Slashdot Asks: Should The US Abolish The Electoral College?

Last night as votes were still being counted, statistician and editor-in-chief for FiveThirtyEight Nate Silver pointed out that while Donald Trump has been elected president of the United States, "it's possible, perhaps even likely, that [Hillary Clinton] will eventually win the popular vote as more votes come in from California." We now know that she has indeed won the popular vote by a slim margin. American journalist Carl Bialik adds via Silver's blog: Hillary Clinton could still conceivably win the election -- or she could lose the national popular vote. But since both outcomes look unlikely, we should start preparing ourselves for the possibility of the second split between the national popular vote and the electoral vote in the last five presidential elections. A coalition of 11 sates with 165 electoral votes between them has agreed to an interstate compact that, once signed by states with a combined 270 or more electoral votes, would bind their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote -- in effect ending the Electoral College. New York just joined this week. It wasn't enough to affect this election, but maybe today's result will spur more states to join. The results of this election echo the 2000 results, where Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the White House. It brings into question whether or not the Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote. As a refresher, the Electoral College is comprised of electors that cast their votes for president. Each state has a set number of electors that is based on the state's population -- the candidate who wins the state's popular vote gets those electors. Technically, on Election Day, the American people are electing the electors who elect the president. The New York Times has a lengthy article describing how the Electoral College works, which you can view here.

Comments

yes they should

[Anonymous Coward]

yes they should

Re:yes they should

[cayenne8]

No, they should not.

The electoral college is there for a reason and serves a purpose.

Could it be tweaked? Sure, I would like to see all the states' electoral votes be proportioned to the candidates by the popular vote within each state.

But really it is there for a REASON. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States.

The voting set up in the college, gives more equal proportional voice to all states based on population. If this were only the popular vote nationally, we'd forever have policy and presidents dictated based on 3 or so states, most on either coast with more extreme views and vast different needs from those other states between them.

The states are the unit of power in the US. A citizen in Maine has vastly different needs often, than someone in Wyoming, than in Louisiana, than northern NY.

Each of these states needs to have voice...hell, even with the electoral college, you have a lot of fly over states. It was shown last night, that maybe politicians should NOT take some of these states for granted (Hello W, where Hillary never set foot again during general election).

But like I said, I do with it wasn't winner take all in each state for their electoral votes. HOWEVER, that decision is up to the states themselves.

It is great that most power does reside in each state to make decisions just like this. The state is more answerable to its own citizens, and one size Federal does not fit all.

The nice thing with such difference in the states is, if you don't like the laws and culture of one state, you are free to move to another state that more fits your views and lifestyle.

I don't like that potentially voters in the Electoral College could vote how they want instead of how their state laws say....but again, I like the principal of the EC, maybe just tweak the rules a little.

Re:yes they should

[localman]

Why do we level the playing field between rural and urban, but not along any other axes? There are plenty of demographics that are disenfranchised by their relative size, and they would gain important safeguards against oppression by having a louder voice. But we don't, for example, count black people's votes eight times to put them on a level playing field with whites. The electoral college doesn't make the whole system more fair, it just tips the scale in one particular direction.

Also, the idea that if you don't like a state you can just move is meaningless in this case -- we're talking about the results of a federal election. You can't move anywhere to escape those, so that suggestion doesn't weigh on electoral college considerations.

Re:yes they should

[Archangel Michael]

We live in a Republic, not a democracy. The Electoral College does serve a purpose, one that you disagree with, but it still serves a purpose. The GP outlines it very nicely and in unbiased terms.

Re:yes they should

[bondsbw]

Every state (except Maine and Nebraska) wants to give the majority of its population the largest voice possible. That's great. This is why the plurality popular vote in a state gets all the electoral college votes.

But wait... what about the voice of the people who are not part of each state's plurality? They are effectively silenced. No good. And these silenced votes represent different proportions in different states; they range from low in deep-red/deep-blue states to high (perhaps even a majority) in swing states.

Another problem with the EC is that swing states effectively decide each election. The candidates don't visit the vast majority of the states because they have practically guaranteed outcomes. The candidates don't get the opportunity to listen to those citizens. Promises are made to the citizens of swing states, but rarely in deep red/blue states.

Re:yes they should

[Austerity Empowers]

Could it be tweaked? Sure, I would like to see all the states' electoral votes be proportioned to the candidates by the popular vote within each state.

