http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data

It looks like the libertarian party gained ~3 million votes, while the greens gained half a million (over 2012). So some of thise lost democratic votes likely moved over there.

Along with other third party candidates... I really can't find a good source of info on this.

Anyone want to update wikipedia for me??

The point is not that the electoral college is unfair or that the election was rigged against the Democrats (FBI interference notwithstanding), the point is that the electoral college is undemocratic. Someone wins 2 million more votes than anyone else and loses because the votes weren't distributed in a geographically appropriate way. It makes no sense.

America isn't a direct democracy it is a Republic of States.

Gerrymandering is only an issue for the House. But it *is* an issue. Whoever's in charge when the census lines are redrawn gets to rig the game. Dunno if there's an easy way around that, but it's a screwed-up system.

And the current system prompts the candidates to ignore most of the states and focus on the handful that happen to be closely divided. How does it serve the republic to have the concerns of closely divided states prioritized over all others? It doesn't, and allowing presidents to assume power while being outvoted undermines the legitimacy of the president and destabilizes the republic.

The main reason the founders instituted the electoral college was to ensure the balance of power between free and slave states, by allowing 3/5 of each slave to count in the electoral college.

@"ND
America isn't a direct democracy it is a Republic of States."

Well apparently lots of people don't think that is what America *should* be. But regardless of semantics.

Direct democracy is not what you think it means. Direct democracy is where you directly vote on the issues. It happened in ancient greece (i think Athens) where every free-man go to go and argue and vote on every issue.

Representative democracy is where you vote for yor representative to argue on your behalf. (As you have on bith a state and federal level) - the distinction you seem to be attempting to make is that you seperately have a senate which represents the 50 states - though you also elect your senators as if they were elected to represent the people of their states rather than the states temselves.

In this sense, it is no surprise that people feel it rather odd that with the system, when i is clear that apart from the president every elected member of the federal government is elected as you would in a representative democracy (which are common around the 'free world')

This "And the current system prompts the candidates to ignore most of the states and focus on the handful that happen to be closely divided. How does it serve the republic to have the concerns of closely divided states prioritized over all others? "

Clinton ignored Wisconsin and Trump didn't. No one thought Wisconsin would be threatened by Trump until he was already winning it. There's always the possibility of flipping within the system.

Why should a 28,000 edge in votes in Wisconsin override a 1,800,000 edge in votes nationwide? Are people in Wisconsin more important than the rest of us?

I'm sorry, I thought your complaint was about states being ignored, and Clinton ignored that state and lost.

It was an example of poor campaigning.

I don't think the current system is good in the US, but it is the system the country has established. It was used and it hasn't been changed. Trying to invalidate the current election on ground on this is at the same time invalidating the other presidents that were elected with the same system. Period.

Change it and make it better, I'd welcome it. But doubting something in retrospect because this and that is way harder to do with dignity and without double standard.

The Founding Fathers established it, and I bet they know more about government than all of us. So there's nothing to be said if The Electoral College is corrupt or not.

"The Founding Fathers established it, and I bet they know more about government than all of us."

You do know that science can get newer and better information?

"So there's nothing to be said if The Electoral College is corrupt or not. "

And corruption has nothing to do with the idea behind a system (normally at least), corruption is something that influences a system to change/screw with it to get an advantage for oneself.

Political science is the most constantly changing of sciences because running a country is absolutely not straightforward and always has to adapt to the will of the people.

sure, but the sheer data and knowledge we collected the past 150 years is more than the founding fathers had. So the upper statement "they know more [...] than all of us" is due to that, wrong.

It's not enough for Prado's ideology to be the only valid one. Now his field has to be too?

For someone who sits there preaching and end to divisiveness, you sure are dismissive of other people.

The 12th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 25th, and 26th amendments all changed the way elections, exchange of power, and assumption of office all work in this country. As a poli sci student who happens to think the idea behind the Electoral College is a good one, the argument that "the Founding Fathers did it" is the one that holds the least water.

Usually not a fan of my arguments getting strawmanned, but you can read my arguments however you want, ghug ;)

Moronic. Period.

Can you explain to me how I've mischaracterized you?

You've stated repeatedly that you believe the center is the only logical place to be in politics, so I'm assuming you won't be contesting that one. Hopefully it's obvious to you how that's no different than people on either side refusing to acknowledge others' opinions as valid, but for some reaason I doubt it is.

