November 9, 2016

Trump’s victory another example of how Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones

For the fifth time in U.S. history, and the second time this century, a presidential candidate has won the White House while (apparently) losing the popular vote.

Donald Trump won at least 279 electoral votes (306 if you include Arizona and Michigan, where he was leading as of Wednesday afternoon) to Hillary Clinton’s 228 (232 including New Hampshire, where she was ahead by a hair). But the popular vote is a near-tie, according to our tally of unofficial and, in some cases, partial returns. As of Wednesday afternoon, Clinton was slightly ahead of Trump, 59.6 million votes (47.66%) to 59.4 million (47.5%).

This mismatch between the electoral and popular votes came about because Trump won several large states (such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) by very narrow margins, gaining all their electoral votes in the process, even as Clinton claimed other large states (such as California, Illinois and New York) by much wider margins.

In fact, the very nature of the way the U.S. picks its presidents tends to create a disconnect between the outcome in the Electoral College and the popular vote. The last time a popular-vote loser won the presidency in the Electoral College was, of course, in 2000, when George W. Bush edged out Al Gore 271-266 despite Gore winning some 537,000 more popular votes nationwide. The other electoral-popular vote mismatches came in 1876 and 1888; in all four instances the Democratic nominee ended up the loser. (In the 1824 election, which was contested between rival factions of the same party, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral vote, but because he was short of an Electoral College majority the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, which chose runner-up John Quincy Adams.)

Even in the vast majority of U.S. elections, in which the same candidate won both the popular and the electoral vote, the system usually makes the winner’s victory margin in the former a lot wider than in the latter. In 2012, for example, Barack Obama won 51% of the nationwide popular vote but nearly 62% of the electoral votes, or 332 out of 538. Looking back at all presidential elections since 1828 (when presidential campaigns began to resemble those of today), the winner’s electoral vote share has, on average, been 1.36 times his popular vote share – what we’ll call the electoral vote (EV) inflation factor.

Assuming the popular-vote split stays about where it is now and that Trump eventually wins Arizona and Michigan and Clinton ultimately takes New Hampshire, Trump’s EV inflation factor would be 1.20 – about what Obama’s was in 2012 (1.21).

A quick Electoral College refresher: The 538 electors allocated (mainly by population) among the 50 states and the District of Columbia actually choose the president and vice president, with a majority of electoral votes (i.e., 270) needed for an outright win. All but two states use a plurality winner-take-all system to pick their presidential electors – whoever receives the most votes in a state wins all of its electoral votes, even if he or she got less than a majority of the popular vote. (Maine and Nebraska award some of their electoral votes by congressional district rather than statewide, though that didn’t come into play this time around.)

The biggest disparity between the winning electoral and popular votes, with an EV inflation factor of 1.96, came in 1912 in the four-way slugfest between Democrat Woodrow Wilson, Republican incumbent William Howard Taft, Progressive Theodore Roosevelt (who had bolted from the Republicans) and Socialist Eugene V. Debs. Wilson won a whopping 82% of the electoral votes – 435 out of 531 – with less than 42% of the overall popular vote. (In fact, Wilson won popular vote majorities in only 11 of the 40 states he carried – all in what was then the solidly Democratic South.)

The next biggest gap was the 1980 “Reagan landslide.” In that three-way contest, Ronald Reagan took just under 51% of the popular vote, to Jimmy Carter’s 41% and independent John Anderson’s 6.6%. But Reagan soared past Carter in the Electoral College: 489 electoral votes (91% of the total) to 49, for an EV inflation factor of 1.79.

Many of the elections with the most-inflated electoral votes featured prominent third-party candidates, who served to hold down the winners’ popular vote share without being significant Electoral College players themselves. On the other hand, when the two major-party nominees ran fairly evenly and there were no notable independents or third parties, the Electoral College vote has tended to be much closer to the popular tally. In 2004, for instance, incumbent Bush won a second term with just under 51% of the popular vote and 53% of the electoral votes (286 out of 538).

Note: This is an update of a post originally published Nov. 3, 2016.

Topics: 2016 Election, Elections and Campaigns

  1. Photo of Drew DeSilver

    is a senior writer at Pew Research Center.

419 Comments

  1. Anonymous2 weeks ago

    i don’t get bow doing away with the electoral college would be unfair, when all you have to do in a popular voting system is SHOW UP to vote. I also don’t get how this would equate to us taking power away from rural communities, since it’s whites who have the greatest turnout. Minorities, which mostly live in urban areas, historically have terrible turnout. So I suppose in some sense this should even out in terms of popular vote “fairness”. In short, you show up to vote, you make a direct contribution to who you want as president.

  2. Anonymous2 weeks ago

    It’s no wonder that people don’t vote. It doesn’t matter anyway!

  3. Anonymous2 weeks ago

    For those that argue that trump is not their president because he didn’t get a majority of the popipular vote, you have to consider his game plan. He didn’t spend dime in New York or California knowing those states would go to HRC. He worked the system, played by the rules and won. We have to consider that he is smart man, and if you changed the rules to be elected by popular vote, he would likely have spent a great deal of time in those two states.

  4. Anonymous2 weeks ago

    In regions of each State, Donald Trump far outnumber Clinton.
    For example, FL has 67 Counties, Donald Trump took 58 of those Counties and HC took only 9… 86.57% of Counties in FL chose Donald Trump, while only 13.3% chose HC.
    The same can be said for IL.
    IL has 102 Counties. 91 chose Donald Trump and only 11 chose HC. Donald Trump took 92.82% of IL Counties to HC’s 10.78%, yet,
    HC took IL despite the fact the majority of regions in IL voted Donald Trump. And in MN, with 87 Counties, Donald Trump took 78 to HC’s 9, yet, HC took MN since the Metro, Rochester (Mayo Clinic), Duluth, the most populated regions of MN, voted for her. The rest of the State did not.
    These are prime example of the value of the Electoral College on the National Level.
    The Electoral College does not allow any single State the power to rule for the rest of the Country.

  5. Anonymous2 weeks ago

    Can we have how the electors voted in practical arithmetic terms.For example if in the states of Maine and Nebraska they shared the electoral votes between Clinton and Trump,how many did each get,what was the basis and is it all the electors of some of the took the decision.Also in how many states did we have all the Democratic electors voting for Trump and all Republican electors voting for Clinton and why was it so.Are there states where there are equal number of Democratic electors and Republican electors?How did the cast their votes and why?

  6. Anonymous2 weeks ago

    Eliminating the Electoral College could lead to a one party Democrat control of the Executive Branch of government in perpetuity. Why? Because 51% of our people live in just 9 states and that concentration is trending higher, by 2040 if trends continue, 51% could reside in just 6 states. Of those nine, only Texas is solidly Republican. Every four years the Democrat Nominee could allocate 75-80% of the campaign resources to Texas in an effort to reduce the margin of victory by the Republicans and 20-25% to the other eight big states. Rural America would be wiped out of the electorate. This would likely end in either a violent civil war and/or the secession of many states. That is not an ideal scenario. The Democrats are generally in favor of eliminating the EC because it benefits their party at the expense of those whom they harbor noteworthy contempt. Pure Democracy is a mob rules mentality in which the majority rules over the minority. This includes ethnic minorities, social minorities, etc. Democracy does not work unless it is organized like our government into a Constitutional Republic. We directly elect our Congressional delegation while other Federal Posts including the President are indirectly elected or appointed by those whom we have sent to represent us. These kinds of election results such as this recent 2016 election almost always come when a prominent third party candidate erodes the vote of the eventual Electoral College winner. I think it is safe to say that Gary Johnson’s record Libertarian vote count came at the expense of Trump. The reality is that Mrs. Clinton won a landslide in New York and California and lost a couple of nail biters in Pennsylvania and Michigan thus leading her to the narrow popular vote margin but the loss of the Electoral College. Noteworthy is this: if California were NOT in the USA ie. we eliminate its votes, Trump wins the popular vote by nearly 2% nationally. The EC is designed to keep a small number of giant states from running rough shot over the nation at large. This election was not nearly as close as 2000, nor has there been the issue of problematic voting machines like we saw in 2000. Mrs. Clinton thought she had Michigan and Pennsylvania in the bag and she was wrong, this is why she lost, not because the system doesn’t work, but quite to the contrary because it works well.

