What's the talk about the election not yet being decided? Trump is President whether you like it or not, end of story. Get over it. I got over it for the last 8 `years, it's your turn.
...I understand all the talk...Trump WILL most likely be elected POTUS by the EC, despite one of his opponents having gotten over 2,000,000 votes more than Trump got (nationwide). To a lot of us who believe strongly in the idea of "one man, one vote" the idea that the "loser" gets the job flies in the face of everything we were taught. IMHO it is just wrong...
So, you'd be fine with the idea of one state's population dictating to the population of the other 49 who the president of the entire country will be then?
E.g.: This is an extreme illustration outlining what the 'College is designed to prevent, but, for the sake of argument - just go with it for a minute.
Let's just say 51% of the entire population lives in California...and everybody in Cali votes for "candidate A". Let's just say everybody ELSE in every other state in the union votes for "candidate B". Candidate "A" would thereby win the popular vote and thus the election...and, thereafter, ONLY the interests of Cali would guide the president's domestic econ & social policy decisions if he wanted to be re-elected. Little if anything else of concern around the rest of country would be considered...even though the rest of the country would STILL be paying their "fair share" of taxes to support whatever Cali wanted...which probably would mean financially supporting measures detrimental to their own interests in many cases.
Question: Is THAT "just wrong"???
Well, as I understand it, if 51% of the population of the USA lived in CA the number of representatives for CA would reflect that fact and therefore the number of EC votes held by CA would be enough to elect the POTUS if the EC were going to do the electing.
It doesn't matter if she got 20,000,000 more votes it the electoral votes
How many states passed voter I.D. laws?
How'd that work out?
So, you'd be fine with the idea of one state's population dictating to the population of the other 49 who the president of the entire country will be then?
E.g.: This is an extreme illustration outlining what the 'College is designed to prevent, but, for the sake of argument - just go with it for a minute.
Let's just say 51% of the entire U.S. population lives in California...and everybody in Cali votes for "candidate A". Let's just say everybody ELSE in every other state in the union votes for "candidate B". Candidate "A" would thereby win the popular vote and thus the election...and, thereafter, ONLY the interests of Cali residents would guide President A's domestic econ & social policy decisions if he wanted to be re-elected. Little if anything else of concern around the rest of country would be considered...even though the rest of the country would STILL be paying their "fair share" of taxes to support whatever Cali wanted...which probably would mean financially supporting measures detrimental to their own interests in many cases.
Question: Is THAT "just wrong"???
The only elected office (or ballot proposition) in the country where it's not one person, one vote.
It has always seemed strange to me that you guys seem to want a king to rule over you.
The difference being: The president will 'rule' over all of the separate, individual states collectively...or separate, individual nations collectively, if you will. Each of those individual states has its own specific interests/histories/economic base/laws/cultural makeup/customs, blah, blah, blah. So whereas a state, county, or city election deals with and affects ONLY those who reside in those particular jurisdictions - a presidential race will have an affect on everybody residing in every individual state in the country.
...
And you said rule before I did. ;p
Tim.
...unless you are a believer in the "...one man, one vote" promise we were all force-fed as students...then it becomes a HUGE matter, Al!
Like RodKnock says...every other office for which any/all of us vote is decided by popular vote...why not the POTUS? We now have technology that can gather the vote tallies almost instantaneously, we no longer have to wait for the X number of representatives from Calif and Nevada and Oregon and....well, you get the idea...to ALL travel to Washington, DC or Philadelphia, PA, or where-ever the Electoral College gathered, so that the votes could be counted. The distances involved meant it took a long time to get clear back across the width of the U.S. and so the E.C. most likely met in early January, when those the furtherest from the capital could finally make it to the gathering. No wonder the inauguration had to be postponed until late January.
That brings up another issue...with our current status of technology, we could know almost instantaneously what the national popular vote is and have an inauguration much more quickly, no need to wait 2+ months for all the votes to be countable. As it is the current POTUS is a "Lame Duck" for almost 2 months...and nothing gets done.
The bottom line is that the EC is no longer necessary, and in fact is counterproductive if it is inaugurating a candidate who came in second in the popular vote...we need to get rid of it and hold our election for POTUS in the same manner we elect EVERY other representative/senator, etc.
Cheers for those who recognize the problem and endorse solving the issue!
Doug
The difference being: The president will 'rule' over all of the separate, individual states collectively...or separate, individual nations collectively, if you will. Each of those individual states has its own specific interests/histories/economic base/laws/cultural makeup/customs, blah, blah, blah. So whereas a state, county, or city election deals with and affects ONLY those who reside in those particular jurisdictions - a presidential race will have an affect on everybody residing in every individual state in the country.
So, as has been mentioned ad nauseam, the 'College was set up to try to give each individual state (and by extension that state's interests) as equal a say in the outcome of a presidential race as possible since the individual states are what make up the United States as a whole. (We can beat the minutia to death regarding what led up to its final form...but, in the end that doesn't change its purpose.) Like you said, individual VOTERS can and DO move here and there on a whim...but, the borders of each individual state, and each individual state government, and the specific interests OF each state always stay right where they are.
Beyond that, at this point I'm at a loss to come up with a better way to 'splain' it...
:chug:
Doug, I understand how you feel, but it's not what you believe, it's what is the law, We operate on Electoral votes, not how many homes you own, or your gender or popular vote. Change it if you want, but that's what counts now.