That would mean a handful of counties control the country. That's not fair for the residents of every other county in the country.

Try telling the farmers, miners, and other residents of small towns and rural areas of the country (or any state that isn't California, New York, Texas, or Florida) that their vote no longer matters and that a few cities now control the country. It's "fair" at face value, but doesn't accurately reflect the geographical and demographic complexities of a country as large as ours.

The basic principle of the United States (think about the name of our country) is that all states should balance their population (relative power) with their basic identity as a state in a league of other equally-represented states. When the Constitution was being debated this balance of power was holding the delegates back from determining how power should be apportioned. Eventually the Connecticut Compromise was proposed and ratified in 1787. This declared that states would rule the country together through two houses, with the size of each house reflecting each side of the power argument. The Senate was composed of two representatives from each member state regardless of their population, as a way to ensure all states were equally involved in nationwide and international affairs regardless of their size. The House of Representatives governed more domestic affairs and its composition was determined by state size. States send one representative to the House by default, and send an additional representative for every large chunk of citizens they have (I believe the number is 1 million). Seating is capped at 435, but the relative power of large states dwarfs small states. California, for example, has 53 Reps. In the House, California is 53 times more powerful than my own state of Montana, which has all of 1 Rep.
With the balance of power between states determined, all that was left was how to elect the chief executive. Here again small states refused to join the Union unless they were allowed some say in who ran the country. The Electoral College, it was finally agreed, would reflect the state population differences in the House of Reps and the state power balance in the Senate. For every seat on the House and the Senate a state would send one elector to the College. Since the size of the House of Representatives is capped, and the Senate equal, so too is the number of electors a state can send. However the key factor here is relative state power. Montana and California each contribute two electors to the College, which reflects state equality in the Union (the 'United' part of United States) . However California has 53 additional electors to send as opposed to our 1. Effectively this puts the power of California vs Montana when selecting the President at 55-3. As you can see, California's vastly greater population Montana is represented. [continued]

When you take into account the fact that Electors MUST vote for whichever candidate won the popular vote in their state, you realize that the Electoral College does ensure that the popular vote determines its ruling.
¨So how then did Trump lose the national popular vote and win the presidency? That's not very fair!" We are the United States of America, not the Autocratic States of the Coast Who Rule a Bunch of Other Suckers In the Boondocks. The Electoral College rebalances the vote from TOTAL state population power to RELATIVE state population power, just like the House of Representatives. It would be undemocratic, and in fact Autocratic, to allow a few cities to control millions of others just because their views are influenced by where they live.

Key Takeaways: People forget that the U.S is supposed to be an alliance of democratic states working together economically and militarily to form the entity known as the United States of America. State governments are elected via a purely democratic vote, but it is not fair for the citizens of a large state to tell the citizens of a smaller state that they have no say in who runs the alliance.

Every vote already counts perfectly.

Trump lost the popular vote by millions. You wanna know why? Because he's a loser that no educated person would vote for.

False...

There was NO POPULAR VOTE in 2016, nor in any election.

NONE. Trump got 0 votes. Clinton got 0 votes.

Their ELECTORS got votes. POPULAR VOTE is a myth and completely irrelevant as our country does not use an unfair and imbalance popular vote, but a well reasoned perfectly function ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Each vote counts within its state. As it should.

And to your lie... 43% of college graduates backed Trump in 2016. So there are at least some educated folks who aren't brainwashed by the "education" system.

You're new to America it seems... There's NEVER been a presidential popular vote... There's been a extrapolation of votes cast for electors and applying them as if they were cast for the candidates. But IN FACT, there is not a popular vote ever. Nor should there be.

Don't know who wins the "fake" popular vote, but Lord willing, Trump wins the Electoral Vote which of course is the only FAIR system there is.

"Btw you should check my most recent images comments, it'll probably trigger you"

I don't get triggered by trolls. And since you refuse to learn as facts are shown to you, you're blocked.