  7. Anonymous2 weeks ago

    I find it interesting that those on this forum who have a problem with the electoral college ‘diluting’ their votes don’t seem to have a problem with the US senate where each STATE gets the same say. That system is in place because we are a democratic republic and it was created so that large populous regions of the country did not get to dictate to everyone else. The constitution is a contract between the states and it never would have been ratified if the states were not assured that they all had a say.

    1. Anonymous2 weeks ago

      You are aware that its not that simple. The electoral college was indeed created because the founding fathers didn’t have enough faith in the people to actually vote for the correct candidate; you have to remember this was a time when there was much less education and very little mobility as far as news and information is concerned.

      The basic idea of an electoral college, however, has been completely bastardized in the last century. The main idea behind the Electoral college was to allow the electorates (people who are not very biased but are educated) to guide the country should the popular vote be close. Now, however, we have the parties nominating people who are tied to their party through various money channels even thought he constitution basically prohibits this. We have laws in some states that further reduce the rights of these electorates to use their own judgment. While no one has ever been charged for being an unfaithful electorate, some states still hold laws that make it a felony to vote in the other direction. Others impose a potential fine and jail time if an electorate decides to be “unfaithful”. Even if the laws are not enforced, the fact that they exist is enough to push these people into never considering voting in a different direction.

      The electoral college has become meaningless on that level. The electorates have no choice but to go along with what their state voted for. It has become less of a political system and more of a symbolic ritual for them to physically cast their votes. You can see this in how the president elect gets treated immediately after the election results are publicized; with them receiving the same classified information as the president every morning.

      On one side, the political system hides behind the electoral college to decide who wins a state, but on the other side, the electoral college has no power to actually influence the election. That is not how democracy is supposed to work. The fact that the electorates cast their ballets a full month after the actual election shows that this current system is not even close to what the founding fathers wanted for the country. They wanted the electorates to be people of education who would take that month to consider their votes before making a decision on who should ultimately run the country.

    2. Anonymous2 weeks ago

      The senate was balanced out by the house of representatives. Senate gives states equal power and the house gives the people equal power.

  8. Anonymous2 weeks ago

    There is some thing wrong in the System. Popular votes mean how many citizens are in favor of one candidate and how many in favor of other. Hillary got more votes which mean people of country want her to be the President. It is unfortunate and against Democracy that a person who got lesser votes has to rule the country.

    1. Jon Lang2 weeks ago

      Actually, the highly concentrated population centers of California, Illinois, and New York wanted her to be President. According to a map that breaks down the vote by each county across the country, shows the vast amount of the nation was red. So those three states don’t speak for the rest of the country.

      1. James Ingram2 weeks ago

        Votes are cast by people, not acreage. EC essentially grants more vote power to individuals who hold more land which is why the map is red. This is not in keeping with the principle that every vote counts the same. Under the EC, some count more than others which is not a true democracy.

  9. Oscar Castrillon2 weeks ago

    Drew I’m surprised that Pew are leaving out some very important facts. The electoral college has not been expanded since 1929 to reflect the nation’s significantly higher population (now nearly 3x’s higher) and the addition of more states to the union. This capping of 435 House members has had the perverse effect diluting the proportion of votes to electors of the most populated states, the majority of which are Democrat. Simply put, this was never the intent of the electoral college. It may come as the surprise to some but the arbitrary number of 435 for House representation does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. As some legislators seeking to reform the electoral college have asked, why not 531? or 677 House members? The higher the most populated states increase their populations the less their votes count.

    The second thing you leave out about 2012 is that this was the second time that President Barack Obama won with not just a plurality but a simple majority. No President has done this since World War II. The Republicans have managed only one plurality of the vote in 24 years and only one majority in 28 years. Trump got fewer votes than Romney, Bush 12 years ago, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama…highlighting in my opinion how unfairly the electoral college dilutes the votes of Democrats, particularly non-white votes which are concentrated in the areas of greatest vote dilution (urban centers). Fine if we keep this archaic relic of the era of slaver where Virginia, South Carolina and other slave states flexed their political muscle to lock down a greater percentage of the electors on the cynical basis of non-voting populations, but at least reform it to give the large Democrat states more equal consideration.

    1. Anonymous2 weeks ago

      This is a moot conversation –
      If we were to dissolve the electoral college- our coastal states would literally decide each election- which is absurd-

      In addition, Clinton was a weak candidate- Turnout was down among African American voters, then we had the Bernie supporters, who were not willing to support a conservative women- her views did not reflect the millions of “progressives” –

  10. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Scrapping the Electoral College for popular vote should include the winner getting at least 50.1% of the popular vote. That means in many instances we would have to have a second runoff election. That could be cumbersome. Remember, Bill Clinton did not get 50.1% of the popular vote. I think it is a dangerous move to make. We could end up with mob rule. Our form of government has worked well. Why disenfranchise most of the states and leave it to only 3 or 4 of our most populous states to elect our President?

    1. Anonymous2 weeks ago

      EASILY remedied using preferential or “instant runoff voting”. For example, since no one won a majority in the 4-person race, the votes of Jill Stein’s voters would be allocated to their second choice– probably Hillary Clinton.
      Clinton still wouldn’t have a majority, so then Johnson’s votes would go to their second choice… But no one knows who that might be.

      Such voting would produce a majority winner, but the idea would be scuttled by the bipartisans– who would rather see the other major party candidate win instead of a third-party candidate. Consider Perot in 1992!

    2. Ralph Esposito2 weeks ago

      It cannot work. Five or more popular states could decide every election for president. So why should the other states vote and would not the candidates have campaigns only in those states with largest populations? We are a union of 50 states and despite population it would be wrong to have a dictatorship of a few. The protection is necessary to preserve the total union.

  11. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Wherever you stand, here is the reality and the rules. If you wish to propose an amendment to the Constitution to allow for election of president by popular vote, you will need a 2/3 majority of both houses followed by ratification of 38 states. You could also call a convention of states and propose the amendment which would require a 2/3 majority of state legislatures. Either way, it’s a tall task. Please notice that neither approach involves a popular vote of the people. And then, would people really wish to engage in such a move that would undermine representative government with a simple majority vote? What’s next? Freedom of speech? The right to a fair trial? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Any of your rights? Be careful what you wish for.

  12. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Hello…the electoral college is simple enuf to understand…..we can never just select a president by popular vote alone…..because we all know that New York and California have large populations……so someone that wanted to become president would spend most of their money and energy in the big states and forget all about the little states or least populated states…..not very good at all…
    Long Live the Electoral College!!