I think this would undermine the remaining purpose of the electoral system. In this fashion you will essentially have a popular vote, quantized in a funny way. Giving these small states 3 electoral votes and winner-take-all gives them more power than they would have had otherwise. It creates for some inversions, but because the states are low population, it's not so significant that an overwhelming majority is defeated by a powerful minority, it has always been near split.

But really it is there for a REASON. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States.

Very few people identify this way in the modern age. I've been a citizen of over half a dozen states. I don't even consider it anymore, I move where the jobs are, wherever the jobs are. I am an American first. The one thing I've noticed about state & local governments is that they're the most corrupt, backwards institutions in America, highly subject to cliques and backroom dealing, mostly for sale to the local businessman. Honestly I think our Federation outlived its usefulness long ago. Most of the problems and bullshit fights we see are about state politicians losing some power for corruption and graft based on federal policies. Some states are better than others, but Texas is pretty shitty.

The states are the unit of power in the US. A citizen in Maine has vastly different needs often, than someone in Wyoming, than in Louisiana, than northern NY.

This we can agree on, it is the best reason for states to exist and to retain some autonomy at their level. Which is not to say that I agree that they should continue to function wholly outside of federal control and influence as they often do now, but there is a purpose to their existence.

I don't like that potentially voters in the Electoral College could vote how they want instead of how their state laws say

This is dangerous and scary but doesn't happen much. The original purpose was that this group of intelligentsia would decide that the rubes didn't know what they were doing, that they very blatantly WOULD go against the popular vote. In this case, almost certainly they wouldn't have chosen Trump... he is almost the definition of what the EC was designed to prevent. It seems inconceivable in this day that they'd go against the grain, I would feel better if it were the actual law that they had to (in all states), but I suspect there will be no change until the day it happens.

Re:yes they should

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead it will be decided by a few "battleground states" whose needs don't reflect the rest of the country's. Got it.

Re:yes they should

[Shadow of Eternity]

And if you abandon the electoral college then the ONLY states that matter will be the few most populous states.

Re:yes they should

[v1]

But really it is there for a REASON.

There was a reason we had it. Several actually.
1 travel time of a day or more to the polls for a significant chunk of eligible voters (and outside information getting to the voters was also greatly slowed)
2 extremely limited current information on political issues and events for the average citizens (not a lot in the way of "informed voters")
3 because of (2), many of the politicians and people running the government were sincerely worried about what would happen if the election became a popularity contest among the dumb citizens and a truly bad person was elected president of the country (some would argue we had that happen last night, others would argue it was inevitable given the available options...)
4 the college gave the final say to a smaller handful of more politically-informed people (the electorate) that could, in the event of insanity by the "dumb public", choose the sane option, overruling the popular vote.

The reasons for the college have long since disappeared. The best reason we have at this point to continue using the college is that we've been using it since forever and we're not comfortable with change, even when it's for the better.

The whole "first past the post" scheme itself has problems also, and IMHO should be ditched while we're at it. CGPgrey has a great explanation of this issue and how to fix it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It doesn't completely fix all the issues, fixes several problems, improves some of the remaining issues, and doesn't cause any new problems. Please watch this before responding, I promise you'll enjoy it if you're even remotely interested in the voting process, even if you don't end up agreeing with it by the end,

There is one thing I'd like to clear up that I think a lot of people miss when this discussion comes up. It's actually a point toward KEEPING the college. Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I'm going to blindly ignore opposing reasons, and here's a good one anyone thinking about this needs to consider. Everyone games the college. In a political race, they'll do anything they can (legally, or that they can get away with) to help their candidate win. I'm OK with them doing everything they can within the rules to win. States with lower electoral votes get mostly ignored in races like this. States that have a history of voting very strongly in one direction also get ignored by both candidates. (one says "I have it in the bag, why waste my time here?", the other says "I'll never win these, why waste my time here?") So this WILL tend to create a lopsided popular vote vs electoral vote. Campaigning would be done VERY differently if we went strictly by popular country vote. It's difficult to look back at an election and say with any confidence "would it really make a difference?" States that got lots of ground pounding due to their high electoral count and "batleground state" status would see a lot less traffic, and other more moderately populated areas would see more campaigning. Surely this would change the numbers quite a bit. In what direction is very hard to say. Some years, maybe no noticeable difference. Other years, maybe a huge difference. So what I'm saying is that we can't just look at an election where the popular vote and electoral vote disagree (even somewhat strongly) and say with any great confidence "it would have made a difference if we did it the other way this election". Because we can't. But that being said, I still believe a popular vote using proportional representation would produce results that more closely aligned with who the public would rather see in office. (a lot moreso for congress than president, actually)

