Trump won the popular vote in the overwhelming majority if.states, with just a few exception like California and New York. It is wholly appropriate, therefore, that he is President - the argument the other way would be that essentially two states decided the outcome because of the overwhelming bias those states had.

It is an election system designed from the beginning so the the STATES elect the President, not then people.

If any of you kids actually.learned history anymore you would know this basic fact about our election system.

@Pompeii

Nope, you are absolutely wrong. It makes people in swing states important to the candidates. And the candidates don't just go to Miami, Tampa, and Orlando to win Florida. They travel to every part of Florida because they know something you clearly don't: people in major cities have one vote each just like people in the country and therefore the cities alone will not decide who wins the election.

@Krellin

You can win the election with 11 states using the electoral college. Your argument, like all others, is complete garbage.

Swing states change with time and polling data. Every state is more important because if you don't have a collective effort from a diverse range of people all in majority agreeing a certain candidate better represents their interests then they won't win the presidency. The electoral college aids voter diversity and to deny that is simply a display of ignorance on your end. Also read Krellin's post above.

@Merirosvo and without the electoral college even fewer states would matter. You may need 11 to win at minimum but without it you'd only have to visit 3-6 states and their biggest population centers which don't accurately represent the needs of the rest of the people in the United States.

@Pompeii

I'm not sure I completely understand your argument. You're saying every state is more important because candidates need a diverse voting base? I don't see how that would follow and I also disagree with the premise. Diversity doesn't matter at all. You can win most states with the white vote alone, therefore the electoral college not only doesn't help with vote diversity it actually damages it.

@Pompeii

First of all, without the electoral college states don't matter. People matter. So, "winning a state" doesn't mean much in terms of the election. Secondly, remember this map?

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/zv582606a2.jpg

If it were a direct split between rural and urban votes the candidate going for urban votes would need the support of all those counties. That is a lot more than 3-6 states and is certainly a lot more than the biggest population centres.

@Merirosvo Diversity is far beyond the racist definition of white or black or Muslim or Christian or Jewish. A white Jewish man will better relate to a black Muslim who grew up in a similar situation demographically and geographically than that same white Jewish man would relate with another white Jewish man who grew up across the country in a vastly different situation. That's what I mean by diversity of voters. The definition you have is racist in my opinion because let's face it, humans aren't all that different when it boils down to it. Their situation changes them more than the color of their skin. The country has a diverse amount of issues that all effect people differently.

@Merirosvo I have to disagree that only states matter. Without the people of those states you still wouldn't get the points and votes you needed. If you don't hear out their concerns, and their needs then they likely won't vote for you. Look at how Hillary hadn't visited Wisconsin since the primaries, and it was the state that broke her back. Both systems have their benefits and flaws, but I still believe that it's the better system between the two.

@Pompeii

When people say diversity, they mean (in order of prevalence): ethnicity, religion, language, gender, sexual orientation, age, wealth, and education. The other factors are of significance but if your definition of diversity doesn't have ethnicity at the forefront than you are being purposefully obtuse.

And suppose we were to discard ethnicity, it still wouldn't help your point. When Democrats win they have most of the urban vote and little of the rural vote. Likewise, when Republicans win the reverse is true.

@ Pompeii

My point was that under a single nationwide vote only people matter. Under the electoral college or any other state divided system both states and people matter. But the people that matter are the ones in the current swing states. (Yes, these change each election but it has been a long time since half of the states were given any attention)

@Pompeii, ok, so you are exactly the type of person I hoped to attract with this post.

Why in the world do some Americans think that the geographical location of people matter so much. Imagine this - Mega-City One exists, with 250 million inhabitants, rest of U.S. population (let's say 50m) is spread out, mostly in rural areas. You want to tell me that a fair system is one that artificially inflates the votes of the other people to give them "fair" representation? In what way is it fair that their votes count more? Of course, a good system is a one that ensures that the interests of all people are taken into account, but do you seriously believe that this can be achieved by rigging the ellections?

*I am not saying the elections were rigged in the standard sense - of course they weren't (or maybe? Putin does seem very enthusiastic). I am saying that the electoral college system is rigged. It does not give equal power to the citizens, not to mention, ffs, you vote for almost anonymous people hoping that they will vote the way you want, wtf?

