AZGrizFan wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
I didn't say he didn't win according the system we have. But he got a lower percentage of the overall vote among US Citizens than Romney did. He's not the choice of "The People." I do think what happened in 2016 confirmed, if there was any previous doubt, that we need to get rid of the Electoral College system.
I am "prepared" for 6 more years if it happens. But let's hope that it doesn't. And it's a reasonable hope. We are not talking about a guy who is supported by a majority of the People. We are talking about a guy who has consistently NOT been supported by a majority of the People.
What happened in 2016 confirmed precisely WHY there is an Electoral College system. As a resident of a state that would become even MORE irrelevant (if that were even possible), I would think you would understand that. You want all your national policy decisions made by California and NY? Not me, motherfucker.
Yup. The Electoral College is there precisely for the idea that an overwhelming majority of a single region or state, if populous enough, could tilt an election every time. It's the whole reason the Senate, despite Madison's best effort (advocating for a Virginia that could tilt elections based on population), is equal representation rather than proportional. The only time the Electoral College has been controversial is when the electorate has been pretty evenly split. The system isn't the problem, it's the quality of the candidates running. Get better candidates and this isn't an issue. And really, we're never going to get enough states to change the Constitution to change the setup of the Senate or the Electoral College so moaning about it does little other than provide an outlet to moan.