As for poli-sci, it's clear from your last post that you believe being in the field (for all of half of a semester at this point, I might add) imparts you increased credibility in discussing politics in general. Your claim that it's the "most constantly changing of the sciences", beyond being largely meaningless without further definition and fully unsubstantiated, also clearly conveys that you believe your chosen field of study to be objectively better than others.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, Yoyo, I pissed him off.

I believe there needs to be a healthy discussion between all viewpoints of politics for things to be done fine and well.

Regarding my reference to my field, it had to do with prior mention of the comment "You do know that science can get newer and better information?" From Kakarroto. Further, my comment alluded to the vast possibilities of opinions and theories within the field itself. Regarding the constantly changing bit I mean the paradigm shifts within it. That is by no means conveying superiority. I personally find it exhilarating. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I was stating anything as objective.

It's your smug foolishness, mostly.

Your idea of a healthy discussion of all viewpoints is one that doesn't allow for what you consider to be extremes on any issue. Your opinions are no more inherently valid than leon wanting to get rid of the fourteenth amendment or Putin wanting to abolish currency, and your view of the center as fundamentally superior is no more productive than ND and brain arguing fruitlessly for weeks on end.

Your comment was clearly a response to Kakarroto, but it wasn't a particularly relevant one. It was just an opportunity to talk about how great and special and better you think your field is. I'm glad you're enjoying your studies, but to say any field is the most anything is ignorant, stuck up, and dismissive, and as that fits nicely with the trend of most of what you have to say on, well, everything really, I felt it deserved calling out.

Your opinion of me is one guided by previous discussion from months ago, the distance from which time could do a lot to adapt my stupid opinions. My opinion of a healthy discussion is something you don't know what I think.

And I especially never meant my field to be objectively better, and never really implied that. I like the field because I PERSONALLY find it interesting.

Well, if you want to claim you've changed, I can give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but I'm not going to believe it until I see it, and I haven't seen it yet.

In the mean time, good work stalling this awful, repetitive, discussion about the electoral college. Let's hope everyone else can keep it up.

@ghug

"Your idea of a healthy discussion of all viewpoints is one that doesn't allow for what you consider to be extremes on any issue. Your opinions are no more inherently valid than leon wanting to get rid of the fourteenth amendment or Putin wanting to abolish currency, and your view of the center as fundamentally superior is no more productive than ND and brain arguing fruitlessly for weeks on end."

addressing the philosophical fact that NOTHING is fundamentally or inherently superior, isn't very productive. and on a second note

"Your comment was clearly a response to Kakarroto, but it wasn't a particularly relevant one. It was just an opportunity to talk about how great and special and better you think your field is."

eh... no. it's amazing that you crucified him over THIS, but he said it wasn't a straightforward task, after they were talking about corruption. it's called a comment.

"I'm glad you're enjoying your studies, but to say any field is the most anything is ignorant, stuck up, and dismissive"

sooooo... isn't that an extreme you're dismissing now? Because asserting that Poli Sci is the most variable field, while it may not be quantifiably correct, could VERY possibly be true.

but... your dismissal of his opinion is what you JUST said not to do!

"and as that fits nicely with the trend of most of what you have to say on, well, everything really, I felt it deserved calling out."

1. demonize the moderate
2. talk about your FEELINGS
3. ???
4. Profit

fuck off

"addressing the philosophical fact that NOTHING is fundamentally or inherently superior, isn't very productive"

It certainly is productive. It's essential to having actual discussions on these things that don't devolve into vitriol. As that seems to be the main thing Prado has been advocating for this week, I think it's important to call him out on it.

"eh... no. it's amazing that you crucified him over THIS, but he said it wasn't a straightforward task, after they were talking about corruption. it's called a comment."

I'm honestly not even sure what you're trying to say here, except that you think I'm wrong.

"sooooo... isn't that an extreme you're dismissing now? Because asserting that Poli Sci is the most variable field, while it may not be quantifiably correct, could VERY possibly be true.

but... your dismissal of his opinion is what you JUST said not to do!"

I'm not dismissing anything but assertions, direct or otherwise, of intellectual superiority. He's welcome to like his field. I just think saying it's better than other fields for a concrete reason rather than simply because he likes it more is a pompous and unproductive thing to say. On its own, I probably wouldn't call it out, but it's a pattern.

"1. demonize the moderate"
If you think I'm demonizing him for being moderate, you've missed the entire point here. I don't think you have, so this is just mischaracterization.

"2. talk about your FEELINGS"
Whut

"fuck off"
Nice talking to you too, James.