Actually under the electoral college your vote counts more because you have a higher chance of swinging your district and therefore the election.

Everyone already counts. That's been discussed here. Pay attention.

Except we're NOT a democracy... We're a republic... so Electoral College has worked for over 200 years until the uneducated grew in number... Get educated, it's a better solution.

we aren't a democracy...

Direct-democratic nations elect with popular vote.
The USA isn’t a direct-Democratic nation.

So what you're saying is abolishing electoral college, an action which would cause imbalance between the voting power of residents by their state, therefore allowing some people to have more power than others in voting, is great for our country as a democracy?

That's like saying if we gave random sums of cash to the rich the poor people would become richer with more money. It doesn't make sense and seems very biased.

Kamikaze is not a smart person

Smart people can draw bad conclusions from good information without context. People who oppose the College forget that originally the U.S and its citizens were equally concerned with their state sovereignty when balanced against Federal power. We can thank power-hungry maniacs like FDR for destroying that balance.

Without the electoral college, NYC + LA would carry more weight than any states other than the two they are in along with Florida and Texas.

If you believe in protecting minorities, that is exactly what the Electoral College does. It protects people who live in lightly populated states from the tyranny of the majority. New York and California could vote to confiscate all natural resources from fly over country, they could vote to tax the rest of the nation and they pay nothing. The majority cares less about minority populations, only their own self interest.

Their votes count the same as everyone else's as common sense shows. They get one vote each, just like in every other state where each state tallies the votes for their slate of electors. Nothing to fix with the EC, but plenty will break getting rid of it.

Common sense.

And by "simpler" you mean "not well reasoned, thought out, or logical". Yes, popular vote is simpleton system which is why the Founding Fathers discarded it for the much more rational, logical AND FAIR Electoral College. You stand corrected. No go learn something.

and your 1st grade understanding of the EC is shown with your Wyoming example. No, no candidate would ever need to go there... they would just try for the big population centers and ignore 95% of the country.

Popular vote is stupid and has been defeated by all rational voices for many years.

Exactly.

Your point is valid. The concern would be that the presidential election would be ruled by urban centers with rural citizens, farmers and middle America being irrelevant going forward. I believe the founding fathers were brilliant in foreseeing this. Again, your point is valid.

Is there any outcome in the next few years that allows us to go back to civility and respect even with those we disagree with? If you could erase greed and corruption I think any system will probably work.

One man one vote very simply leads to tyranny by the majority. It is over simplistic and ends in the same tyranny You think you are avoiding. Ending the electoral College and going to a one man one vote system will be the end of the USA. But then that s what you guys want anyway.

If the popular vote is tyranny of the majority, then the EC is just tyranny of the majority + tyranny of the minority (sometimes).

Our individual rights aren’t protected by the EC whatsoever. They’re protected by the courts.

The Founders wanted to balance the will of the populace against the risk of “tyranny of the majority,” in which the voices of the masses can drown out minority interests. - Thomas Jefferson

Sometimes it’s not a strict question of rights being protected by the courts. It’s about the INTERESTS of the minority. These are not clearly defined or protected by the courts.

We currently have 1 person, 1 vote in our country... and it works.

Within a state, each person gets ONE VOTE (unless they are dead or democrats) to select who their state's electors will be pledged to.

Getting rid of the EC does nothing except create imbalance in the voting system and allow the more populated urban areas to get an disparate voice in the election.

Nope... it's working perfectly and no change is required. 1 person, 1 vote is already functioning.

No. It was set to be a safeguard should the masses vote stupid, AND it was a compromise to give smaller populated states more say. Popular vote means 4 states elect the president and the rest don’t matter.

The fact that the EC did not intervene to stop Trump’s election (a stupid decision if there ever was one) puts that argument to bed.

All the EC does as a practical matter is allow the popular vote loser to sometimes win.

The largest 4 states cannot possibly elect the President under a national popular vote, even if 100% of their citizens voted the same way (which they wouldn’t). The math doesn’t add up.

