Inception

Popular vote = California, New York, and Texas determine who wins. Good luck with that...

Not exactly, you're vote would still be equal to theirs. Population just wouldn't dilute the vote.

In either case, I was pointing out that there was no democratic overthrow but rather a constitutional process taking place to evaluate the President's actions of office.

Yes, votes would be equal, but popular vote would mean that the vote population of a few key states would outweigh the rest of the vote population of the country. Which is why the founders setup the electoral college in the first place. I was wrong there are a few states in there that I didn't mention: http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/
Basically the top 10 states can almost outvote the rest of them in the popular vote.

Which is different how exactly with the Electoral College? Population determines number of representational districts. No doubt, this was important to the Founders at the time however, the erosion of how districts are divided versus the sizes and quantities of states, not to mention who can and cannot vote, has changed over the years despite what the Founders originally intended.

So, even with the Electoral College, vote population of a few key states still outweigh the rest of the vote population. The only difference is that the entire country's voting value is not equal per person.

We're the only democratic republic that does this much to the befuddlement of not only other democratically elected countries but to our own citizens as well.

It equalizes populations between states so a few states don't determine the presidency. Each state gets one vote for president.

No doubt that is what you were told or how it was justified to you but you misunderstood my point.

While yes, each state gets one vote for either a Democratic or Republican candidate, even if the individual districts went to a Third Party or the Minority Wining Candidate, the Majority Winning Candidate gets the total value of the Electoral Votes in each district which is not equal among the states. That value is determined by population, and that value changes every ten years with the census. A lot can change in ten years.

You also fail to realize that, despite the Electoral College, only a few states "still determine the presidency". Mostly swing states.

Removing the Electoral College doesn't equalize the population between states, it places a value to it. It is not designed for the convenience of the voter but rather so that the candidates who are campaigning, may appeal to a moderate mass of voters and devalues the votes to states that are high in population but where a clear majority of one party's influence remains.

You could argue that this is necessary but without the Electoral College, the state population's are irrelevant. Each person's vote will carry equal weight no matter what state they're from and even if a majority holds in that State for one candidate, that other candidate still gets the individual votes from that state and may still win if they hold a majority over the entire country.

Without the Electoral College:

Say you're from a Blue State, there may even be 30 states that are "Blue" but you vote for the Republican candidate. If the Republican candidate wins, your vote counted. If the Democratic Candidate wins, your vote counted.

With the Electoral College:

You're still from a Blue State, the Blue States still hold majority, but you vote for the Republican candidate. If the Democratic candidate wins, your vote did not count. If the Republican Candidate wins, your vote STILL did not count.

Your vote counted in relation to the proportion of votes from other states.
Like I said the top 10 states will decide the presidency regardless of what the other 40 states voted for.

To simplify, let's say Hilary got the popular vote (she stole it, but ok). Then Trump wins by electoral college. That means that the top 10 populated states did not determine who won, but instead each state got a single vote.

Each state sends two Senators to represent their state in the U.S. Senate. However, in the House of Representatives, a state's representation is based on its POPULATION. For example, smaller states like Vermont and Delaware have one representative while large states like California have 53 representatives.

Every ten years, the US Census updates the number of Representatives each state receive. Each state guarenteed at least one seat. Dividing the sum population of the US States by a remaining total of 385. The seats of Representatives not increasing beyond 435 without ratification or additional statehood of US property or province.

The number of Electorate Votes is the sum of the number of Representatives in each state plus two for the Senators. 535 Electoral Cotes total from 435 representatives and 100 senators.

Swing states refers to any state that could reasonably be won by either the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate. Meanwhile, the states that regularly lean to a single party are known as safe states, as it is generally assumed that one candidate has a base of support from which they can draw a sufficient share of the electorate.

Due to the winner-take-all style of the Electoral College, candidates often campaign only in competitive states, which is why a select group of states frequently receives a majority of the advertisements and partisan media.

Only Individual Votes count to the Popular Vote. It wouldn’t matter what population each state had as the individual vote would determine the presidency, not large populated states.

In an electoral vote, individual votes are not counted at all save for the Popular Vote but it never determines the President.

Essentially, my example is more accurate to yours. States wouldn’t determine who the President is at all but the entire population of the USA would.

Also, no. Each state doesn’t get just one vote. Nor did Hillary lose the Popular Vote. You are in direct contrast with the stated facts. Opinions of our President and the echoes of his followers are not facts but easily proven lies.