@yassem That's not even a fair comparison. Of course the needs of the people would win because they get a proportional amount of electoral college vote to the amount of representatives which is proportional to population. Your mega city would be like comparing California (55 votes) to Arizona (11 votes). They'd always win the election just like how Republicans would never lose an election if they always got California or New York.

Well, yeah. That does make sense, doesn't it? If 40 milion people in California voted for a democrat candidate, and 6 milion in Arizona voted Republican in every election then it would make sensie to choose a democrat every election, no? But then if 21 milion people voted democrat and 19 republican in California, while in Arizona still 6 milion supported republican shouldn't a republican be chosen? Well, under your current system no, still a democrat would have been chosen. Why?

No because the republican candidate while maybe perfectly understanding the needs of the people in Arizona didn't understand the needs of the people in California well enough to win their votes. Thus he lost the election because he/she didn't have a diverse enough platform to help everyone in the country.

@"The electoral college allows for greater diversity of voters " - on the contrary, it forces voters in less populous states to have a louder voice (more heavily weighted vote) in elections.

@Pompeii, amazing... I honestly that no other country could have conceived a system so insane, and yet convince so many of it's citizens that it is actually fair. You know that I could make up examples like this all day?

@Pompeii
@"without the electoral college even fewer states would matter. You may need 11 to win at minimum but without it you'd only have to visit 3-6 states and their biggest population centers which don't accurately represent the needs of the rest of the people in the United States."

Not if you removed the electoral college. Currently you need only 50.1% of the votes in these highly populous states to win 100% of the electoral college votes. BUT, if you had a sstem like Maine does, then places like California and Florida would split thir votes proportionally.

Suddenly all the states would he battlegrounds. Even if it was only for a single electoral college vote. This would be a bigger difference imo.

@Orathaic
It allows their voice to be louder so that they aren't underrepresented and ignored in the election having their needs not be addressed by any presidential candidates. You'd rather suppress the voice of people who are typically ignored and underrepresented simply because your candidate didn't win the election?

@Orathaic I'm not arguing against getting rid of the winner takes all system I'm arguing against the idea that the popular vote is a better system. But as something to consider about that is it'd only result in a smaller number of delegates needed to gain victory. If you already have the majority in the state to get the votes then you already have more delegates than your opponent. Thus you'd still be in the lead rather than somehow drastically changing the election to go to the other side. Trump still would've won the election without a winner takes all system.

@Pompeii

You just don't get it. The electoral college is not designed to help anyone in particular. It can be described as a random system that helps whoever happens to be in a swing state. If the large states are the swing states, the system gives them the decision. If the small states are the swing states, they get to decide the election. If the swing states are mostly city dominated states, cities get the power. If the swing states are mostly rural, than rural voters decide the election. In the recent election, the rust belt states made the decision.

There is a tiny bias due to number of delegates that helps small states a little and hurts big states. But this is almost always overshadowed by the effects of the swing states.

@Mrirosvo

Is that a bad thing? The Rust Belt is in desperate need of change and the current government couldn't do what they needed to help them. Thus making them swing states. The people in California have been content for quite some time and so they're not a swing state but stand to be very soon. States that become swing states are typically the states that aren't content with who they've voted for in the past. You're also ignoring the fact that you still need a strong collective agreement from most other states to get you over 270. Those are typically from each party's normal voter base who've been content with their party's leadership. You sir or madame just don't get it, and are throwing a fit over something that didn't overwhelmingly concern you until you lost.

@" Trump still would've won the election without a winner takes all system."

I'm not really talking about electoral reform because trump won. But it is interesting from an academic stand point - still, would he? I'd have imagined it would hve been a very different race.

But the point i'm making is, Trump would have spent some time in CA even if he was only going to win 3/4 electoral college seats there (out of there, what? ~50-ish) because the more time he spent the more votes he could have won...

Meanwhile Clinton might have spent more time in Texas...

And i think thise two factors could reduce how much the US is polarised... Like if you state always votes red/blue and so the other side never bothers campaigning at all, then the people of that state never hear the counter arguements... It HAS to be bad for democracy...

"You sir or madame just don't get it, and are throwing a fit over something that didn't overwhelmingly concern you until you lost."

Not an argument and also not true. I've been saying the same thing since I first learned how the electoral college worked years ago. Also, it's sir.

"Is that a bad thing?"