Re:yes they should

[Nethemas the Great]

Why should the majority be held captive by the majority of the minority? Said another way, why should my vote count for say 1/8 that of a vote from a neighboring state? Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, why should my dissenting vote be taken away from me and awarded to the majority position of my state? Even if my vote counts for less than a vote from say South Dakota I should still be counted. With the electoral college I am not.

Re:yes they should

[kenai_alpenglow]

One problem with this is the candidates have no incentive to come to your state (unless it's a "battleground state" or large one). They'll go for the big cities and ignore your entire state.

Re:yes they should

[penandpaper]

Because there is more than one branch of government. In the executive, the ONLY national election we have should be represented by all of the states' needs not just the heavily populated cities.

Re:yes they should

[sabri]

So instead it will be decided by a few "battleground states" whose needs don't reflect the rest of the country's. Got it.

Wisconsin and Michigan were considered blue states, until they became a surprise battleground state.

AKA, every state can become a battleground state.

Re:yes they should

[amicusNYCL]

California has CHOCK FULL of Illegal's who California allows to vote - ILLEGALLY VIOLATING federal law!

That would be pretty awful, if it were true. (By the way, is it possible to "legally violate" federal law? I mean, if you're violating federal law, that's always illegal, isn't it?)

Non U.S. Citizens are NOT allowed to vote. They DO NOT have the RIGHT!

Yes, everyone knows that, and California does not have the ability to change that, regardless of whatever fever dreams you're having.

Re:yes they should

[amicusNYCL]

Actually, in a popular vote, the 1 million people living in the city have the exact same voice as the 1 million people living in the country.

Re:yes they should

[reboot246]

You must live in one of the more populous states. We who live in smaller states would never have a say in who becomes President if it were based only on popular vote.

While we're at it, let's go back to letting the state legislatures choose their Senators so that states would be represented in Washington. That was the way it was for much of our country's history and we need to have it again.

Re:yes they should

[guises]

The reason the electoral college exists is the same reason the Democratic party has super delegates: to keep a populist idiot from getting into office. Look how well that worked.

Your argument is that people in less populated states should have more voting power than people in more populated states because... "States are the unit of power?" Is that seriously your argument? I can't find a better one in what you wrote there. States are not the unit of power, votes are the unit of power. I shouldn't have to tell you that, it is fundamental to democracy.

Even if states were the unit of power, saying that is barely an argument. So what? You're basically saying, "It's the status quo, therefore it should not change."

I guess you have a second argument there: "doing it this way gives a small number of people a greater voice." and you leave out the implied corollary: "and as a result it gives a large number of people a smaller voice."

Re:yes they should

[penandpaper]

This. EC does give more say in the presidential elections to smaller states and that is the point. Just like a bicameral congress. You can't ignore the size of the big states but you can't ignore the small states either.

Re:yes they should

[gweilo8888]

Which will be the states where most people live, ergo the politicians will be visiting (and making promises to) far more of the electorate than they do now. That's a good thing. If you choose to live in Podunk, sorry, but you don't automatically deserve a more meaningful vote than mine.

Re:yes they should

[amicusNYCL]

"A few cities"? Well, let's think about this.

About 125 million people voted for president, out of a total population of about 324 million, so that's about 38.5% of the population that voted.

So, let's figure out how many metro areas (instead of cities) a candidate would need in order to receive the ~60 million votes that got them elected (assuming that 38.5% of the people in each metro area vote).

If someone is going to get 60 million votes, and only 38.5% of people vote, then they will need to talk to 155 million people. According to the list above, that means these metro areas:

New York-Newark metro
Greater LA
Chicago metro
Washington/Baltimore
San Francisco Bay area
Boston metro
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Philadelphia metro
Houston metro
Miami metro
Atlanta metro
Detroit metro
Seattle metro
Phoenix metro
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Cleveland metro
Denver metro
San Diego metro
Orlando metro
Portland metro
Tampa metro
St. Louis metro

That's how many they need, 22 of them. And that assumes that *every voter* in all of those cities votes for the same candidate. Look at that list, do they all vote the same way?