  13. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Electoral college (winner take all) mandates two party system with Federalism. The truth is that if we go with popular votes for president, we cannot prevent a lot of people from running for president and it will be a nationwide count. Its very much possible that the candidate with majority of votes would wind up with only 20 or 30% of the votes. Would we call him the president for everyone? It may not happen in the first election. But it will happen within a decade or two like it happens in India where every vote counts. And think about all those recounts when elections are very close when many people run. Actually, this election itself would have been between the two party candidates and many more independents. But the electoral college prevents all those chaos with a very simple mandate. This is like the operating system’s kernel of a computer. Genius indeed! No more explanations needed for me to appreciate this!

  14. susan pan3 weeks ago

    My whole voting life, I believed every vote matters. It turns out that is not true. In the future, I think presidential elections, should be held in the 8 or 10 states that decide the election. The way it is set up, the middle of USA’s vote is more important than mine.

    I don’t think that was what the founding fathers wanted. But, that is what it is.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Your vote counts in your state. The way it should be.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Depending on where you are located, why should your single state be the deciding factor of who the president is. Popular vote only works if we were a single nation and a single state. We are states. States pick the president. Want your vote to “count” for more, leave wherever you are and move to North Dakota.

    3. Anonymous2 weeks ago

      Not true if you go by how many counties in USA voted for Donald instead of looking at election state by state.
      Showing county USA map gives a lot better picture of election with Donald winning by at least 80% .
      And within those counties it’s by popular vote.
      If you use a nation wide popular vote then the cities with most population would rule this nation all the time leaving 95% of USA without any chance of influence in outcome of Presidential election .
      That’s why founders of this great country established the electoral votes to get candidates to listen to all of our citizens & serve the whole country & not just the most populated cities that would dominate with a nation wide popular vote.
      Big important Example!!::Farmers would never get any attention !!!!

  15. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Actually the third time. Research Alabama 1960. Electors were elected individually. Kennedy is credited with the votes for his most popular elector, as is Nixon, but if we instead use the more proper method of average vote per elector, Nixon has over 230,000 per while JFK averaged about 145,000. We need to deduct between 7,000 and 8,000 from Nixon’s assumed national total, but also need to deduct over 170,000 from JFK’s. This leaves Nixon with a true plurality.

    Of course all of this is as irrelevant as losing four games in the World Series while scoring more runs. Not the rules of the contest, thus the strategy is different.

    1. Anonymous2 weeks ago

      I believe that the electoral college and the Twelfth Amendment should stand as is. We are, after all, a republic– not a democracy. However, I believe that each state can use their electoral votes anyway that they see fit. Therefore, if people believe a state’s electoral votes should reflect the way that the people within the state vote, then they should have their state’s law changed so that the electoral votes can be split.

  16. Death H3 weeks ago

    Without the Californian metros, her country-wide lead will turn into a deficit very quick. That is why we absolutely need Electoral College, especially to protect and preserve the voices of the semi-urban and rural people. Another reason would be to preserve the sovereignty of the states. Why should a leader — who won 30 states as well as hearts and minds of millions nationwide — be forced to accept defeat to a person who only won the most populous urban agglomerations of a small minority states? If that became the norm then anyone with influence and capacity to rig the voting machines in a few counties could potentially make anyone the President. I would like to see how many counties did Hillary win overall as against Donald Trump’s performance on the same level.

    1. Christopher Lee3 weeks ago

      So you think people who live in small town rural or “semi-urban” areas should count more than people who live in large metros? Does land ownership give your voice more say in our nation?

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Uhhhhh…the majority of the “rural” areas you speak of are bordering on the poverty line. The folks who live in those semi urban to large cities probably have more people who can afford more real estate than they do.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      In Florida alone (a state narrowly won by Trump) 10% of the population cannot vote because they are convicted felons. This is not uncommon for several states that carry large electoral vote tallies. The electoral college undermines the very idea of democracy by stating that some votes matter more than others and some don’t matter at all. The President Elect has was named a week ago but ballots are still being counted.

  17. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    “Even in the vast majority of U.S. elections, in which the same candidate won both the popular and the electoral vote, the system usually makes the winner’s victory margin in the former a lot wider than in the latter.”
    Shoud ‘former’ and ‘latter’ be reversed in this sentence?

  18. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    OK simple easy to understand example. The LA Dodgers win one game 10-0 and lose the next four games. The NY Yankees win their first four games 1-0 and lose the next game 0-1. Should the Dodgers be in thee World Series because they had the most points? No the Yankees won the most games so they go to the World Series. It’s the same effect with the Electoral College. Trump didn’t get the most “points” in the popular vote but he won the most “games” with each States Electoral College votes.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      1.) the Dodgers would NEVER face the Yankees in a battle for a World Series berth. 2.) Since the Dodgers are in the National League and the Yankees are in the American League, the only possible avenue for these two teams to face each other head-to-head for anything to do with the World Series, is if they faced each other IN The World Series.
      3.) If you want a proper parallel baseball analogy, look at the 1960 World Series between the Yankees and the Pirates. The Yankees won three game by blowouts. While the Pirates won 4 games by a slim margin. The Yankees outscored the Pirates in total runs for all 7 games by a margin of 55-27. But they still lost the World Series.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Love the simple baseball analogy…this needs to put out there so the ignorant can understand this constitutional design for electing presidents.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The baseball analogy just explains how one wins the electoral college, not weather it’s morally correct or appropriate. There’s no ignorance in wondering if there’s a problem when the fate of the masses are selected by the few.

        The baseball analogy is just fine for figuring out who won by the rules of the game, but not for figuring out if those should be the rules.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Well said! Good luck getting people to truly understand it.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Terrible comparison.

    5. Oscar Castrillon2 weeks ago

      bad analogy. The team shut out of the world series would need to score two runs for each point they put on the board. Electors do not proportionally represent the population because the House has been arbitrarily capped at 435 members since 1929. We have since added more states and tripled our population. Yet as the more populated states grow their citizenry their “runs” are diluted when putting points on the score board. While the states with smaller populations are allowed to score fewer runs while putting more points on the score board.
      This whole baseball analogy assumes equal footing in the games. They are not remotely close to that.

  19. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Looking at the ratio of registered voters to electoral votes would show you that a voter in Wyoming has nearly 4x the voting power of a California voter…so we have a taxation without equal representation problem.

    1. Étienne Capricorne3 weeks ago

      I don’t know where you can find any basis for the comment of “taxation without equal representation problem.”

      The only thing that we have as the basis within this country is “taxation with representation.” From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxatio…, the phrase is “No taxation without representation.” This is the problem that DC has, they have taxation, but don’t have voting representatives in either Chamber of Congress.

      Additionally, if you look at Congress you would see the same thing. The House of Representatives is broken up by population but the Senate is fixed at 2 per state. The House is apportioned by population so for Wyoming, they have 1 member of the House.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Exactly! Well stated!

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I live in Northern California ( and not talking about SF. My home is closer to Oregon than SF). We have absolutely no say in any election because LA and SF have 29 times the population we do. If the electoral college were to be repieled myself and every other rural Americans would be out voted by the 5 largest cities in the country. How is that fair. I have about as much in common with those ppl as Hillary has with Trump. Actually probably less.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of its U.S. House representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each state’s population as determined in the census).

  20. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    All of the commotion about the Electoral College being arithmetically unfair is actually a minor complaint.

    If that’s what we want, there is a much bigger problem of unfairness that should first be changed: Get rid of the Senate as a governing body. There’s where Wyoming has the same clout as California, and the representation of the Electoral College is exactly the same as the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators plus the number of electors from the smallest state as being that of the District of Columbia.

    If someone feels we’re out of balance, then changing the Constitution by removing the Senate would be the way to go.