The EC had no standing to "stop" Trump's legitimate election by the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

Populate vote is properly irrelevant and the few times where the faux Popular Vote (since none is factually even taken), it's PROVED the EC is working as designed. The whiny "unfair" liberals just want to get rid of the EC because they don't understand the intelligence behind it, why it works so well, and the fairness it brings to the one-person, one-vote system.

And like anything liberals don't understand they just want to kill it!

Kamikaze respectfully...The experiment isn't over but rather just getting steam. The "hivemind" is alive and well on both sides. Misinformation and half truths are everywhere. Unbiased info is harder than ever to find. It seems that four or five companies control MSM and three control the lion's share of info on the internet. We get most of our information from social media, memes and 30 second sound bites.

Even as it relates to the virus, is there anywhere to get a meaningful debate from both sides with an unbiased moderator? A talking head asks a medical expert a very complicated question and then tells them "we are running out of time you have 30 seconds". It is insanity. Noam Chomsky has some very valid positions on this phenomena.

I think Joseph Goebbels would be proud of what our media is accomplishing today on both sides of the aisle. So, yes, I do believe we are not far from pockets of the country potentially walking in lockstep and voting nearly 100% in unison. 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 seem more prophetic than ever.

All the best and stay safe.

Unbiased media isn’t hard to find: it’s hiding right in plain sight. We are not a Joseph Goebbels or 1984 style society. Not yet anyway.

However, there’s been a sustained campaign over decades from the American right-wing to discredit these legitimate outlets as “fake news” and now we have a President who thinks the same.

Fight confirmation bias. Read these sources, listen to them, even if what they say disagrees with you politically. Reject the “soma” (Brave New World reference there) of unreliable news that substantiates your pre-existing beliefs.

Love the "Soma" reference! How crazy is it that the drug is "fictional" in 1932 and then big pharma decides to make it real?

I disagree with unbiased info being readily available. Have you followed the human trafficking arrests / stings / rescues that have taken place in the US since mid August? You are right...These stories are readily available if you painstakingly search local news outlets in markets across the country but how is this not big enough for Fox News or CNN to focus on? Operation Not Forgotten rescued 39 children, as young as 3 years old, near Atlanta and was not reported on for two full days on MSM after in broke on local Atlanta media sites. Operation Safety Net rescued a few dozen more in Ohio one day prior. There are at least 20 events like this since mid August and even ST George, Utah just got into the act. I think it is safe to say that 95% + Americans oppose human trafficking so nothing to see here.

When was the last time there was ANY news on the MSM that did not divide us down the middle. Even the killing of George Floyd feels off. First a video that outraged 99% of us. Then slowly...criminal record, drug use, Covid positive...Did he really drive wasted to get to the store and then was first approached while ready to drive away while heavily intoxicated? As soon as we are divided 50/50 it's on to the next subject. Theater for the masses I think. Could Kyle Rittenhouse be any more divisive? I guess it's good to know we have 17 year old kids that can keep their composure better than most Army Ranger's in a military type situation? It simply feels off.

While I lean right politically quite often, I definitely fall left on universal health care, minimum wage, decriminalization of all drugs for simple possession, mental health care spending and stopping the never ending war machine to name a few things. I have great respect for far lefties Noam Chomsky and Dr. Cornel West. I think I do a pretty good job of fighting confirmation bias and have refused to watch Fox News, MSNBC or CNN for the past two years or so. How can anyone respect or like Hannity, Maddow, Limbaugh or Lemon?

Thanks for the respectful and decent dialogue. Hopefully we can get back to a place where we are Americans first and ALL other labels become secondary.

Ight then, have an upvote for the cogent and respectful paragraphs.

Tbh I was hopeful that Trump would take the GOP in a new and better direction after the warmongering of the Bush Administration.