If the Popular Vote had been compromised to the degree that it would cost Trump his win of it, as he has stated, then we have much bigger problem than Trump as our President.

Sorry, I went to public school. Looking it up, it is based on representative population. But it gives less populous states the same power as more populous states which is a good thing. I stand firm on my assertion of Hillary stealing the popular vote though. Democrats do it every year.

Your source of education is irrelevant. You must accept personal responsibility to see you are educated properly. I highly recommend opening a civics book or two along with a book on statistics.

I also would not count on any source that erroneously claims that Hillary or Democrats stole votes. Or at the very least, counters the claims by those of our own government, not our President or his Yes-men and Yes-women, that voter tampering successfully interfered with the popular vote. No proof has ever proven these erroneous claims true.

Again, the Electoral College does not give less populous states the same power as more populous states. It does the exact opposite. All it does is consolidate the vote to each state, denying millions of individual voters the right to choose the President. By propelling it state by state instead of person by person, it undoes the original purpose of the Electoral College by each state splitting into either a safe state or a swing state. Whoever has the most swing states wins regardless of whom you voted for.

The argument that it prevents larger states and cities from having a majority of votes is complete and utter bullshit as states and cities would not be determining the vote at all. The individual would. Since your vote would still count toward whichever candidate no matter where you lived as opposed to the Electoral College which turns that count into a summery by state by state basis with the high possibility of your vote being lost to the state majority regardless of whom you voted for let alone which candidate wins.

When you complain about larger states choosing the President in an individual voting system it’s like complaining that cars need to meet the same standards as horses. They’re completely two different standards to base votes on. Basing the President’s win on the popular vote would make state-by-state voting completely irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that it would also allow third parties a chance to win at Presidential elections. There would be less bureaucratic red tape among every candidate as states would not choose the president at all. Individuals would.

Oh, damn. I said you're instead of your. Grrr. I'll do better next time.

Won't let me reply, so I'm putting it here:
"Your source of education is irrelevant. You must accept personal responsibility to see you are educated properly. I highly recommend opening a civics book or two along with a book on statistics."

I can't know what they taught me wrong. So I just have to be educated by people pointing out when I'm wrong, and looking up the facts.

"I also would not count on any source that erroneously claims that Hillary or Democrats stole votes. Or at the very least, counters the claims by those of our own government, not our President or his Yes-men and Yes-women, that voter tampering successfully interfered with the popular vote. No proof has ever proven these erroneous claims true."

Ah no. It is known that millions of people who were dead or who didn't live in areas were added to the voter rolls. Normally republicans do this too, but in this case they didn't support Trump, so that didn't happen. That's not counting the fractions of percents that could be stolen with known exploits of electronic voter counting machines.

Comment chains only last ten replies after the first comment. It is common courtesy to end the conversation once the last comment has been placed. Especially if the conversation is going in circles. Much as this one is. But I'll be happy to give it one more go so if your intention is to learn anything, please ask your questions now. If your attempt is to prove something or waste my time, I'll refuse to reply.

You can know what you were taught was wrong through, again, books. Research what you know and don't rely on single sources as evidence. Learn to cite your sources if you believe your information is compromise and learned to concede when you are wrong. Especially if your education is as compromised as you claim it to be.

Multiple sources is also good for your news digestion as well. You might not be intelligent enough, not insult intended, to be able to recognize bias reporting. I would suggest unlearning what you have learned and starting fresh. Learn to recognize an overuse of adjectives or political slurs. If your news source is saying things like "orange man bad", "Cheeto-in-chief", or "Demon Rats" or "Schiff head" then these sources are merely for entertainment with little to no intellectual value.

I would love to see where you got the source that dead people vote. From the fair bit of articles I've scanned, only a few thousand voters have reported to be dead. Either through clerical error or lack of information pertaining to voter's birthdate failing to be recorded. Thousands of voters, around six thousand, which is no more than about 6% of a million voters is hardly millions of votes being compromised.

Won't let me reply, doing it here:

"Again, the Electoral College does not give less populous states the same power as more populous states. It does the exact opposite. All it does is consolidate the vote to each state, denying millions of individual voters the right to choose the President. By propelling it state by state instead of person by person, it undoes the original purpose of the Electoral College by each state splitting into either a safe state or a swing state. Whoever has the most swing states wins regardless of whom you voted for."

