Trump is president; Who is to blame?

[FatAndFaithless]

Not even getting rid of the EC. Really just getting rid of first-past-the-post.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

I favor looking into both simultaneously.

[Jackalope]

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

Let Drich speak. That is all.

Nobody is stopping him, and the rest of us have the right to speak as well, so fuck off.

[LastPoet]

US citizens voted for Trump. I only blame after the fact that he fucked up. Mabe he can bring a better new world. Most of his ideas say otherwise. Ah well. There isn't much a Tuga can do but shrug and business as usual.

https://youtu.be/U_jNklBqVCA

[Crossless2.0]

It occurs to me that Republican nominees seem to have hit on a sure-fire way to avoid assassination attempts. H.W. Bush had Quayle. W. had Cheney. McCain had Palin. And now Trump has given us a certified Jesus freak who has no problem enacting discriminatory policies.

It's genius.

[abaris]

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

Gerrymandering is the movement of district borders, isn't it? How's that a problem? Because of different demographics?

[Tonus]

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

Gerrymandering is the movement of district borders, isn't it? How's that a problem? Because of different demographics?

Yes, it's the reshaping of districts.  Sometimes the shapes become quite elaborate and complex in order to favor one demographic over another, which leads to groups being underrepresented, or not represented at all.  I consider it an example of an idea that was originated to promote fairness and has been twisted into a way of disenfranchising citizens.

[Crossless2.0]

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

Gerrymandering is the movement of district borders, isn't it? How's that a problem? Because of different demographics?

Yes, the party in power can basically create their own safe zones in which the incumbents face no serious chance of losing. If you ever look at a map of congressional districts, you'll find the most tortured shapes known to man outside of a topology text.

[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 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.

Not saying that it isn't...but there would be an even stringer disincentive for reds, particularly, if we made elections a matter of who could win the big cities.  Blues have been doing that...even in red states.  

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.

If you thought you could count on that you must be thinking the way Hillary thought about it...and we see that it cost her the election, but only because of the electoral college as it currently applies...where trump only needed to tilt a few votes in town and crush, predictably, outside city limits.

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.

But why would you need the smaller percentage of voters loosely spread out over a larger area if you could win it in the cities alone?

[Excited Penguin]

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?

Because your actions matter. Your expressing that wish for no other reason than to entertain the ever-growing and self-sustaining to an extent circle jerk that formed around that issue is counterproductive on all counts. Let's entertain the idea that Drich is wrong and not a troll(I remain neutral for the purpose of making this point, this is to be regarded as purely hypothetical). 

What does your treating him as you do accomplish ? 

What would a more positive attitude bring to the table?

Why don't you try and find out ?