If electoral college was ended, could the republicans EVER win another election?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

People aren't rational. For example, I'm going to keep saying "people aren't rational" to someone who isn't listening, in the vain hope that maybe the fifty-third time's the charm. Clinton had zero brand power. You keep clucking about how she harped on the First Woman President bit, but she never actually visually showed the trendiness. She thought facts would win the day. But we live in a country where 13% of voters believe Barack Obama is the Antichrist. And not all of them were Romney voters.

And yet she still got more actual votes than Trump.

I agree with you that people aren't rational...but what you are failing to explain is your theory that Democrats only vote for Trendy Candidates. Registered Democrats vote for the Democratic Candidate. Registered Republicans vote for the Republican Candidate. "Trendiness" doesn't really come into play for these people.

If Trendiness is a factor at all...it comes into play regarding people that aren't really attached to either party.

When it comes to actual Trendiness...Trump is the winner. Hillary may be a female...but she acts and talks like every other politician. Trump, on the other hand does not. He didn't run a traditional campaign, he said and did things that a traditional politician wouldn't do.

If Democrats wanted a "trendy" candidate...Bernie Sanders would have won the nomination. He's an old white guy sure...but, like Trump, he wasn't acting like a traditional politician.

[Nadiru]

And yet she still got more actual votes than Trump.

I agree with you that people aren't rational...but what you are failing to explain is your theory that Democrats only vote for Trendy Candidates. Registered Democrats vote for the Democratic Candidate. Registered Republicans vote for the Republican Candidate. "Trendiness" doesn't really come into play for these people.

If Trendiness is a factor at all...it comes into play regarding people that aren't really attached to either party.

I never said Democrats were the only culpable group here, and how could I think that if I recognize Trump is a hallucination of branding and media coverage? But again, another good example of self-delusion. You interject your own story into what I said and caused your brain to make shit up.

[Deleted]

Fun Fact: California is what put Hillary over the top. If you took away California, Trump lead the popular vote in the other 49 states. This is election was just fine, there is nothing wrong with the Electoral College. People just need to calm down.

There's everything wrong with it. Even if you think the EC should exist to give smaller states a larger voice, there's no reason the votes in those states could not be assigned proportionately.

Winner takes all causes widespread voter disenfranchisement and only brings into play swing states.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I never said Democrats were the only culpable group here, and how could I think that if I recognize Trump is a hallucination of branding and media coverage? But again, another good example of self-delusion. You interject your own story into what I said and caused your brain to make shit up.

Actually you said exactly that:

Democrats vote for trendy candidates. Making history by electing a black man whose father was a goatherder was way more trendy than making history by electing a privileged, rich, white woman. But the Dems have run out of bullets for that gun at present.

If you had said "A lot of People vote for trendy candidates"...there wouldn't be an issue.

[Nadiru]

Actually you said exactly that:

Yeah? I said only Democrats did this? The word "only" doesn't even show up in that post. Stop hallucinating.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yeah? I said only Democrats did this? The word "only" doesn't even show up in that post. Stop hallucinating.

You specifically called out democrats for doing something and conveniently neglected Republicans doing the exact same thing. Stop backpedaling.

[Valizix]

Even if you think the EC should exist to give smaller states a larger voice, there's no reason the votes in those states could not be assigned proportionately.

You mean like California having the biggest vote in the country?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You mean like California having the biggest vote in the country?

Not proportionately.

[Nadiru]

You specifically called out democrats for doing something and conveniently neglected Republicans doing the exact same thing. Stop backpedaling.

The local topic was about Democrats, you'll remember. Should I include statements about the weather in Chicago on the day of the election since that's tangentially related to the topic at hand, too?

[Valizix]

Not proportionately.

Trump won a majority of the states, majority of the counties, majority of the electorate, and outside of Californa....he won the majority of the popular vote in the other 49. Hillary did not win in any capacity that actually mattered.

I will say this tho Trump did lie...I'm not tired of winning!!!!

