Trump is president; Who is to blame?

[Excited Penguin]

My  point is simple and we can put this issue to bed.

Let Drich speak. That is all.

Literally nobody is preventing him from speaking.  Doesn't mean we have to listen.

You are inviting these useless discussions yourself. You commented on the fact that he spoke and on your intention to put him on ignore. You didn't have to share that information, I still don't know why you did so. But, regardless , the moment that you did , you opened yourself up for criticism about that action.

[Crossless2.0]

The electoral college would work far better (not saying it'd be perfect) if we just got rid of the first-past-the post system.  The fact that someone can win a state by less than 1%, but then gets electoral votes equal to 100% of its population is like saying that half the state's desires don't matter.

It's probably done that way to differentiate between the state and the country at the political level. I don't really see how the results would be different , though, if only that were changed. Supposedly if a politician got the more majority votes from all the States then that means most people from all the states combined voted for him. 

What am I missing here?

FaF is suggesting awarding the states' electoral votes in proportion to each state's popular vote. I'm very sympathetic to this idea. The way electoral votes are awarded now is an anachronism that goes back to the old days when people more closely identified as Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians, etc. than as Americans. We shouldn't be conducting 50 fucking presidential elections every four years. It should be one national election either based on popular vote count or, if the EC is to be retained, on proportional awarding of the votes.

[The Grand Nudger]

What am I missing here?

That the number of electoral college votes is not -actually- uniformly representative of population, or that getting a majority in the majority of states won't -actually- get you the majority vote (actually...we're seeing that now, where clinton carried just a few states, and is still gong to snag the majority).  

I suppose we could do the math and work up how many electoral college votes clinton would have gotten if they parcelled them out based on percentage, and also just allowing that some votes are worth more than others....and I'm guessing clinton would have had more than she did, and trump less.  That's just a guess, I could check.

[abaris]

FaF is suggesting awarding the states' electoral votes in proportion to each state's popular vote. I'm very sympathetic to this idea. The way electoral votes are awarded now is an anachronism that goes back to the old days when people more closely identified as Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians, etc. than as Americans. We shouldn't be conducting 50 fucking presidential elections every four years. It should be one national election either based on popular vote count or, if the EC is to be retained, on proportional awarding of the votes.

I'm rather surprised that the popular vote takes the backseat here. Far as the latest news go, Clinton would have won by a margin of give or take 200.000 in that category. Not a tremendous victory, but the people obviously favored her and yet the system hands Trump the presidency.

[Faith No More]

It's not equal, but that doesn't mean it can't be worse.

That makes zero sense. How could feeling sick of someone's talk ever possibly be worse than actively trying to silence them?

[John V]

I'm rather surprised that the popular vote takes the backseat here. Far as the latest news go, Clinton would have won by a margin of give or take 200.000 in that category. Not a tremendous victory, but the people obviously favored her and yet the system hands Trump the presidency.

Except the EC affects the popular vote. Some Republicans in deep blue states, and Democrats in deep red states, may be skipping elections now, whereas they'd vote if it was decided by popular vote. There's no way to know which way that would swing and by how much. Also, the candidates' efforts in some areas would likely change.

[The Grand Nudger]

There would be a -hell- of alot less incentive to campaign anywhere but the largest cities in the states, and even then mostly in the largest cities within the group of largest cities - states be damned-.  No reason to do "townhall" type bullshit.

[Crossless2.0]

FaF is suggesting awarding the states' electoral votes in proportion to each state's popular vote. I'm very sympathetic to this idea. The way electoral votes are awarded now is an anachronism that goes back to the old days when people more closely identified as Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians, etc. than as Americans. We shouldn't be conducting 50 fucking presidential elections every four years. It should be one national election either based on popular vote count or, if the EC is to be retained, on proportional awarding of the votes.

I'm rather surprised that the popular vote takes the backseat here. Far as the latest news go, Clinton would have won by a margin of give or take 200.000 in that category. Not a tremendous victory, but the people obviously favored her and yet the system hands Trump the presidency.

The same thing happened to Gore.

[Crossless2.0]

There would be a -hell- of alot less incentive to campaign anywhere but the largest cities in the states, and even then mostly in the largest cities within the largest cities.  No reason to do "townhall" type bullshit.

That's true, but alpha male also has a point. There are a lot of people in consistently red or blue states who feel there is no reason to bother voting since their vote won't overcome historically wide margins that favor the party they oppose. Whether you are a conservative in Massachusetts or a liberal in Wyoming, the electoral college as we currently practice it is a strong disincentive to participate.

Even if it was the end of retail politics and townhall meetings/debates, we could count on the media covering the major candidates and disseminating their talking points even if they never ventured out of the largest metropolitan areas. And of course, if they restricted their active campaigning to those population centers, they would expose themselves to backlash from voters in the so-called fly-over areas who felt dismissed and ignored. One way or another, candidates are going to have to figure out ways to reach voters in every area and from all walks of life if the current EC system was eliminated or reformed.

[Tonus]

That's true, but alpha male also has a point. There are a lot of people in consistently red or blue states who feel there is no reason to bother voting since their vote won't overcome historically wide margins that favor the party they oppose. Whether you are a conservative in Massachusetts or a liberal in Wyoming, the electoral college as we currently practice it is a strong disincentive to participate.

But we don't only elect a President. We elect the senators and representatives that put a check on his/her power.

I'd look into fixing the problems with gerrymandering before getting rid of the electoral college.