As far as I know, the electoral colleges and the electors were implemented to prevent the election of a populist character that might not be good for the country. Like Trump. So, it is a failed system.
Overall, it was made as an undemocratic system, as electors could swing the vote of the people differently if they thought the vote was populist. What's funny is that in this election they also swung the vote differently because of how the electoral colleges were drawn.
Romania also tried electoral colleges for the Parliament. It resulted in the worst Parliament ever that my country had as it had to be bloated to fit more people according to the votes and people that had a handful of votes in a college got in by tricking those few people. Fortunately after those failed elections, we're now changing it back.
Also, if you think the OP is such a lazy person, why do you even come to this forum and comment? In the end, that's why forums exist: to discuss things. If your only argument is saying the OP and people like him/her are lazy, you're not discussing anything, you're just avoiding the point. But it's cool to be edgy nowadays, isn't it?
You're right, in a democracy if something isn't working correctly, people need to "shut the hell up"
Great thinking! Nothing should ever be changed! I don't even know why we moved from feudal times or why the USA made a move for independence? In the end, they should just have accepted that "blaming the system is bullshit" and should just have "shut the hell up" because "it has been like that for a very freaky long time". In the end "it might look like a joke, but who cares?" It's not like the president of the USA is important in any... oh... wait.
But... we do.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-trump...ct-way-2451745
Hillary had 2,235,663 more votes than Trump.
In a popular vote, Hillary would have won.
calling someone not good for the country when they're not in office but have already made a positive impact
yep.
well no, because the campaigning was focussed towards a particular metric. the popular vote means nothing, other than more illegals voted for hillary than trump.
Last edited by Floopa; 2016-12-04 at 01:23 PM.
You do realize that in the EU bigger countries have a bigger say, don't you?
For example, in the EU parliament at the last elections, Germany had 99 members while Malta had 6.
So, yes, I actually can imagine a prime minister being elected by popular vote in the EU since we already elect our EU parliament members like that.
And I'd be ok with that, because while Malta is a great country, I couldn't put it on an equal footing to Germany or France when electing the Prime Minister.
We know who won the popular vote in an EC election, not in a popular vote election.
It's very likely in a popular vote election, you'd have more people willing to vote, in particular in states that in the EC voting are generally locked to one party where it would embolden the minority side to vote as their vote would no longer by an exercise in futility.
Would that tip a popular vote towards Trump? I couldn't tell you. It's sort of uncharted seas for the U.S.
Oh, EC is moot then. Internet vote ( or any other means of one individual = one valid vote) also counts minority. And minority of Cali could make a difference as soon the other states vote as the Cali minority did.
As of now the reps of Cali could have easily stayed at home; their votes were for the thrash bin. But same situation for dems in Texas. Let their votes count is a good idea to get them off their asses and to polling station.
You just have to forget the "but muh state should matter" nonsense in a presidential ballot.
Voting in the United States probably matters more than it matters anywhere in the world, when you factor in the full scope of what you get to vote about.
The limited understanding of those who mistakenly think this country is supposed to have a singular nation-wide popular vote for the President is their problem, not a flaw in our system.
The Electoral College wasn't prevented as a ward against this kind of President or that kind of President -- it was invented so that Congress would still be the template for the body that elected the President, without letting the actual Congress do it. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. The Framers would have preferred a joint session of Congress elect the President but realized that would obviously be a major checks and balances issue, so they set up a proxy Congress that gets put together every four years for that single purpose.
Before you people freak out how "undemocratic" EC is, see how "democratic" votes are distributed on the other side of the ocean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apport...ean_Parliament
Thats the reason why brexit happened. The EU showed that they are caring less and less about sovereignty and they voted to leave. EC represents the people of the state. Youve fallin for a narrative that you don't matter and that is unfortunate. Your vote (if you voted) is represented in the rules your state made to guide your electors. Get involved in your state and make changes there. Or have a campaign to spread your beliefs. Doing so doesn't mean you'll win a majority over and it also doesn't mean they have to agree with you.
Are we talking about presidency? Actually we do a 2-round voting. So, if someone doesn't get 50%+1 of the votes from first voting round(in which case he or she is elected president directly), a second round with the 2 most voted people takes place.
Also, we do the voting based on population. That means that one city, the capital, Bucharest, has 1/10 of the entire voting power of the country in the presidential elections. And everyone is ok with that.
Alright. All your doing is arguing a popular vote. That's it. Welcome to the party, it's been going on for seemingly decades, but it's still lively and there's plenty of punch.
You've not remotely explained why the INTERNET suddenly levels the field for smaller states in a popular election. Thus making the EC moot.
You're not the original poster I quoted, so I'm not surprised you can't answer where his logic lies, because I'm pretty sure it's somewhere out in orbit. Not sure why you even bothered to reply to be quite honest.
Understand, those who are so convinced that the states don't matter, that the states don't even have to let citizens participate directly in choosing the state's electors. Any state that wished could change its law before 2020 and just have the state legislature, for instance, choose the electors, or give the Governor the power to appoint them, for example.