Yes? You admit the electoral college randomly helps a small group of states and think it is a good thing because the current swing states need attention? What if the swing states were the richest states?

I'd point out you keep coming up with a completely different argument that flies in the face of your previous ones.

"...and was wandering whether it was just the most retarded argument in favour of the most retarded para-democratic voting system in the world."

It's not. I'm glad to see you've given it such measured consideration though.

-

The problem with the electoral college as it exists is that each state is winner-take-all, not that states with smaller populations are disproportionately represented when converting the popular vote to the electoral vote. You already reached that point in the excerpt I'm about to quote, I don't know why your other posts are so arrogantly dismissive of the system:

"Well, yeah. That does make sense, doesn't it? If 40 milion people in California voted for a democrat candidate, and 6 milion in Arizona voted Republican in every election then it would make sensie to choose a democrat every election, no? But then if 21 milion people voted democrat and 19 republican in California, while in Arizona still 6 milion supported republican shouldn't a republican be chosen? Well, under your current system no, still a democrat would have been chosen. Why?"

You fix that by distributing electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote for each state.


The electoral college is designed to skew toward less populated areas (50 states + DC each get 3 electoral votes; the remaining 385 votes are divided by population). This is a good thing. It's a recognition that urban areas are likely to attract more people to them than rural areas: there are more and more varied jobs available to people who live there, you get better infrastructure assuming the planning in the cities is done well, and then you get a feedback loop where those benefits bring people in, they become cultural centers where you have more entertainment options, that brings MORE people in, and so on.

But the rural areas are, literally, the backbone of America. Not in any fawning nostalgic sense that the US used to be predominantly rural or anything, but in the sense that our farming and food production, our forestry, our mining and our energy production are all done outside of cities. These areas are **vital** for the success of America and **must** be maintained, which in turn means they need a real voice in government.

But those same areas are obviously disadvantaged in a popular vote, where all that matters is how many people live there. The office of the presidency is necessarily winner-take-all, which means that a straight popular vote for the presidency is going to mean that the urban vote carries the day everytime. This leads to politicians focusing predominantly on the cities and ignoring the rural areas completely, which leads to the collapse of rural life from neglect and thus follows the collapse of the entire system.

"Skewing" the electoral college to favor rural areas using the intermediary unit of states (the majority of which are majority-rural) is brilliant foresight, not a flaw.

The problem, as noted, is the WTA aspect of the electoral college. One advantage of the college is that you have to pay attention to states instead of people, which means that rural areas don't get lost in the shuffle. This becomes a problem if people only have to play to a few states though (cue the argument about how you could win the electoral college with only 11 states yada yada). Making states' electoral college votes proportional to the popular vote instead of WTA would solve this problem and force politicians to give at least some consideration to every state. The two groups of voters who are most disenfranchised in this country are California Republicans and Texas Democrats, and opening up the electoral college like this would give them a voice again. States that are dominated by one party would still end up sending their entire EC vote to that party's candidate, so it wouldn't be a radical departure from the way things are (which generally works as intended), but it would open up all high-population areas to greater attention from the pols, which solves what seems to be the main complaint most people have about the EC (urban areas having a disproportionately low influence) while maintaining the core purpose of the EC (ensuring that rural voters aren't forgotten).

So it's a bad thing for candidates to spend a lot of time in states that have been failed by their government and are unsure on who to vote for to get the change they need?

If the swing states managed to be Texas or California it'd be because they've lost faith in their party to properly lead them and address their issues. Smaller states are admittedly less represented in Congress yes? They don't have much say in what legislation actually gets passed right? So what's wrong with giving them a loud enough voice to help elect a president who they believe will help work with congress and pass the legislation that's important to the majority of their state?

We both know neither system is perfect and we're both making good points in this debate. Whether the EC should be reformed is up for debate. But the current polarization present within the country is not to be blamed on just the EC alone.

@"fix that by distributing electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote for each state."

Exactly. And you change what a 'battleground' state is, because every state now has a chance of winnig some votes.

@"Smaller states are admittedly less represented in Congress yes?" em no? Isn't congress exactly the same as how the electoral college is setup?

One congressional district = one electoral college vote?

While the Senate massively over-represents the smaller states (ie hawaii gets an equal say to texas...)

Sorry, when i said cogress there, i meant the house of representatives. (As opposed to the senate)