    But I personally think that we shouldn’t; there’s wisdom in not allowing those 11 or 12 heavily populated states to completely control the rest of the country, and wisdom in each state having 2 “ambassadors” to convene in Washington whose role is dealing with foreign treaties.

    If the Californians are pissed, just divide it into 3 states, that way they would gain 4 more electoral college votes.

  21. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    What this tells us is if we insist on using the electoral college, then we must reside in states that harbor the political ideology that aligns with our own views. I don’t know anyone who chooses their state of residency this way, it’s generally based on family, work, lifestyle, and weather. I argue that the states that use plurality to award all of their electoral votes to one candidate undermine the original intent of the Electoral College and the will of the people. If they were intended to cast all electoral votes for one candidate, then there would only be one electoral voter to represent all of the electoral votes for a state. Instead there is one electoral voter for each individual electoral vote. In my opinion electoral votes need to be split for each state to represent the will of the people. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me the electoral college was designed to correct this exact situation, where a president becomes elected that does not reflect the will of the people, and depending on your view point not fit to hold office. I do recall that one of the biggest fears of the founding fathers was a minority faction taking control, and this is what happened even though it is relatively small (>600,000 last I checked).

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      It’s actually, currently, less than 300,000 vote difference. And the votes are not all counted yet. They count the absentee ballots last, and most absentee ballots are military stationed away from home. Military “tends to” vote Republican, though some, of course, are Democrats. This election, where Trump was so pro-military and Hillary carries that legacy of Benghazi and the classified emails (that would put a soldier in jail if he/she did what she did) probably most absentee votes would be Republican.

      1. Anonymous2 weeks ago

        We are recently retired military and I am going to say the military vote is closer to split! We heard what he said about Mcclain, torture, khans parents! Our generals! Us! And Flynn is an embarrassment! He was actually fired from his job for insubordination and was deemed a crazy right wing conspiracy theory nut long before he latched on to Trump! That being said we are stuck here in a Red state taking care of ailing family. Splitting votes sounds great on paper but the Republicans use gerrymandering as it is and will use that to its advantage. There is nothing stopping individual states from doing it now. Where I have a problem is the electors being bound. The founding fathers did not want an unqualified person or faction to take office and that is one of the purposes of the electoral college. When the founding fathers set this up there was not the technology or the education that there is today. People may not be able to vote due to other commitments and the distance required to travel. We have those issues solved. I agree with the problem of too many candidates, that is the reason Trump won the primaries. The contest was just too diluted! So before you have a national election you have a set of state primaries to narrow down candidates then national primaries to narrow those down to 2 and then the national election against 2 candidates selected by the people. You said earlier this is a republic not a democracy but other than the presidential election all other elections are one person one vote. It is time to give us the right to vote in the president too. The electoral college has become more a ceremonial formality than a constitutional imparitive and I believe that the will of the people will be broken more often than not. I personally believe that the existence of the electoral college is the greatest contributor to voter apathy! I vote because I know it’s my duty. But I am also very frustrated. I know my vote counts in local elections but for the president I feel more and more apathetic over it every election. I used to have very good arguments for voting but now unless you live in a swing state I am just saying the words but the passion is gone.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The founders also feared a majority limiting the rights of the minority, which is exactly why we have a bill of rights and why they opted for a republic over a democracy. We must have some element of democracy when choosing leaders and I believe that must occur at the state level and not the federal. I must admit I don’t understand the need for electors in the first place. One state, one vote, as soon as the votes are counted… and power to the individual under the bill of rights.

    3. Josh Ok3 weeks ago

      Huh ? How does this rationale account for Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania? These states have gone either way.

      If you’re worried about states that only seem to serve one type of candidate, moving isn’t the only option. I can’t think of the last time a single person’s vote tipped an election anyway, but your wish for a single general election would only further assure that single vote gets lost in the sea of votes. Whereas now, at least an assembly of people such as a union or a profession (farmer) can absolutely affect electors in their own state, you’d ensure to lose all of that to the majority.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I agree that the original intent of the electoral college has been undermined by the winner take all approach that most states are using. It should be one vote for each congressional district then the two remaining votes for each state go to the statewide winner. This would strike the original balance between popular vote and representation that the founders intended. The current system is a perversion of that system that encourages the politics of division with candidates taking positions that may anger 90% of the people in one state as long as it gets them the 51% in a key state. It is definitely one of the factors that have led us to the situation we are in now in which we had two horrible candidates and a virtual guarantee of violence after the election no matter who won.

    5. Endorphika Morphika3 weeks ago

      You’re so right ! Although there are many people who choose to live in states which harbor their own ideology. As a Washingtonian who moved far away from WA State to fly-over country, I purposely did so, and even though I still own property in the northwest, I choose to not go back, except to visit family of course. I enjoy living in an area where the majority of my neighbors think in harmony with me. This is the exact same scenario for those who live in metropolitan areas, who think alike, congregate in similar locations, and who represent their own ideology. The demographics are completely different in those areas, especially the cities that house universities, where the average age is under 25 yrs old, and more than half are single. The majority of those young people do not represent me. Maybe 20 yrs ago they did, but not today. Just looking at each state’s political map, for example where I live now, only two counties voted opposite of what I vote, and both counties have large universities. I know not all of them attend university, but they do play a major roll, as do unions, and of course race and ethnicity. I don’t trust “popular vote” though, because there is still so much fraud that occurs, and it becomes an issue every election year.

  22. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    I think this argument comes down to the sovereign. Which body is considered to be the sovereign. Well this is not a straightforward answer. Sovereign by nature is the body that has autonomous control over governance without regard to other bodies within the framework. The United States of America is designed for not one body Federal Government, State Government, individual to be the ultimate sovereign. Each has the legal ability to remove the powers of either of the other bodies. On top of that each body has multiple other bodies each with balances to maintain order of the sovereign. So based on this ideal the popular vote is embodied at both the state and federal level with the POTUS getting both the state and the individual input. States have the leeway to determine how their electoral votes are to be determined, but its the individual who abides by the state law to provide their input for who is to run foreign policy as the POTUS is the ultimate sovereign for international affairs. Based upon this set up, the Republic is formalized and all sovereign bodies are under their social contract with the others to limit their power and provide their input.

  23. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    States are tretaed like seperate contries that’s why it is called the United States. The popular vote in a republic is irrelevant what matters is that Trump won 31 states to 19 with an overall population distibutuion that was even hence the 50/50 spilt in the pouplar vote. If you did not do that then candidates need only campaign in high population states and the rest would be ignored leading to declarations of independence and the old North/South divide.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Well said

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Yes correct

    2. Anonymous2 weeks ago

      Lets not forget that states with lower populations are usually the states with the most resources. Without the electoral college, these voiceless, less populous states would have piratically no control over their own resources. This could easily lead to the less populous states wanting to secede from the union.

  24. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    If we must have a popular vote in elections, then I say we give each state one vote and the majority wins. To my knowledge, we didn’t ratify the Constitution by a popular vote of the people. It was a vote by state.. We don’t amend the Constitution by popular vote. We are a union of states. We are a republic, not a democracy.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      This is what I’d like to see. One state, one vote. Simple. The first candidate to 26 wins.

  25. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Removing popular votes, and their effect, seems an odd purpose of the Electoral College, especially when the candidate of one party becomes the unpopular vote-winner penalizing the popular vote winner, or would be if all votes were counted.

    An electoral college that ignores popular vote in its mechanics seems unfair indeed, if not a form of voter suppression which, of course, is supposed to be illegal.

