It wonât happen but yes i agree, the electoral college is a joke.
Presidential races should be decided on Popular vote. EAch vote should count on its own right.
On that count , Clinton won with over 200,000 more votes then Trump. The voices of those votes didnât count with the Electoral College system.
If you remove the EC and transform the US in a âpureâ Democracy, the the voices of people living in 90% of the country would become useless, as everything would be decided by people living in large metropolitan areas and candidates wouldnât even waste time travelling elsewhere.
Which is fine of course, as long s your favored party/candidate party can get more votes in the metropolitan area.
Um, are you sure about that? I donât have a time machine, so I havenât seen the result from December 2016.
A few states have already abandoned the winner-take-all system or pledged to abandon it if other states do, so you donât even need a constitutional amendment. Thatâs arguably more progressive than the current situation in Canada!
Snowflake Lives MatterâŚ
Well, they were predicting riots after the election. But they were also predicting a Clinton win. Thatâs one out of two.
Half of the people in that video donât even seem to be old enough to vote -_-
It turns out half the Portland rioters werenât registered to vote in Oregon. Give a lot of credence to the allegations of outside agitators.
And they were busing them in in Chicago.
Give them credit for organization, though. Thuggery is something theyâre good at.
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-than-half-of-arrested-anti-trump-protesters-didnt-vote/351964445
I donât support getting rid of the electoral college, but am curious as to your reasoning. Why should the votes of the persons living in the 90% of the country where a minority of the people live count as much or more than the votes of persons living the 10% of the country where the majority of the people live? In the âpureâ system you mention, we would just be counting the popular vote of individuals- their geography of origin wouldnât matter. And in a pure democracy I would value the voice of the people over the voice of the places (otherwise it wouldnât be a pure democracy, just another version of a representative republic).
I support the EC because overall, not necessarily counting this election, it tends to produce centrist candidates and restrains more extreme views. That moderation, admittedly comes at the expense of pure democracy.
Money and politics.
They donât count as much or more, which is the way the EC works. It simply makes sure that every state will play a role in the final result of the election, even if itâs smaller/less populated than others.
The EC as it stands now correctly gives more importance to larger, more populated states, without having them completely overwehelm the rest of the nation.
Itâs not a system that I consider right or wrong, itâs just the system that the founders of the US decided to use and I think it gets the job done in a reasonable fashion.
This spurred up something I was thinking about recently. Bill de Blasio (I know, I know, but still), after meeting for 90 (one assumes psychotically awkward) minutes with President-Elect Cheeto McBabypuke, said, apparently in response to questions about Jesus in my Orange Peelâs campaign promise/threat to re-introduce Stop & Frisk
âWeâre never going backâ to stop-and-frisk, de Blasio said, also pointing out that there are some 900 Muslim members of the New York City police force.
Interesting enough on its own, but it echoed a sentiment I expressed the other night to another poster, that is, even if they somehow manage to activate deportation of the bazillion undocumented visitorsâŚwho in the jeez is going to do it??
I mean, the hands-on operatives of HS and its agencies are richly populated by folks of color (all kinds of colors, in fact), you know?
Nice.
As The Mighty Snoop said a while ago
Man, I can totally motherfuckinâ see Trump being President. Wouldnât be the first motherfuckinâ time he ran a black family out they homeâŚ
So youâre suggesting that people wonât do the jobs theyâve been hired to do (i.e. enforce the law) because of the uhâŚcolor of their skin? HmmâŚ
Surely Trump will have freedom of conscience legislation so people wonât lose their jobs because they canât do things that go against their deepest moral convictions.
You would be in favor of such legislation? To protect people like Kim Davis who didnât want to marry gay couples because it went against her moral convictions? Or just in the cases which you think are morally justified?
You got the allusion, but missed the point No, Iâd be against such legislation.
Terrorize the vote!
Theyâre only against the Electoral College when it doesnât do what they want. Now theyâre trying to grab its pussy.
Boulder, boulder on the ground
Tell me something real profound
Lena who?