Hehehe

...

You don't think it is?

Good thing we are a constitutional republic.

I voted for Trump and Still think we should get rid of the electoral college

you would have madame president without it

If we get rid of it, we would have a system where each state had 1 vote.

He's not wrong
It's a retarded system regardless the result

Why? Why not just have whoever gets the most votes wins?

It needs reforms. IE splitting metropolitan areas from the rest of the states. But then that's gerrymandering squared.
Abolishing it means LA, SF and NYC decide who wins.

And replace it with what, popular vote?
The electoral college is the only thing that keeps LA, Chicago, and NYC from deciding what is best for the rest of the country. The founding fathers knew what they were doing.

No, they would have campaigned differently.

we would just use UK's system for the presidency honestly.

DELETE THIS

In theory good idea. In practice, good luck counting 120 million votes

Who is to say his views aren't the same? Was he supposed to protest his own victory?

>Trump is projected to win the popular vote as well.

Next.

Because then roughly 20 cities would determine every election

kys

We should go the opposite way
Make each state get the same amount of votes in the electoral college

Didn't they do that for this election though? Or am I missing what
>60,266,877 votes
>59,928,904 votes
means?

Not that hard in today's age if people used (((computers)))

It protects states rights

I get that, but if the majority of people want something, why would you limit their vote?

I mean I'm saying this from the UK, where England have the final say on everything due to numbers.

Another troll from our great time traveling president. Don't try to think about it too hard, just let them sink in from now on.

>Leaf logic

I wonder how many of those votes were legitimate, though.

>majority of people want something, why would you limit their vote?
because democracy is retarded

>jk lol

Because people live in states like Arkansas and Indiana because they DON'T want to be ruled by the Favored Son of New York City or Chicago.

It's a check to big states using their population to bully everyone else. It's the same reason the House is determined by population, whereas the Senate is equal.

The president is determined by popular vote. It is determined by the popular vote of the people within an individual state, and then determined by the popular vote of the States within the Union. Just like the House and Senate.

A lot of people who don't read up a lot on US government don't understand it. It's a very advanced and complex form of democracy. That's because we were designed from the ground up as a republic, with checks and balances for everything, whereas most other democracies in the world either adopted them relatively recently or had them forced upon them in the cases of most of the developing world. For this reason, their democracies tend to be much simpler.

Direct democracies and popular votes are better suited for very small nations. That's why it's used for the States in the presidential election, but not for the overall election.

yeah, well this is the thing, If there wasn't so many illegal voter it would be, but we have millions of Juans and Pacos coming into tyhe states and voting without risk. So we need the electoral college. Trump is probably going to win the popular vote anyways, and if there wasn't so many illegals he would have won the popular vote by much more.
Also keep in mind he had to campaign for an election which uses the electoral college. That means working harder in some states than others. If he just needed the popular vote he would have to campaign totally different.
So just because it helped him here doesn't mean he should now like it and appreciate it.
The democracy that was created by our founding fathers is a bit outdated and they wanted us to make changes as time progressed so it could be flexible. Not everything has to stay the same, but if it's not broken don't fix it. In this case its starting to piss people off and its not working well for the people. So maybe we will have to make changes who knows

Different strategies would've been adopted, dumbass.

Actually now they are saying Trump will win the popular vote too, libtards BTFO

Say it with me, Madame President! lmfao! xD

The electoral college is only optimal for 2 candidates. If there are more than 2 it just splits the vote too far.

And also every state would have to enforce voter ID's because come the fuck on already you Burger-Banana Republic.

Don't feel like checking if it's real. If you're trying to say that Trump is a hypocrite, the argument doesn't actually work (you're a braindead leftist, so I don't expect you to have any capacity for reason). Even if he doesn't like the electoral college, the reality is that if you're trying to win the presidency, you need to contend with the EC whether you like it or not.

Does that make sense for your atrophied leftist brain?

Keep the electoral collage. But states shouldn't be winner take all.

Areas with high rural-to-urban populations are over/underrepresented.

Electoral votes should be determined in congressional districts.

Didn't Hillary win the republican nominee popular vote in 2008?

>republican
wut. But yes, she won the popular for the Democratic primaries in 08. But ssssshhhhh, that conflicts with the continuity of the narrative.

Do you think maybe it's possible there would be higher turnout in solid red states if voters knew that popular vote actually mattered ?

good post.

Usually the gap between candidates is in the millions, this election is kinda strange because the difference was 233,000 last I looked.

And create the opposite of democracy?

You do know a constitutional republic has nothing to do with establishing an electoral college, right? Being a republic means we have a constitution in place to protect the minority from the majority, rather than being a pure democracy in which the majority rules unbound.

Well, to be fair USA should adopt the Australian "Washminster" system

he subtly warned them that he was going to abuse the electoral college system to win the next election and they didn't listen.

Life in the country is not the same as that of in a city. Thus, anything that is voted for will pretty much only benefit those living in the cities, while those outside the cities will get effectively nothing.

lots of idiots just replied wrongly.

the real answer is. direct democracy is very easy to corrupt. buy one vote and your agenda gets pushed. you can't let a possibly corrupt mob of 50.00001% rule an entire nation. its called 'mob rule'.

this is exactly the truth. if we went by popular vote, the us would already be a gunless police state ruled by 1-3 rich assholes.

direct democracy only works in very small systems, with 100 people or less. where every person knows every other person.

Congressional districts are gerrymandered to all fuck though, it'd still be way off in almost every state. Doing it by counties might work I guess.

how are people so stupid they don't realize this? You think people in Nebraska want poofs from LA and New York deciding every election for them? They'd up and leave this bitch.

Yes, we should gerrymandering even more important.

Also, the way it is now since we count senate seats as electoral votes, the lower populated state the greater the weight their electoral votes have per capita.

And no shit people living within 120 miles of major bodies of water (IE highly populated areas) are going to be over represented. That's where everyone in the fucking world lives.

>you can't let a possibly corrupt mob of 50.00001% rule an entire nation. its called 'mob rule'.

As opposed to 47.4 ruling over 52.6.

Adding to this, the electoral college is precisely the reason why it is so difficult to rig an election in the United States.

The whole "she's rigging it!" shit on Sup Forums was just a meme by anyone with a clue. Yeah, there's voter fraud and things that can be done to tip the balance. But the amount of work that would have to be done to effectively rig an election in the United States with the way our elections work is astronomical. It's the reason why we've never had a rigged election, ever, whereas third world """democracies""" are basically just dictatorships, but you all get to send in a piece of paper saying you approve of them:-)

Fuck, going back even to the 1940s or so there is evidence of huge amounts of corruption in European democracies. France, quite infamously, BANNED communism prior to WWII. Say what you will about that decision, but the reaction is never to physically outlaw a competing political idea. The second you do something like that, you forfeit the right to call yourself a democracy and have instead transitioned into an oligarchy with only an illusion of choice.