    Still hard to figure out how electoral votes can be projected and converted into political analysis polls before election day, or on election day, if electoral college doesn’t vote until Dec 6th, 1 month after election day. What could be the purpose of that timing schedule, if not to reflect the popular vote after it is counted?

    No way of scrutinizing the electoral college sufficiently to determine whether or not fraud took place (even before votes are cast) although many exist for popular vote scrutiny…recounts, hanging chads, etc. That there isn’t the potential for that review and scrutiny presumes that the Electoral College vote is an autocratic vote by operation and free from scrutiny, or appeal.

    Surely this is not what Alaxander Hamilton wanted when he introduced & passed the process as a strong central government feature not liable to be amended. But population today is very different from 1789, & different demographically. Has electoral college become obsolete because the safeguard it was intended to be has become a risk to fair elections due to potential for voter suppression?

  26. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    I think the answer is simple
    Hillary won 93% in DC (??? Is it possible) so, she has more popular votes (250 000 )

    Trump did not fight to have up to 80 _90 % in his every state targets, but only ~ 50 _ 60% and more states to fulfil 300+ elect votes.

    He has a winner temper rather than a popular will

    So, Trump won by smart strategy

    1. mlondeaux3 weeks ago

      Trump also won 12 million African-American votes, 29% Hispanics, 81% Evangelicals, and 64% working mothers. All those protesters need a reality check. It wasn’t just middle-class whites who voted for Trump. The irony is, one of Trump’s top priorities is helping inner cities by giving tax breaks to overseas companies who repatriate in those cities providing more jobs for minorities, and, along with a better education system, will mostly benefit the same people who are protesting against him. Unfortunately, they’re being brainwashed by liberal propaganda that prevents them from realizing the bright future ahead of them. Someday they’ll thank Trump for looking out for them.

    2. mlondeaux3 weeks ago

      Trump also visited blue states that Hillary assumed she had in the bag didn’t bother going there. Fortunately, they appreciated Trump’s efforts and he was able to turn three states red, especially Pennsylvania, which was a shocker to everyone.

  27. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    this is why we live in a representavie rebublic and not a democracy

  28. spacemonkey3 weeks ago

    Theu really should just abolish electoral college. Nobody wanted Bush in 2000 but we ended up wit Bush & we ended up with a recession, a major terrorist attack on US soil & an invasion of a middle eastern country that costed lives of servicemen & servicewomen as well as innocent civilian casualties & trillions of dollars over ten years. Now because of electoral college we now will have a potentially corrupt criminal for president who I predict will have a similar impact on the US to the Bush administration. Its still too early to say how well or how bad Trump could do as president but Republicans haven’t had the best track record lately. The only reason the 21st century has had republican presedents is because of electoral college. If electoral colege had been abolished in the 90’s then the 21’st century would have had all democrat presidents so far.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Nobody wanted Bush? I and many others voted for him 🙄

  29. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Except it isn’t true. Media is dragging their feet about updating the raw vote totals. Also not reporting he won MI because it puts his total over 300. It all plays better to their narrative his win is not really legitimate somehow.

  30. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    States rights, States rights, States rights. That is what the Federal Government has been chipping away at for many years now. So if you in California want to live in a super liberal government with high taxes etc. then so be it. If I want to live in a more conservative community environment then I will live in one of those areas of the country. The Federal government should not impose “one size fits all” to the citizens of the Republic. The Federal Government and President should have basic responsibilities like protecting our country etc. Not whether all Schools teach a “common core”, or whether transgenders can use the bathroom of their choice, etc. Leave that up to each State. And if you do not like the States policies then move to another area of the Republic.

    1. Mark Noonan3 weeks ago

      What you want violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. DOMA was one such law that allowed different states to decide. Sorry Aside from the bathroom issue saying that the state won’t recognize your marriage from another state solely on who the person is married to falls into you don’t get a say if it violates any part of the Constitution Article IV, Section I. “States that fall within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and Judicial Processes of every other state”.

  31. Larry Leighton3 weeks ago

    Does this site automatically sign in commenters as ”anonymous”, or are there that many cowards here?

  32. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Correction, it takes a minimum of 11 states (not 12) with the most electoral college votes to win an election.

  33. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    “Trump’s victory…”

    Trump does not have a victory because the popular and E. College votes do not elect our President. Both of those results are nothinng suggestions following a narrow guide. Trump could have 537 EV and nothing would change b/c he would still be nothing but a Candidate. Clinton go in w/ just one EV and still be elected President because no private citizen has ever put a President in office.

    Congress is the only group authorized to put a President in office. Congress could dismiss all EV for Trump and Clinton could be elected.

    CONGRESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ONLY GROUP ABLE TO ELECT POTUS.

    A lot of the same people who said Trump is an idiot are among the same 4 million signatures on petition addressed to E. College pushing for Clinton over Trump. Guess what? Even if petition succeeds it does not change anything. People who complain about an election should first learn how the final candidates are elected to office.

  34. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    It takes a minimum of 12 out of 50 states, plus D.C., with the most electoral college votes to win an election. Going off of the 2016 results, a candidate would need around 40 million out of the 120+ million votes cast to win an election. The 80+ million votes left over nor the other 38 states, plus D.C., would matter. Technically a candidate could lose by 100 million votes and still win as long as they won those 12 states. 12 states control a presidential election no matter how high or low the voter turnout is for those states.

  35. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Brazil, ironically or not, being a poorer country, has a great Information Technology voting system, that started to be used since 1996, with electronic equipment. It is 100% safe. Of course that the conspiration folks always talk about fraud using this system, but the fact is that is safer than manual paper voting and it’s quicker and damn straight. Why does USA still using medieval ways of voting, is beyond my mind, really. Just take a look at Michigan mess to finish the counting. It’s like 1980. I saw the ballot machines, it is a disaster. Time for USA to adopt Brazilian system.

  36. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    people need to get over it Trump won fair and square. I dealt with Obama for 8 years you can do with Trump for at least 4 he deserves his chance plus not to mention you think there’s right it’s now you will create Thunderdome

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Loosing the popular vote but somehow still wining is not wining fair & square. Plus electoral college is an outdated system that needs to be abolished. Nobody would want electoral college if they knew it meant their vote doesn’t count. It’s practically cheating on democracy. Also if a relatively small group of eliete voters choose the president then what the fuck is the point of all the common people voting on election day other than wasting money, paper & space for poling locations?

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Yes it is fair and square. Population isnt everything. Geographic size of a state counts also as it should. Why should a smaller state with more population always get to dictate what happens to the larger one?

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Why should a giant state with a few people be allowed to force a majority of people to their way? The GOP were railing against the EC before the election even started but then they were the second place first winners and suddenly it’s perfectly democratic. Having some votes weigh more than others isn’t fair no mater which direction you spin it.

        2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Yeah, Alaska should have at least as many electoral college votes as California and Texas. I mean if you cut it in half it would still be the first and second biggest state!!!

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Yes it does actually. Those are the rules of the game. Play by the rules. Or should I say those are the laws of the land. Follow the law. You sound like you don’t want to follow the law. Too bad, that’s how it is.

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Right on. I love the attempted rationalization that 1 Nebraska resident equals 4 New Yorkers. Those in favor of EC just enjoy having their privelage. It doesn’t make any sense and it is not representative of our nation’s voters.

    2. Mark Noonan3 weeks ago

      Tough you get over it. But you are correct. But his power will be severely blunted in 2 years.

