The exception proves the rule

So, are you saying that Democracy (winner take alll in those States is wrong?

What I said is that in all but two States, it's winner takes all - all the votes going granted to the winning candidate in that State, thus not only nulling the voice of any in opposition, but stealing it for another who did not win it.

In a democracy it is the person that gets the most votes that wins. That is what you want that is what those states do.

Wha?

Hillary ain't prez. There's your proof, Lady Marmalade.

America isn't a straight democracy or Hilldawg would be prez. Pretty simple to understand.

I am not arguing that America isn't also a Republic. I only take issue with the notion promoted by the Right that America is "not a democracy."

As a matter of fact, we're both. When it comes to the Electoral College, we have a totally unique method of choosing the President that occasionally produces counter-majoritarian results. To the detriment of our nation, I believe.

Anywho, Biden will win by so much next month that it's not gonna matter.

But I would like reform and for this issue to move up the Democratic priority-list.

Many times in our history we've removed impediments to our democracy: extending the franchise to non-landowners, to blacks, to women, etc.

And there's direct precedent for something like this in our constitutional history. See: 17th Amendment that established the popular vote for U.S. Senators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Misusing a term, or phrase, or word, does not make it accurate. Although, in this case, colloquial mis-use of the word democracy has certainly fueled this discussion, apparently.

Have you actually read that book? Because it doesn't say what you think it does.

Colloquial term, we are a democratic republic, not a true democracy of majority rule like Ancient Greece.

Well hell, that sure clears it up! 🤣😜😉

This meme should say “Why do Republicans like the electoral college today?”

How do you decide which alt to use, Blue Ninja?

You’re seriously psychotic.

That's a true compliment coming from you, little guy. But I believe in you, Blue. Once you understand the errors of your ways, you'll stop making the mistake of shooting yourself in the foot every day.

For the same reasons the founders liked it. Fairness for one, but mostly preventing large states, like Corruptifornia, from political domination over smaller states. We need all the states in order to form a more perfect union. Big states taking a metaphorical dump on smaller states would not have accomplished that back in the late 1700's any more than it will now.

Lol fairness! Like torching official ballot boxes and setting up fake ones?

There is no advantage. There is equality. Sure, Wyoming has more relative power per voter, but New York has a heck of a lot more voters to balance it out. Removing that would effectively mean only a few states will matter in an election. With the College it ensures all states', and by logical extension all voters in the country, matter.

You said yourself that the relative power per voter is higher in Wyoming - so HOW do you not understand that this is THE correction for number of voters?

If it were equal, the relative power per voter would be the SAME. Dividing by the number of voters is THE adjustment for population effect. How do you not get this? Is it a language thing? Is there something about the math you don't get or something? What?

No, I'm acknowledging that the individual vote carries more power. However, you're building a straw man here by ignoring the fact that those high-powered votes are weighed down by the sheer number of votes, and thus number of electors in the college, of more heavily populated states.
The United States operates on a basic principle that its population lives in states, which are semi-autonomous areas that have united to give some autonomy to the Federal Government (in the form of Congress and POTUS). A true popular vote would be equally representative of everyone IF the states all had identical laws and policies for how their citizens should be governed. In some cases they do! In all states it is a crime to kill someone, steal, etc. However in other ways they are very different. Drinking laws, firearm laws, driving laws, taxation laws, etc all vary from state to state as a way to allow all U.S citizens to live how they feel is best and yet peacefully coexist with all the other states to ensure the Republic operates smoothly.
This has been deemphasizes by the gradual increase of powers assumed by the Federal government and POTUS (boths sides are guilty of doing this, no sane person can deny that). As the Federal government gains more power relative to the states, the voters in states see that their high/low-powered votes, as secured by the College, matter less and less. We cannot keep adding power to the Federal government without removing the College and admitting we are essentially an autocracy of one body (Congress) and POTUS. Doing so though would be a drastic departure from the essential idea behind the Republic; that all citizens should be able to live in a state that operates how they wish and yet all be equally important in the election of POTUS no matter the population gaps. It is neither tyranny of the minority or the majority.

Essentially, removing the College right now, when you take into account population demographics in the country and the way political counties work, would guarantee that a few select states would essentially lock down the vote. Therefore the less-densely populated Midwest could never counterbalance the heavily populated coastal areas and inner cities. From the perspective of popular votes this is logical and makes sense; you want the highest population centers to control the vote to avoid tyranny of the minority. However when those high-population centers control the vote they can completely [cont.]

[cont.] ignore the economic and political wishes and needs of the Midwest, which dominates fields such as agriculture. That is tyranny of the majority, because the rural areas need policies to benefit them, but a purely popular vote in the United States today would almost certainly deny them a chance to influence the elections forever. The college sorts this problem by carefully weighing the number of electors from each state so that all states are more or less equally important on the election scale. My state, Montana, has very few citizens. We could never outvote Nevada, or Vegas alone for that matter. The college reflects this by giving more electoral votes to Nevada due to their higher population. However, the ratio of Nevada's electoral votes to Montana's electoral votes is much closer than the ratio of Nevada's population to Montana's population. By operating on a ratio-based manner, rather than a pure numerical manner, the college ensures that no state is rendered irrelevant in an election, yet it does ensure states with more people are worth more.
Going back to Nevada and Montana; Nevada has almost three times the population of Montana (2.8 million vs 1 million). In a popular vote Nevada has three times the power of us. However in the College Nevada has six electoral votes, as opposed to Montana's three. Nevada's population advantage ensures they will always have more power than Montana, but it keeps us Montanans from being totally irrelevant. If Montana and South Dakota (population of 800,000 roughly) vote together, then our combined population equals that of Nevada, and thus our electoral votes (three each) equal that of Nevada (six).

