The Electoral College Explained (Madison: colleges, safe, residency)

[Aubie16]

Originally Posted by oldschoolChevy

Again, with all that said the electoral college is a sham and the POTUS should be decided by the popular vote.

And again, that would undercut the core of federalism that this country was founded on. We have two levels of government in this country, both State and Federal. We do not have a unitary system of government (National only). We also don't have a confederal system of government (states more powerful but have weaker national). We have a Federal system, where state and national governments share power equally.

We were not founded as simply one nation. We are one nation made up of 50 states with different values, laws, and ways of living. The 50 states together elect the president, hence the "United States" of America.

This is why we have the electoral college...for each state to independently decide who they want to be president, and then those electoral votes (distributed by population...California has more say than Georgia, for example) decide the presidency.

[Gerrygal]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

First bolded statement: Without those 'non-existent' voters, Trump would not have won this election. Those that ignored them have done so at their own peril.

Nail, meet Head. It does not matter who you are for or against. What does matter at the end of the day is your vote.

[krogerDisco]

Originally Posted by Gerrygal

I found this on Google:

The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. The President and Vice President are not elected directly by the voters. Instead, they are elected by "electors" who are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis.

Now I get it.

I think the easiest way to think of it is, you have to win states. Most but not all have a winner take all system which makes it possible to win the national popular vote, but lose the election. I think it's an ingenious system in that it takes in the country as a whole rather than concentrations of populations. Small states have more of a say as to who is president this way.

[oldschoolChevy]

Originally Posted by Aubie16

It works both ways. Only 48% of voters in Nevada and 49% of voters in Colorado voted for Clinton but she got all of those states electoral votes. The other voters in that state that voted for Trump/Johnson/Stein absolutely mattered. Just because you lose doesn't mean your vote didn't count.

By that logic, if we just had a national election and 49% of the voters voted for the losing candidate, did their votes "not matter"?

I believe Hillary still got more % of the popular votes in NV and CO though. So with that said that's not fair to the people who stood in line and voted for Trump with this winner takes all BS. And if it was by popular vote and the winner won on 51 to 49 split then they still won fair and square. Albeit by a very slim margin.

[Aubie16]

Originally Posted by oldschoolChevy

I believe Hillary still got more % of the popular votes in NV and CO though. So with that said that's not fair to the people who stood in line and voted for Trump with this winner takes all BS. And if it was by popular vote and the winner won on 51 to 49 split then they still won fair and square. Albeit by a very slim margin.

I'm not sure I follow. You realize Trump got more of the popular vote than Hilary in Georgia too right? Georgia, Nevada, and Colorado all have the exact same situation in which one candidate barely got more than the other one and took all the electoral votes. You seem to be insinuating the situations are different.

[AnsleyPark]

Regardless of whether I like or dislike the outcome of this election, I whole heartedly believe that our way of electing our president through the electoral college is ingenious. Study the history of this process and it is clear that the founding fathers got it right.

[David A Stone]

Originally Posted by micstatic

It's simple. If their were no electoral college. The candidates would offer up a campaign that would promote projects within NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami only. They wouldn't need to worry about the rest of the country and they could still get elected. It's a way of protecting people who live in smaller communities.

Baloney !
There aren't enough electoral votes in many states for candidates to even worry about voters in those small states.


How many trips to North Dakota did Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump make ?

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Gerrygal

I said "I don't get it"---and I don't. Read my post.

I did read your post. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually did understand it but just didn't like it before assuming you were unaware of something that I learned in school 40 years ago.

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

The United States is a constitutional republic and representative democracy.

Neither of which necessitates using something like the Electoral College, though.

[oldschoolChevy]

Originally Posted by Aubie16

I'm not sure I follow. You realize Trump got more of the popular vote than Hilary in Georgia too right? Georgia, Nevada, and Colorado all have the exact same situation in which one candidate barely got more than the other one and took all the electoral votes. You seem to be insinuating the situations are different.

We seem to be getting bogged down in semantics. I was actually insinuating the situations are the same. Just different outcomes as NV and CO went for Hillary and Ga went for Trump. My intial point is the winner take all crap. It's BS. If more emphasis was placed on the electoral college towards the public I'm quite sure the people would want to get rid of it.

And don't take my rants as the musings of someone upset over Hillary losing. While I do think Trump is wrong for the office, I though Hill was too so I didn't vote for either one of those clowns. I knowingly voted for someone who didn't have a chance in hell basically as a form of my own little personal protest. I realized long ago that neither party has my community's best interest at heart. I don't get caught up in the partisan garbage anyway. My issue is with the system of America as a whole.

[Aubie16]

Originally Posted by oldschoolChevy

We seem to be getting bogged down in semantics. I was actually insinuating the situations are the same. Just different outcomes as NV and CO went for Hillary and Ga went for Trump. My intial point is the winner take all crap. It's BS. If more emphasis was placed on the electoral college towards the public I'm quite sure the people would want to get rid of it.

And don't take my rants as the musings of someone upset over Hillary losing. While I do think Trump is wrong for the office, I though Hill was too so I didn't vote for either one of those clowns. I knowingly voted for someone who didn't have a chance in hell basically as a form of my own little personal protest. I realized long ago that neither party has my community's best interest at heart. I don't get caught up in the partisan garbage anyway. My issue is with the system of America as a whole.

I voted for Gary Johnson, in the interest of disclosure.

The winner take all of each state is the very foundation of it and was put in place for a reason. The states are electing the president, not the people as I tried to explain in the post above about a unitary, federal, and confederal systems of government. I personally think it was a brilliant move from the founders.

It really doesn't matter if "the public wants to get rid of it", unless there is enough support to get a constitutional amendment passed.

edit: I also think you are underestimating the average voter if you believe the majority of people think the popular vote elects the president. Every election the talk is about winning key battleground states and we stare at the blue/red map all night.