  37. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    This current push to change away from the Electoral method is strictly driven by the losing side to change the outcome. If all of you Blue States are so bent on changing your States allocation of E votes to a proportional method, then go for it. This would result in Trump receiving 3 more votes from Oregon, 22 votes from California, and 20 votes from NY. There’s a reason why it’s called the United States. That’s because it’s 50 sovereign States joined in a Federal Union. Hence, 50 Presidential Elections with Electoral votes assign to each State based on the number of Representatives in Congress, plus two for Senators.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Actually people have been saying to do so for about the last 20 years. This election really brought forth the movement into the spotlight.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      time.com/4558510/electoral-colle…

      Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

      “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

      Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

      If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

      In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century, Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd—dare I say peculiar?—institution in the 21st century.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Thank you for such a full explanation of the history of the Electoral College. That is an even *more* compelling reason to do away with it.

  38. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Question: It’s 11/13/16, several days after the election – and votes are still being counted. How can Electoral College votes be assigned to candidates before the votes are tallied? I’m serious. Can’t find the answer to this anywhere. Also, at some point (say, 2 million votes) wouldn’t the popular vote trump (can’t think of another word, unfortunately) the outcome of the electoral college? (Of course not, but something to that effect would have been a nice fail-safe, in this criminally insane system.)

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Listen we are a republic not a democracy. Our forefathers didn’t want large population centers to always pick the president. They wanted places like Wyoming and New Hampshire to have a voice in the election. That is why we have an electoral college system. You want to see blood in the streets? Try stealing the election from the voters.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Yeah — a vote in Wyoming is worth 4 times that of a vote in California — makes total sense to me /s

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          And having 2 homeless people being able to outvote someone who owns hundreds of hectares of land and pays way more in taxes doesnt make sense to me. Its in how you look at it really.

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        How is one person one vote stealing from people not living in population centers? Are you suggesting conservatives don’t live in population centers and liberals don’t live in rural areas?

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          I would suggest that people living in population centers have a completely different set of needs and agendas than someone that lives in a rural area.

          Conservative or Liberal shouldn’t really be the description, but unfortunately it’s all we have with the 2 party system.

          People in Manhattan are largely unconcerned with the pressing matters in central Texas – and equally the other way.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Electoral votes are vote by an elected electorate who normally vote according to their precinct’s voting count. I am not positive about the procedure, but It could change if some precincts change from the early voting projection. But generally I think they stay true to form. Some electorates can even go against their majorities, though I don’t know of it has ever happened.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The electoral college doesn’t actually cast their votes until mid December (13th or 19th I think).

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Once minimum quotas are met the counting continues as a job of record keeping.

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      If you look at all the red states he won the popular vote in those states , just as Clinton won the popular vote in the blue…so it was fair for him7 to get the electoral votes for that state…you can’t change what the United States has been built on…no one liked Ronald Reagan and he turned out to be one of the best presidents

    6. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The Electoral College Meets Dec 19, 2016 usually at the state capital. That is when the actual votes are cast for the Presidential Candidates.
      Nothing is final until then.
      The electors cast their ballots at that time. Then the ballots are delivered to
      Washington D C and the official count will not be known until Jan 6, 2017. The ballots are sealed until that time. If the electors decide to vote their conscience because they believe that a candidate is unfit, unqualified, or would violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole, then they have the right to make that choice.
      The Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of the President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    7. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The reason they can call the election in those states before all ballots are counted is because the number of outstanding ballots does not outweigh the number of votes needed to change the winner.

    8. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Because enough of the votes have been counted where even if the remaining the votes went to the other candidate, it wouldn’t make any difference to the outcome.

  39. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    vigorously fight against…and prosecute voter fraud.
    1. need id
    2. need to be an american citizen
    3. no bussing people from polling station to polling station
    4. no dead people voting
    5. no voting machine fraud
    6. no calling the winner before voting completed
    7. no allowing big businesses to influence…such as deleting one side’s tweets, deleting one sides facebook posts, redoimg google trending to one side
    8. having a fair, balanced and unbiased news reporting
    9. purposly colluding and over sampling certain demographics to drive poll numbers

    Once we have teuly fair election, maybe popular vote could be used. This is the information age. Almost everyone has a cell phone and can easily distrubute evidence. We saw…this election, we saw all…and I am afraid trust is lost for good

  40. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    If the electoral college is more important than that of the citizens, then why should we be asked to vote if our vote does not matter…

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The EC is to insure a few states don’t dictate the outcome.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Do some research into electoral college. What it is, and why. That will HEAVILY clear everything up. Popular vote should not be the main system in a country as big as and as diverse as the US.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Because your individual vote determines how your state votes.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Each individual vote determines when the votes are totaled which way the electoral vote will go in each state. That way every state in the United States has a say in electing the president. Otherwise, those states with more population like California or New York would always have more popular votes than say a small state like Rhode Island, etc. Electoral votes is a more fair way for ALL states in our country.

  41. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Eliminate Electoral vote in established USA:
    ALL STATES CITIZENS ARE IN AMERICA; UNITED STATES.
    IF people are ever going to feel like voting matters (each & every vote); then the winner must be the “popular” vote. Having an unpopular win is antiquated since every state is populated now. Talk to your Chamber of Commerce & Governor IF you truly want your state to have more residents but if you like it rural then deal with the results. Electoral College is also creating gerrymandering motivation (vote rigging). Enough already!
    Of course it’s a popularity election; it’s not a merit based election. And this 2016 election proves it’s not based on merit nor intelligence and will forever be remembered by all developed countries for lacking merit, intelligence and popularity; regretfully.
    Eliminate Electoral College in modern times!

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Of course eliminating the electoral college will just set the stage for the next American civil war when rural, conservative, gun toting states lose to New York, Kalifornia, and other high population liberal strongholds. We have a Federal republic with a capitalist economy, not a national socialist government and economy.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Completely disagree. You obviously don’t understand what the designers of America did. Lucky for America The founding fathers realized that a majority rule was an end to the republic. It’s about the state’s needs. If elections were based on the popular vote, 6 cities would determine our president, leaving the rest of the states and counties without a voice. The Electoral College is nothing short of a masterpiece.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      With all due respect, you are way off the mark. If you take the popular vote then a large percentage of the country won’t count. Calif. is overwhelmingly blue. It has highly dense population. Rural areas of America in this scenario would have no voice. Most of America don’t want a few large cities dominating the entire election process. I wager that if the shoe were reversed and Calif were red then you would be singing a different tune. Be truthful and admit it.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      It’s obvious that after reading your comment that you need to be given a ‘simple explanation’ of the ‘Electoral College’ to help you ‘understand’ it, something you’re lacking. Your lack of knowledge is a very serious THREAT to our democracy.

      So, let’s start from the beginning.

      The President and Vice President of the United States are NOT chosen by a
      nationwide popular vote of the American people. Rather they are chosen
      by 538 electors. This process is spelled out in the United States Constitution.

      Why didn’t the Founders just make it easy, and let the presidential candidate with the most votes claim victory? Why did they create and why do we continue to need this electoral college?

      The answer is critical to understanding the electoral college and also the
      United States of America,. The Founders had ‘no intention’ of creating a
      pure majority-rule democracy. They knew from studying history what most
      have forgotten today, or never learned. Pure democracies DO NOT work, they implode!

      Democracy has been described as two wolves and one lamb voting on what’s for dinner. In a pure democracy, bare majorities can easily tyrannize the rest of the country. The Founders wanted to avoid this at all costs. This is ‘why’ we have 3 branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. It’s why each state has 2 Senators, no matter what its’ population, but also different numbers of representatives based entirely on population. It’s why it takes a super-majority in Congress and 3/4 of the states to change the Constitution and it’s why we have the Electoral College.