And, what is this, the 19th century where you only hear a politician's views if you actually go to physically hear them talk?

Re:yes they should

[SoftwareArtist]

You left out the main reason the electoral college works the way it does: the small states insisted on it. They wouldn't agree to the constitution unless they were given outsized power relative to their populations. It was a devil's bargain from the very start: build an undemocratic system into the constitution, or the small states would walk away and there wouldn't be any constitution. Everything else is just rationalizations that people have added to cover that fact.

Re:yes they should

[Jaime2]

Who won the popular vote is irrelevant. This election was a contest with clear rules and both candidates knew those rules. They decided where to spend their time and energy based on developing a strategy to win more electoral votes. Neither candidate was trying to increase their share of the popular vote. Had this been an election decided by the popular vote, both candidates would have behaved differently and the outcome would have likely been different.

Mentioning that Clinton won the popular vote this year is like mentioning that a losing football team had more total yards than the winning team. Sure, it's a meaningful statistic, but maybe they wouldn't have punted that one time if they were going for yards instead of points.

The point of the electoral system is to make sure that candidates spread their effort around the country rather than doing a massive get out the vote effort in the handful of places where they are already popular.

Re: yes they should

[Anonymous Coward]

Your contempt for the people of "lesser" states demonstrates exactly why they need the Electoral College: to protect them from the likes of you.

Re:yes they should

[Solandri]

Why do we level the playing field between rural and urban, but not along any other axes?

Because that was the concession given to smaller and rural states in order to get them to join the original Union. Without that keystone in the voting process, the United States of America wouldn't exist.

You can argue it isn't relevant today, 240 years later. But removing that aspect from the Constitution would entail getting all the smaller and rural states (well, a bit less than 3/4 of them) to agree to give up the leverage the electoral college gives them over the more populous states. Good luck with that. Forcing the change upon them without a Constitutional amendment would be akin to a bait and switch - get someone to agree to one set of terms to enter a contract, then unilaterally change those terms after they've signed on. If you're willing to do that, then there's really no point to even having a Constitution, is there?

Re: yes they should

[the_Bionic_lemming]

This.

Several gigantic city states should not be allowed to dictate 52 states.

The planners for the constitution got it exactly right.

And I live in Illinois one of the large states because of Chicago.

Re: yes they should

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Oh, and before I get downmodded - if you want actual change - Term Limits stopping career politicians is the better route.
Example:
Harry Reid is Quite wealthy, more so than all of you. He was a lawyer for one year, and then built a fortune working in the Government.

Of course if you look at what his pay is and what his net worth is - there a very , very large discrepancy.. I know that's not a really good media sound bite, but I hope ya'll think about that for a bit. Without insider trading, or donations for??? - where did all that money come from?

Translation

[wellwhatever]

The operators of /. are unhappy about the results of the election, so the system is broken.

No. We're a Republic. Keep it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliminate the electoral college, eliminate the Federal nature of our government, and we will be dominated by NYC, LA, & Chicago. Look at the Blue
areas. Big metro areas and largely black areas voted Blue. The rest of the country voted Red. The problems of the big city are not the same as
the REST of the nation.

Re:No. We're a Republic. Keep it.

[penandpaper]

This. the EC is like the bicameral congress. It is supposed to ensure that the POTUS isn't electd by a few heavily populated cities. POTUS is the ONLY office of the executive for election by the nation and we should not have it selected by one or two cities. The EC guarantees broad national support of the president by the States. How else do you ensure that the POTUS has the interests of small states in mind? We are a republic of states and you cannot have a healthy republic if you ignore the States that do not have a few large cities.

Re:No. We're a Republic. Keep it.

[hey!]

Rather than NY being dominated by a coalition of smaller states with less total population? That protects individual and minority rights?

By all means look at a map of red vs. blue. But don't look at a regular map; look at a cartogram where the size of a state is scaled by population rather than physical area. Then let's talk about small dominating big; it's not the square footage you live in that matters, it's the say you have in your own government.

And getting rid of the electoral college doesn't mean we're not a Republic any more. Even if your defintion of "Republic" is "small states have disproportionate power". Small states have that in the Senate.

