Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a good point if the popular vote margin is small -- but Clinton's margin is large, at nearly 1 million and growing. Out of the 5 elections where the winner lost the popular vote, she will have by far the largest margin of plurality, and second largest on a percentage basis. If this were a popular vote election and the campaigns were conducted accordingly, it is nearly 100% certain that Hillary would have won.
For once at least, Snopes affirms the right-wing opinion of the ultimate outcome of the election:
It appears that whatever margin Clinton winds up having will be less than 1% of the total votes cast...not enough to cheer or jeer about.
That in itself is a good reason for having an electoral college as a tie-breaking mechanism, because vote tabulation methodology is not any more accurate than that.
On the other hand there is a significant amount of land in between the coastal areas (which are predominantly controlled by Democrats). Politicians that are elected to national office create laws and policies that determine the use of that land in the middle, so the Electoral College is useful to keep one political party from controlling everything in the country, to the detriment of the people in the other party.
No, the 'founding fathers' didn't even consider great plains when they created the EC.
The EC was created to placate slave owners in the south.
Currently the EC has exposed a serious democratic deficit in the US.
The person with the most votes should win.
After all, it's people that vote, not areas of land.
The democratic deficit is small right now, a million votes maybe.
But how do you think the country is going to look like when that becomes 50 million?
No, the 'founding fathers' didn't even consider great plains when they created the EC.
The EC was created to placate slave owners in the south.
Currently the EC has exposed a serious democratic deficit in the US.
The person with the most votes should win.
After all, it's people that vote, not areas of land.
The democratic deficit is small right now, a million votes maybe.
But how do you think the country is going to look like when that becomes 50 million?
In pretty much every single democratic republic, the candidate that gets the most votes wins.
That is fair.
What is extrodinary, is that in the US they have this archaic system to pick a president, and that system is clearly flawed. Yet for purely partisan reasons, people such as yourself defend it and think there's nothing the matter with working against the democratic wishes of the majority of the public.
"Every single democratic republic" tends to be the size of one or, at most, two of our states.
The size of our nation necessitates the EC. Otherwise, states would secede after they were made irrelevant to the distant population centers in elections. It's as simple as that.
You can have national elections decided by the popular vote, or you can have the USA, but you can't have both. Anyone who lacks this understanding is missing their essential U.S. history education. This forum is for discussion, not catching participants up in basic secondary education.
To hammer the point home, imagine a world government decided by popular vote. Would you be so against a global EC if the alternative was that Tokyo and Mexico City largely decided who was going to be world president?
The Electoral College is a more modern version of democracy, adapted to the larger unified nation-state. If you want to go back to a popular vote, you wouldn't revert the USA to the popular vote, you would vie for your state's secession from the union. It would make much more political sense and, frankly, would be a politically easier task than getting rid of the EC. And that's saying something.
The discussion in regard to reverting to a popular vote, whether the democrats or conservatives win, is childish and a complete waste of time unless you are thinking of seceding. Everyone's time is better spent discussing literally anything else. There will never, ever be any movement on this issue short of secession. The popular vote, outside of determining a state's electoral college votes, is and will always be utterly irrelevant for great reason.
"Every single democratic republic" tends to be the size of one or, at most, two of our states.
The size of our nation necessitates the EC. Otherwise, states would secede after they were made irrelevant to the distant population centers in elections. It's as simple as that.
You can have national elections decided by the popular vote, or you can have the USA, but you can't have both. Anyone who lacks this understanding is missing their essential U.S. history education. This forum is for discussion, not catching participants up in basic secondary education.
Other states of comparable sizes and populations elect their President via a democratic electoral process whereby the side with the most votes, wins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Donald Trump: If the election were based on total popular vote It Would Have Been Easier to Beat Hillary