      Here’s how the Electoral College works.

      The Presidential election happens in two (2) phases.

      Phase 1 is purely democratic. We hold 51 popular elections every presidential election year. One in each state and one in D.C.

      On election day 2012, you may have have thought you were voting for Obama
      or Romney, but you were really voting for a slate of Presidential Electors. In Rhode island for example, if you voted for Obama, you really voted for 4 of the states democratic electors, and if you voted for Romney, you were really voting for the states 4 republican electors.

      Phase 2 of the elections are held in December. It is this December election
      among the states 538 electors, not the November elections, which officially determines the identity of the next President. And as we already know, at least 270 votes are needed to win.

      Why is this so important? Because the system encourages coalition-building and national campaigning. In order to win, the candidate must have the support of many different types of voters from various parts of the country. Winning only the south or the Midwest is not good enough. You cannot win 270 electoral votes if only one part of is supporting you.

      But if winning were only about getting the most votes, a candidate might
      concentrate all his efforts on the biggest city or the biggest state. Why would that candidate care about what people in West Virginia, or Iowa, or Montana think?

      But, you might ask, isn’t the election really only about the so-called swing states?

      Actually, NO. If nothing else, states and swing states are constantly changing. For instance, California voted safely Republican as early as 1988, Texas used to vote Democrat, and neither New Hampshire, nor Virginia used to be swing states.

      Most people think that George W. Bush won the 2000 election because of Florida….Well sort of, but he really won the election because he managed to flip one state which the Democrats thought was safe, i.e. West Virginia. Its’ 4 electoral votes turned out to be decisive.

      No political party can ignore a state for too long without suffering the consequences. Every state, and every voter in every state IS important.

      The Electoral College also makes it harder to steal elections. Votes must be stolen in the right states in order to change the outcome of the Electoral College. With so many swing states, this is hard to predict and hard to do.

      So without the Electoral College, any vote stolen in any precinct in the country could affect the national outcome. Even if that vote was easily stolen in the bluest California precinct, or the reddest Texas one.

      The Electoral College is an ingenious method of selecting a President for a great diverse republic such as our own. It protects against the tyranny of the majority, encourages coalition building and discourages voter fraud.

      And this is ‘why’ the Electoral College will remain within our Constitution as an important part of our Presidential election process.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        thank you for making it simple and clear for us europeans to understand how your Electoral College works on behalf of the people.

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Fantastic explanation. Thank you!

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Not going to happen because then a handful of states or large cities would decide the election time after time and then you’d have even more people who feel like their votes don’t matter than you have now.

  42. Douglas Self3 weeks ago

    An amendment to change the POTUS election from the states as carried out by the Electoral College to a nationwide popular vote will NEVER get off the ground. Simply put, the Republican party, which now has 33 of the 50 governor positions, and majorities in both House of Congress, will always oppose it. Were there enough traction for a popular POTUS vote, the Democrats would already have an even more commanding position, and, if anything, they are LOSING ground from what they have even now.

    A hypothetical popular vote would switch the focus from states altogether to the most popular media markets like NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, DFW, Philly, and Atlanta. Talk about the rest of the USA being relegated to ‘flyover’ country status.

    I can see how the EC formula should be revised, though. More people voted in Florida for President than in California, for the obvious reason that FL was a ‘battleground’, and played a huge role, though apparently not THE deciding state, unlike how it did in 2000. CA, OTOH, being one of the ‘bluest’ of the ‘blue’ states, which gives ME the ‘blues’, gathered much less interest, as HRC got nearly TWICE as many votes as did Trump. This is reflected by the fact that the US Senate seat was up for grabs between two DEMOCRATS, not that there’s a prayer that any Republican will win again. I don’t foresee another SI Hayakawa rising to popularity to upset a popular Democrat.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._I._Haya…

    There needs to be tweaks, such as adding a layer of electors appointed by the winner of the respective Congressional districts. This would at least give local voice to the POTUS race, so that even in states that swing heavily one way or the other, where local sentiment is to the contrary, their voice can be ‘heard’. Other consideration would be to allocate the electors that came from the House of Representatives count in proportion to the vote, and the two electors that mirror the Senate to the lead ‘dog’ (and guess what that term would make HRC, LoL?). The “winner take all” feature, IMO, of the Electoral College, as used (but not REQUIRED) by most of the states, is what’s wrong with the EC system, not that we’re not using nationwide popular vote.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I agree that getting a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College is doubtful, but there are other ways to achieve the same result. Check out nationalpopularvote.com. Ten states and the District of Columbia (accounting for 165 electoral votes) have have already enacted NPV bills.

      Additionally, you assert that “A hypothetical popular vote would switch the focus from states altogether to the most popular media markets like NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, DFW, Philly, and Atlanta. Talk about the rest of the USA being relegated to ‘flyover’ country status.” Unfortunately, this already appears to be happening since 94% of the 2016 campaign was concentrated in only 12 states: nationalpopularvote.com/campaign…

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The anecdote to that and other statist inspired ideas is a states convention, where each state gets one vote (and 2/3rds is needed) to decide if a convention is needed to work out constitutional issues that the government has caused by its overreach of power and its attempt to thwart the constitution.

  43. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    For everyone saying Big states ‘influence’ the election, it seems to be the direct opposite now, with smaller states influencing the election, which is EXACTLY the same. So, let’s not be hypocrites. Every vote should count.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I disagree. The large states still control the process to a large degree. Look at how many electoral votes you have with Calif. Dems are already winning the election before it even starts, unless you have exception dissatisfaction and an exceptional candidate like Trump.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The same can be stated about Texas

  44. Martha Okadigbo3 weeks ago

    If they’re elected through the electoral college, then the vote of the citizens don’t count. What’s the need of conducting a popular vote?

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The votes were counted, for that state. For example, it will be unfair for Californians to meddle with Alaskans’ voting since individuals in each state likely have different expectation and need from their preferred candidates.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      But they do count because the votes determine what color the state turns. It’s like a popular vote within each state. Without this system, candidates would not bother campaigning state by state and only market themselves to the most populated areas.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Brazilian here. Well, from my understanding, it is the popular vote that makes up the electoral vote. One can’t be built up if another isn’t taken. So that’s why the “popular” vote. But direct voting can be dangerous. Is it fair that the amount of a city (say 1 million) people decides the election for the whole country? What if that 1 million does not necessarily represent the people who urge for reforms and such?

      Plus, the voting in US Election is facultative. If you wanted Hillary Clinton to win, you should be blaming the people who didn’t move from the chair on Election day. There are 318 million people in the US as of 2016. Let’s say 106 million are capable of voting. I am sure half of the country who wanted CIinton, did not vote at all. Blame it on the other 50 million people who didn’t make their voice heard.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Thank you.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Good question Martha, has it ever been addressed , let alone answered????

  45. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16th president of the United States over a deeply divided Democratic Party, becoming the first Republican to win the presidency. Lincoln received only 40 percent of the popular vote but handily defeated the three other candidates: Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge, Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, and Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, a U.S. senator for Illinois.

  46. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    From a Friend…Im sure he won’t mind my sharing.

    “Dear United States of America Citizens,

    Why does the Electoral College exist? I’ve seen countless postings, articles, and stories hating on the Electoral College. It is a shame that every United State’s Citizen does not understand it? It’s a travesty that so many Citizens do not understand it. Let me attempt to briefly explain why it exists.