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The local topic was about Democrats, you'll remember. Should I include statements about the weather in Chicago on the day of the election since that's tangentially related to the topic at hand, too?

No, but if you meant "Some people only vote for Trendy candidates" than that's what you should have said. If you had said that...there would be no reason for me to call you out on it.

Instead you specifically said "Democrats vote for trendy candidates". The only way to interpret that statement as written is exactly how I interpreted it. If there was any miscommunication, the fault for that lies solely with you and your apparent inability to say what you actually mean.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump won a majority of the states, majority of the counties, majority of the electorate, and outside of Californa....he won the majority of the popular vote in the other 49. Hillary did not win in any capacity that actually mattered.

We're talking about the distribution of electoral votes...not the results of the election. If the Electoral votes were distributed propotionately...California would have a different amount of Electoral Votes.

EDIT: I withdraw my objection...I misunderstood the context of the discussion.

[Deleted]

You mean like California having the biggest vote in the country?

California has the largest say, but it does not directly scale with their population.

But you miss my point. Each state in the US should assign their EV's proportionately.

- - - Updated - - -

We're talking about the distribution of electoral votes...not the results of the election. If the Electoral votes were distributed propotionately...California would have a different amount of Electoral Votes.

Not quite. I meant actual assignment of them.

So Alaska returns 3 EVs. If they were returned proportionately, 1 would have gone to the Democrats.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Not quite. I meant actual assignment of them.

So Alaska returns 3 EVs. If they were returned proportionately, 1 would have gone to the Democrats.

Ah, my bad...i missed the part about you talking about the winner take all system in most states.

[Valizix]

California has the largest say, but it does not directly scale with their population.

Sorry you can't magically have 40 million votes, I know it really sucks.

[Deleted]

Sorry you can't magically have 40 million votes, I know it really sucks.

When did I say that? I didn't. Read my arguments.

California has less voting power per person than any other state. That's voter disenfranchisement at play, and combined with winner-takes-all, it's a rubbish system.

[KSM899]

I won't take it as far as Hitler yet, but this is the scary part.

I don't envy the GoP politicians the amount of mental gymnastics they've had to do, but they really do look like a bunch of timorous invertebrates right now.

Well, Hitler wasn't born a dictator, he gained support and later was "Elected" .. He was elected .. imagine that lol!
Trump might not turn to be the Hitler we think, but he will pave the way for the Hitler we fear

" timorous invertebrates " .. new words for me .. thanks

[veehro]

OR the Republican party can define a platform that commands the votes of a majority of voters, rather than relying on voter suppression,

Saying stuff like that just shows how utterly indoctrinated people on the far left have become.

All you have to do is to look at other nations and see that an overwhelming majority of them require a person to show some form of ID in order to vote.

Otherwise the vote would be on an honor system where you go in and just claim you have not voted before and that you are an US citizen and they would only have your honesty to rely on.

Imagine if you could go to a bank and without showing any identification what so ever, they would allow you to make a 100,000$ loan.

If the bank would say no for obvious reasons you wouldn't start complaining that the bank is racist and is supressing poor people from making loans would you?!


The fact that I actually have to explain this..Jesus Christ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

[Sargerasraider]

No they did not win the popular vote for the house again. They lost the popular vote for the house both in 2012 and 2014. They won it for the first time in 6 years by a 3 million majority. That should amount to a tiny majority in the house not a 50 seat advantage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...lections,_2014

They won the popular vote in 2014. (Not sure if you're just lying or you didn't bother to check).

2012 was the only election in recent memory where the winner of the popular vote for the House lost the overall tally.

[Very Tired]

Both sides would adjust to the new change as minority voices from non-swing states came out in droves. It's not as easy to predict exactly what would happen unless it actually happens.

[vetinari]

I think the republicans are one or two legislatures away from being able to unilaterally amend the constitution.

Of course, its rather unlikely that they would get rid of the electoral college. . .