Actually it does. It gives them as much as 4x the power their populations would give if they went by the populist vote.

"The argument that it prevents larger states and cities from having a majority of votes is complete and utter bullshit as states and cities would not be determining the vote at all. The individual would. Since your vote would still count toward whichever candidate no matter where you lived as opposed to the Electoral College which turns that count into a summery by state by state basis with the high possibility of your vote being lost to the state majority regardless of whom you voted for let alone which candidate wins.

When you complain about larger states choosing the President in an individual voting system it’s like complaining that cars need to meet the same standards as horses. They’re completely two different standards to base votes on. Basing the President’s win on the popular vote would make state-by-state voting completely irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that it would also allow third parties a chance to win at Presidential elections. There would be less bureaucratic red tape among every candidate as states would not choose the president at all. Individuals would."

Ah no. Here's how it works. If you get 51% of the population of a state voting for one candidate all of the electors vote for that candidate of that state. In other words you give more power to the state than to the people.

I don't know how to explain this to you without repeating myself but I'll try again.

Electoral College: Goes by state to state with simplifed value of population to win. Only majority votes per state matter.

Populist Vote: Goes by individual. States have zero influence. States have zero value. All votes matter.

TL;DR: Your swapping swing states for the top 10 populated states.

States have no value in a populist vote. Again, you’re missing a key standard between individual vote and state votes. States don’t vote at all in a populist vote. People do.

Why is this hard for you to comprehend?

I didn't say states voted. I never said that. Why do you keep bringing it up like its a point in your favor?

Because you keep saying the top ten populated states would decide and not the individuals. States don’t decide. People do.

In a populist vote, the top ten populated cities are irrelevant for what majority of vote they hold because it’s still based on individual which can supersede the majority of the entire country despite the majority of the “top ten most populated states”.

In fact, the populist vote has only ever been in conflict with the electoral college two times in the last one-hundred years. Republicans winning the popular vote despite Democrats holding highly populated coastal cities and states!

The top ten populated states individuals would mostly vote the same as they do now and would overrule the rest of the country. People cluster in areas with similar ideals.

There it is!

No, they don’t.

What you’re doing is called generalizing. People have difference of opinions among families, friends, co-workers, neighbors, cities, and states. They may have some things in common, they may have many or few things in common, but people are not guaranteed to vote the same way every time.

What you advocate for actually silences individual’s votes through state by state consolidation and assigning value of that state by population.

And I’ll make this conversation even more complicated. I’m not entirely sold on the popular vote system either. I just find the arguments for keeping the electoral college lame.

Those being:

1.) It’s the way the founding fathers intended.

False! The founding fathers never intended women, immigrants, and non-landowners to vote. Nor did they anticipate the larger states that would follow the thirteen original states.

2.) It prevents the larger cities and states from obtaining a majority, overruling the minority every time.

False! In the popular vote, cities and states average voters do not decide alone. The voting majority do no matter where they’re from. Cities and states are not guaranteed to all vote one way or another. It’s human nature to argue even among those they can agree with.

There is also the concerns of massive vote fraud. Some states allow illegal immigrants to vote so either party could bus in millions of illegals to vote whichever way they wanted and their votes would count 100% toward the election.

There is concern. There is no proof. No states allow illegal immigrants to vote in Presidential Elections. It is a federal crime that for an illegal alien to vote in federal elections that is punishable by fine, imprisonment, deportation, or inadmissibility.

Again, I would love to see your source on this and the source that dead people vote. If you'll forgive the copy/paste because you didn't respond above, from the fair bit of articles I've scanned, only a few thousand voters have reported to be dead. Either through clerical error or lack of information pertaining to voter's birthrate failing to be recorded. Thousands of voters, around six thousand, which is no more than about 6% of a million voters is hardly millions of votes being compromised.

As for illegal immigrants voted, again there is no count of the number of illegal immigrants who do participate in our elections. Information on the exact number of illegal aliens who have voted in our country is debatable and arguably indeterminable.

A total of 35 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, all of which are in force in 2019. The remaining 15 states use other methods to verify the identity of voters. Most frequently, other identifying information provided at the polling place, such as a signature, is checked against information on file.

In addition, some U.S. states require registration, while others allow voters to register when they arrive at the polls, in what is called same day registration or election day registration. These registrations are often used to rule out any illegal votes. Only North Dakota has no registration requirement.

lol repeat the law. Everyone else is ignoring it and there is proof, I gave links to proof.