Anyhow, I've read Federalist no 10, and it sound convincing but it's basically hooey. The idea is that the complicated way the Constitution set things up would prevent the emergence of political parties. That didn't work as planned. Although really the plan was to preserve slavery by giving slaveholding interests more political power. Remember there used to be property requirements for voting. So this really wasn't about protecting minorities at all; Federalist no 10 was just a smokescreen for a compromise that divided power between wealthy people in the North and wealthy people in the South. To sweeten the deal further for Southerners slaves counted as 3/5 of a person.

So it's not really about protecting the little guy; it's about letting the powerful prey upon the less powerful.

Re:No. We're a Republic. Keep it.

[Archangel Michael]

How else do you ensure that the POTUS has the interests of small states in mind?

I would actually say that this is part of the reason why Trump is President Elect. The current POTUS couldn't give a rip and actually was quite dismissive of "Fly Over Country". That dismissiveness really did end up hurting Hillary in the Great Lakes region, because she express similar viewpoints throughout her career and candidacy.

You can't ignore people, then get upset when they don't vote for you. That's kind of how things actually are supposed to work.

No

[KalvinB]

New York and California do not get to dictate who is president of the entire country.

We are the United States.

A republic. And as such, the votes need to be weighted to protect the rights of the states and the people in them.

Mob rule is the worst form of government.

Re:No

[Reason58]

New York and California do not get to dictate who is president of the entire country.

It's better to have a smaller swing-state dictate the president of the entire country?

Re:No

[dave562]

How did this get modded Insightful?

New York and California do get to dictate who is President of the entire country.

"The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled.." (from Wikipedia)

The strategy of focusing on the most populous states still holds true under the Electoral College.

Doing away with the Electoral College puts every American on equal footing. Americans in California would not receive more attention from the candidates than Americans in Montana.

One person, one vote. Let the majority elect the President. The House of Representatives is there to represent the States. The Senate is there to provide a 'fair' body that is not influenced by population. The Supreme Court is there to resolve any issues that the other branches cannot sort out on their own.

The Electoral College is a relic from a time before the telephone, the radio and other modern means of conveying the will of the people to the central seat of government.

1000x Yes

[Facekhan]

This is now the second time in 5 cycles where this has happened. National Popular Vote will actually make the two (or more) candidates campaign for every vote instead of trying to strategize about what counties in swing states will matter.

There are several other structural changes we ought to consider but eliminating the EC is an easy one and would be broadly popular.

Hell No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the last check against massive voter fraud. The colluding states should be fined for every day they have those laws on the books as they're trying to get around the US Constitution instead of pushing for an amendment like they're supposed to do.

No. The electoral college serves as a firewall.

[techvet]

If State A has the worst voter fraud in the country, then the effects of said fraud are limited within their borders. If there is no electoral college, then the effects of fraudulent votes in State A for Candidate X is that they will now start cancelling out votes for Candidate Y in other states. LBJ would have loved nothing more than to get rid of the electoral college. Look at Virginia allowing felons to vote. Getting rid of the electoral college is a fool's errand.

Re:No. The electoral college serves as a firewall.

[Misagon]

The right for convicted criminals to vote should be a fundamental right in a proper democracy.
Otherwise, evil people in power could just make sure to outlaw, arrest and convict their opponents for whatever felony they could invent.
It is not as if political opponents have not been classified as outlaws throughout history, and it is happening right now in for instance Turkey and Egypt. Those places may be far away, but remember the McCarty era in the US? Remember how important it was to be "patriotic" in the years following 9/11?

The demographics in the group of ex-cons that can't vote is already skewed, with people of African-Americans descent being overrepresented.

Re:Oh my god, what?

[Kagato]

Two of the last five Elections went to the person who didn't not win the most votes. It's no longer a academic what if.

alternative approach

[halfEvilTech]

The Electoral College is due to the fact we live in a republic- the number of electoral votes is equal to the sum of the house and senate.

A better approach would be to divide the Electoral College votes proportionally to the vote cast in the sate. This would then still give candidates incentive to campaign in smaller or less populated states.

If we where to go to a straight out popular vote only then people will complain that it is always the big states like California and New York that decide every election and as such Presidential candidates will likely only stop in those larger cities along the costs and be damned to fly over country as they call it.

Re:alternative approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Winner-take-all in each state is what causes the problem.

Re:Oh my god, what?