Did this help you at all? Once you see how the system blends popular votes with state's rights you suddenly understand why 'swing states' that seem irrelevant actually matter quite heavily...it's not because they overpower a more heavily populated state. Indeed, they cannot. More voters = more power. Nay, they matter because it is all balanced so no one has an overwhelming advantage, though an advantage can certainly grow with a state's population.

Wasting your time, brother. These guys probably didn't even bother reading it.

Probably. :(

There are 40 million people in California, 55 Electoral College votes.

In the Electoral College, they are outvoted by 13 million people living in 3-vote states. Do the math yourself! Check it!

YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHEN YOU ARE WRONG. It's OK to be wrong, but you need to be able to learn what your mistake is. This has to stop! This talking through someone trying to show your mistake is just harming yourself.

Why are you using hypothetical scenarios to arrive at a false real-world conclusion? There are only eight states (seven actually, and D.C) with three votes...two of them (D.C and Vermont) are reliable Democrat votes. California alone, which traditionally votes Democrat, cannot possibly be outweighed by three-vote states. California can only be outweighed electorally if enough citizens in enough states vote against them...that total can only be reached when the relative populations are nearly equivalent...any disparity on either side will be purely dependent on the location and relevance of specific county demographics (and that is a gerrymandering issue, not one with the College).

Given I'm the only one actually using real situations and examples to defend my arguments, rather than hypothetical straw-man numbers, I suggest you take your own advice and actually think about what I wrote. The college does reflect population. There's a reason the 'Blue Wall' is feared by Republicans and endlessly discussed by pundits. Population is already on your side. Had Trump not flipped a few key states from their usual place in the Wall he would have lost to Clinton, whose popular vote advantage was consigned to cities, rather than a truly popular spread of voters across the country.

It looks like she just started yelling at others...sheesh.

What you don't get is the point of the electoral college is to keep the STATES on equal footing, not the voters.

But they don't, do they? They put rural states on a higher footing.

What YOU don't get is that this was all designed before the industrial revolution and they had NO IDEA how big cities would be. In 1790, the Electoral College did put the states on roughly equal footing because not enough people lived in cities to water down the Electoral College vote in as dramatic a way as it does today.

But what we have today IS a dramatic difference.

And you just keep saying that the problem is that I don't understand it. We object to the Electoral College BECAUSE we understand it. It is NOT even. It is NOT working as designed. And you don't have to support a popular vote, but every time you fight to protect the Electoral College, you are fighting to keep an injustice and that's the truth.

Considering the left currently thinks virtually everything relating to this nation is an injustice forgive me if I laugh. If we gave into every demand the left made because they felt it was unjust we wouldn't even HAVE a country.

You said I didn't get something, I explained why you were wrong. Don't know what else you want.

Don't want anything else. You have the right to have that opinion and we have the right to think you're wrong.

Here's something else you may find interesting;

All states choose their electors after the popular votes finish in each state. The party of the candidate that won the popular vote selects the electors. In all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) ALL of the electors vote for the candidate who won the popular vote. Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes based off the popular vote.

So you see that all states determine their electoral votes via a popular vote. The states with the most people have the most electoral votes. Therefore the states with the most people have the most power in an election. The ONLY difference the College makes in an election is that no state is left behind because the RELATIVE (not TOTAL) power of states is lessened...however IN NO CASE does a lesser-populated state have more power than a heavily-populated state. Do you really want the citizens of only a few states of matter? Do you support injustice and equality? If you do then keep advocating for the destruction of the college.

Can you please reference exactly what you think I’m saying and respond to that? I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

“Supportive of a system where populated and rural communities got equal say” - that’s exactly what I said. We agree.

“Protect your advantage” Considering you don’t know me, what advantage are you referring to?

The Electoral College gives undue advantage to rural states. That's the complaint about it.

But you didn't say "Our country is too big and diverse to allow sparsely populated states like Wyoming to make the decision for the whole nation." You said the opposite.

And that's how I know.

Every marxist shitbag should have to live under communism and get raped by it.

The block button. When gain is loss yet you don't know it.

Basically. Look at the last two Republican presidents. No one has lost the popular vote and won since the 1800’s. And that guys win was shrouded in accusations of cheating too.

Correct. The Electoral College gives the states with more people more power. The only reason the College looks to have voted against the popular vote is because a couple of swing states flipped Red.

That's exactly what they're afraid of. Out of the 50 biggest cities in America, Republicans win elections in 4 of them; they suck at pitching their platform where large numbers of people live, and they know it.

The truth of the matter is, if we switched to ANY system but the EC, they'd never win an election again. Popular vote, equitable split by population density - doesn't matter, they can ONLY win by stripping electoral power from metropolitan areas. And they know it. And that's why they filibustered attempts to scrap the EC in the 70's.