[Fe 26]

Recipe for revolt.

[Joust Williams]

The issues and ideals of large cities would mandate the rest of the country. If that's OK with you then this system works. I don't think that's accurately representative of problems and perspectives.

Instead of the issues and ideals of the minority of America? Yeah, I think that sounds better.

There are local representatives, you know. And it seems like they are interested in investigating Hillary for Benghazi (and turning up zero indictments). So not sure what your point is...

Texas will probably eventually go D. At which time, it will be time to split those votes too. Hey Dallas, you get two votes, which is better than Bumfucktown, you only get one. See? Compromise!

[Drewbacca]

Someone raising cattle or growing soy in Nebraska has problems and an undersized influence. How do they get a chance in your popular vote system? Should they matter? Move to a city? Become a hipster sipping lattes in pants cut short so you can see they’re wearing no socks Ooh so enlightened.

I’ve yet to hear a good reason to remove the college outside of “it benefits my ideas of the majority!” when that’s kind of the problem.

[Joust Williams]

Then why do most minority groups vote D? (Bonus question: Why do Rs do everything they can to prevent them from voting?)

In other words: You are arbitrarily defining a minority.

[kedawa]

Someone raising cattle or growing soy in Nebraska has problems and an undersized influence. How do they get a chance in your popular vote system? Should they matter? Move to a city? Become a hipster sipping lattes in pants cut short so you can see they’re wearing no socks Ooh so enlightened.

I’ve yet to hear a good reason to remove the college outside of “it benefits my ideas of the majority!” when that’s kind of the problem.

Their vote would count the same regardless of where they lived. The system in place now means that citizens in the most populous states need to move to a fly-over state in order for their vote to count.

[Anthony]

Someone raising cattle or growing soy in Nebraska has problems and an undersized influence. How do they get a chance in your popular vote system? Should they matter? Move to a city? Become a hipster sipping lattes in pants cut short so you can see they’re wearing no socks Ooh so enlightened.

I’ve yet to hear a good reason to remove the college outside of “it benefits my ideas of the majority!” when that’s kind of the problem.

You are saying, because there are fewer of them, they have less influence? How is it undersized? What determines the proper size. I would say they have more of a voice than I do at the moment.