[Augusto]

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." - 2012

You don't even have to guess who tweeted that right?

That's so unfair!

[Okian Warrior]

The operators of /. are unhappy about the results of the election, so the system is broken.

Indeed.

The Democrats moved $60 mil from down-ballot elections to Hillary to torpedo Bernie(*), gave the media questions to grill trump, got debate questions ahead of time, got to vet media articles before they were published, hired protestors to shut down a rally and start fights, colluded with PACs, published oversampled and biased polls, tried to frame Julian Assange.

The electoral college is unfair!!

(*) Are the democrats bemoaning that R's control both houses? Now we know why!

Re:But it's not mob rule

[Bing Tsher E]

It isn't a matter of 'rural areas' and 'urban areas.'

We are a republic made up out of United States. We have State Governments who answer to the population that lives within them.

The 'Voice of All America' doesn't exist.

The 'Popular Vote' incidentally, isn't anything official. It's just a tricky number that journalists obtain by clumping together smaller numbers there are irrelevant outside the context of each State.

Re:But it's not mob rule

[Bruce Perens]

The popular vote is not a mathematical fallacy, it's the simple sum of all of the people who voted. One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy and would be best enacted by simply counting the popular vote rather than having a fiction that states, rather than the people, elect the executive.

Once that is fixed, getting congressional district construction to be the job of a non-partisan body should be next. Gerrymandering has been taken to computer-optimized extremes and the result isn't democracy.

Re:No, no, no.

[Fwipp]

The electoral college ensures that politicians ignore 90% of the country and focus on only the few swing states.

Short answer: No

[Spazmania]

It's important that a candidate win as much of the country as possible, not just the populous areas. The broad but sparse rural population has different concerns than suburbanites. A voting system which disenfranchises them would be a bad thing.

If there was a 20 point spread in popular vote and the election went to the other candidate I'd change my tune. But that's not the case. The popular vote numbers are functionally a tie.

Re:No, no, no.

[PraiseBob]

It's funny how these conversations always take place after the Democrat loses.

That's because a republican presidential candidate has only won the popular vote a single time in the past 28 years...

Re:Oh my god, what?

[Archangel Michael]

It is more of a disaster that people don't know that we live in a Republic, and not a democracy. Tyrants love democracies, for they only need to stir the passions of the people once to take over.

Re:But it's not mob rule

[spire3661]

"One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy and would be best enacted by simply counting the popular vote rather than having a fiction that states"

We are a Constitutional Republic. Raw democracy is very bad, if you had studied at all, you would have learned that a long time ago. It needs to be tempered with the highest and noblest ideals, or its just glorified tribalism. Democracy deals with making sure everyone is able to participate in governance, but fundamental rights should never be up for a vote, which is why we have Constitutional safeguards in place to prevent the mob from forgetting that.

TL:DR - pick up a history book before you spout nonsense.

Re:But it's not mob rule

[Bruce Perens]

You replied with a fallacy. I have indeed studied history and political science to some significant depth. And it didn't convince me that an artificial hierarchy of states and districts somehow eliminated the fictional evils of a fictional tyranny of polls. You should have stuck to actual argument and avoided the implication of ad-hominem in criticizing my education. Indeed, I could as easily use your argument (That is, what there is of your argument. You don't really give reasons why raw democracy is so harmful) to justify monarchy as a more sane alternative to raw democracy.

And if you don't think fundamental rights are up for a vote, just what news have you read, as well as what history or political science? Did you miss that Trump's platform includes a constitutional amendment?

Re:Oh my god, what?

[Nethemas the Great]

How lovely, but then we decided that the citizens get to vote rather than the electors and made everything you just quoted no longer applicable. The electoral college does two things.

1. It assigns a weight to the vote of a state's citizen
2. It strips that voter of their vote if they represent the minority position in that state

One could debate whether landmass or population is more important, but how can anyone debate voter disenfranchisement?

Moronic

[s.petry]

California gave all 55 votes to Clinton while 31% of the population voted for Trump. I'd say the large states have far more effect on elections than say New Hampshire with 4 whole votes. CA also called it for Clinton before a single vote was counted. Does the EC only prove to be a problem when it's not to your advantage?

And while we are at it, there is a massive voter depression in CA because people see their votes do no good. If it was popular vote, CA could have added a few million more to Trump as easily as not.