And there are bright spots to the Trump Administration if you look hard enough — things like standing up to China, keeping us out of major new wars — but the corruption, self-dealing, gaslighting, lack of prioritizing climate change, stabbing our European allies in the back while being too friendly with strongmen, lack of a healthcare plan and dismal Covid response are deal-breakers.

The Democratic Party has quietly adopted most of the beneficial aspects of Trumpism to be honest.

I was more hopeful too! I am not sure how much of the Trump nightmares are true and how many are the constant barrage we get from the "television programming". I think it is impossible for anyone to deny that he acts like a buffoon all too often.

If we can believe anything from the MSM...We are not bombing Syria and Iraq after bombing them daily since 2001...Israel and the UAE have entered into a historic peace deal as has Croatia and Serbia...Human trafficking arrests / rescues are at record levels. Is there a major war going on overtly anywhere?

While I am pessimistic about the direction the country is heading either way, one thing I am sure of...If we don't all start being a little more respectful and civil to each other we are in even bigger trouble.

False... all of your talking points have been soundly beaten over the last 20 years or more.

The Electoral College works and insures that ALL VOTES COUNT and that ALL STATES get a proportional vote in the presidency.

FACT: There is NO popular vote taken ever... In 2016, Trump got 0 votes and Clinton got 0 votes.

People vote FOR ELECTORS in their state who are to cast THEIR Electoral Vote for the candidate to which they are pledged. Never been a popular vote and never will be...

And the cartoon is spot on accurate. If you don't get it, you need a remedial civics class and quit spouting nonsense about something you don't understand.

If people CHOOSE to not take part because their state is "red" or "blue", that's on them. Don't destroy an EXCELLENT system because some folks are too lazy to vote.

It's ain't broke. Don't break it.

Amen.

A popular vote in each state determines the electors that it sends to the College each year. The relative power of states in the College is based off their population (they get the same number of electors as they get senators and house reps). It was the only way Rhode Island would agree to ratify the Constitution, because otherwise they would never matter as a state when it came to national affairs. Imperfect? Perhaps, but an excellent balance of personal and state determination.

The southern states never would have ratified the Constitution without protections for slavery: And yet, we abolished slavery nonetheless when we recognized it was an impediment to freedom and democracy.

The same can and should happen re: the Electoral College.

A line can be drawn between fundamentally inhuman practices (slavery), and fundamentally sound practices (apportionment of state and Federal power through the House of Reps, Senate, and Electoral College). Opposing one doesn't necessitate opposing the other. In the interest of simplicity I'll wait for you to respond to my larger post before.

The fundamental problem with that viewpoint, though it would be valid for a singular country, is that the United States is just that; a Union of States. Each state guaranteed for itself a degree of legal autonomy when they came together to ratify the Constitution. Back then loyalty to your state was equally important as loyalty to the country. It's not an outdated concept by any means; It is in fact more free since people can move to a state that most closely embodies its values. However, since the dramatic expansion of government power in the early 20th century people have forgotten that their state's governance should affect their lives more than whoever runs Washington (which originally was supposed to only mediate intrastate disputes and set foreign policy).
This forgetfulness was replaced by a desire in many people to see that the Federal government take on an increasingly large role in smaller matters that could be left to individual states. It's from, or rather because of, this that support for the College is derived. People who support it want to see a generally decrease in the influence of Washington over state affairs and therefore allow us all to live how we see fit. Those who hate the current President at any time can feel safer knowing he can't radically override state authority. Those who live in rural states with one set of values don't have to worry about the residents of a sprawling city hundreds or thousands of miles, one whose unique economic situation generates for them another set of values, controlling their lives through Washington.

Key Takeaway: Abolishing the College would mean fundamentally changing the United States of America from what it is (An economic and military alliance of democratic republics, guided but not ruled by a Federal government) to what Progressives have been trying for a century to make it (a massive, singular democratic state that inherently necessitates further expansion of Federal power, allowing rogue actors [like Trump, in your eyes] to override the rights of citizens who formerly enjoyed the privilege of their state autonomy acting as a buffer against Federal overreach).