    Way back in the day – when they were penning the Constitution of the United States, there was a great fight over how the President should be elected. The arguments were based on freedom and independence of the individual states and the citizens therein. Basically, it was a question as to whether the individual citizens or the states would elect the President. There was a fear that the more populous states would dictate how the less populous states, and the Citizens therein, would live. In other words, in a purely popular vote, the minority states would have no influence in the election. Candidates would not even bother visiting those states nor would they have any desire to serve the Citizens of those states. In other words, entire swaths of the population would not be represented by the elected government.

    As a compromise, the Electoral College was born. It was a mix of both beliefs – popular vote versus state vote. To provide balance and relevance for the less populous states, each state was granted two state Electoral votes. Each roughly equal distribution of population was granted one popular Electoral vote, with a guarantee of at least one. This makes a minimum of three Electoral votes for every state with the maximum being based upon the proportion of the citizens of that state to the total U.S.A. population. There are 437 total popular Electoral votes and 101 state Electoral votes (DC gets 1). Currently 55 is the highest number of total Electoral votes assigned to one state – 53 popular plus 2 state.

    As we look at the electoral map, we see there are 17.75 (Maine has funny laws that weakens their state’s position) plus the District of Columbia went Democrat while the remaining 30 states went Republican with Michigan and New Hampshire seeming unable to get their final results calculated (leaning Republican with the latest tally I can find). Even more interesting is that at the less macro level, on a county by county basis, the same trend continues. At the state level, the counties have no such electoral protection so the major population centers in the states largely determine the outcome. This means that beliefs of the many counties within the states are dictated by the few heavily populated counties within the state.

    It is truly an honor to witness this system work as it was intended to protect the minority population states from domination by the majority population states. So when I hear people hating on the Electoral College, what they are really saying is that the many lesser populated states are not allowed to have their own beliefs and are should be denied self determination. Think about it, please.

    In the end, if you still insist on a purely popular vote, then each vote should be proportional to the level of contribution the parson makes to the whole nation – which can be measured by a 10 year running average of your effective tax rate (percentage) from your form 1040.”

    Additionally, “as a related follow on to this posting about the reason for the Electoral College is a comment about the people behaving badly on our streets and on social media. Are we a nation of laws? Did the laws exist before the election and remain the same throughout? Did your state ratify the Constitution, thereby accepting this set of rules (laws) for selecting a President? Yes, losing sucks. Only losers enjoy losing. That is no excuse for behaving as though you are not qualified to be selecting a President (or perhaps not qualified to select the flavor of ice cream you want for dessert). Do you know what I see that is even more disgusting than the candidates we had for President this year? Our behavior in the streets and online regarding the outcome.

    Would everybody feel better if we started one of those fund raising sites to provide participation trophies to everybody who voted. As for those who did not cast a vote and are behaving badly: I’m sure there is a reality television show you should be watching instead.

    If you desire Individuality, first try Independence.”

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Great read, thanks!

  47. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    I live in Brazil. Here we have a Direct Vote Election System. It’s pretty bad. In 2014, the popular vote re-elected one of the worst presidents of all time, Dilma Rousseff, by a thin margin of 51,5%. The country went down through a deep recession. The mentioned president was impeached in 2016. I’d wish that we’d have an Electoral College in Brazil as well. Americans please do not complain, because you don’t know exactly how stupid a mass of people can act by empowering the wrong people by popular votes. You may ask why Mrs. Dilma won after all? Well, her party spent big money in north, in which resides big pools of poverty that need to government to provide for them. They had setup long term non-working benefits for these people so that region could become a marked vote territory. If we had a Electoral College, these kind of things would be out of the hands of politicians.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Very insightful

  48. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    The ellectoral college doesnt protect the rural areas, if you look it up you se that the statitics show that the candidates dont care about small states, they only ivest time in the swing states.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      the popular vote (in your state) determines what the electoral votes are… so each vote does count…(states can flip dem/rep) but if youre outnumbered in your state…your electoral votes will not represent your personal opinion…but the consensus of your state’s population…

      thus…if youre unhappy with that…the best approach is to work with local state political groups or organizstions to get more of your state-mates to consider alternative views…

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      small states ALSO have small populations… so they will be overlooked under either scenario… and actually under electoral college they magnify their influence… if what your are asking for is 1 state 1 vote..so all states are equal…. good luck with that

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Swing states change

  49. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Our whole lives we have been told that our votes count. But as this election again has shown that this is a lie. If our votes really counted Hillary would be president just like when Am Gore won the popular vote against Bush, the electoral college gave bush the presidency. The electoral college should be gotten rid of.

  50. Harold Stadler3 weeks ago

    I would’ve thought that the propoganda articles stopped after the election. Mr. “DeSilver” is needs to get the facts correct! The most current voting totals equal 128.5 million of which Clinton = 61.1 million; Trump = 60.5 million; Johnson = 4.2 million; and Stein = 1.3 million. Additionally, several other minor candidates totalled 1.4 million. Ok, Clinton got more votes than Trump but she did not win the majority of the popular vote – like the Democrats claim. Sorry folks!

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      In situations like this there should be a second round only between two candidates.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Read the article. He stated, “as of Wednesday afternoon”.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Clinton won the popular vote. A majority would only matter of there were only two candidates.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        But their weren’t too candidates because America’s viewpoints don’t fall in to two categories. Let’s say hypothetically you has a two party system, then I will concede that the majority of Jill Stein voters would have voted for Hillary. But if you think that the libertarian party, which wants no taxes, would vote for a party that looks to raise taxes then you are out of your mind. Fiscally the libertarian party is more conservative than the Republican party.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I’m confused. Why did she not win the “majority” of the popular vote?

      1. Steven Ehrman3 weeks ago

        Majority means more than 50%. Plurality means the most votes but not more than 50%.

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Because there was about 128 million votes.. She got 61 million (rough numbers) which is less than half of the total number of votes.

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Yeah, he said as of Wednesday Those were the numbers, read the article. You posted your comment Saturday, thus, the numbers have changed.

  51. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Thank you for this article. It helped me to see that what appears to be an antiquated system really helps protect the interests of all Americans. It gives those of us who live in less populous states the opportunity make our needs and priorities a factor in elections that would otherwise be determined by states such as California and New York. It gives a voice to rural life.

    1. Pappa Bear3 weeks ago

      You are Correct.
      Just take a look at this map, especially by counties. Pretty much says it all.
      Without the electoral college we would be run strictly by what the east and west coast wanted. It would quickly become a one party nation and democracy would become dictated. Our founders were very wise to reject mob rule democracy, which is exactly what we would have without the EC.

      nytimes.com/elections/results/pr…

    2. fleshTH3 weeks ago

      Actually, that’s not what the article says at all. They explain why you can have a large electoral count and a smaller popular count. Looking at wikipedia of largest cities in the U.S. They have 304 listed. I used the 2015 estimate column and added the entire population of those cities. That’s 92,202,620 of 318,900,000 (US population). That’s about 28% of the entire us population. So, what this really means is that the electoral college is actually stacked up against the more rural areas of larger states. Take for example, Illinois; The majority of their population in is Chicago and a few cities down south like Peoria and East Saint Louis. However, the rest of the state is pretty much solid red. Yet, their vote will almost never count because they weighted by the big cities.

  52. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    One thing I do think is very important to keep in mind is how the electoral college changes campaigning and voting.

    On the campaigning side, under an Electoral College System, only a foolish Republican and foolish Democrat would have expended too much time and resources this year (swing/solid states do change over time) in California, Illinois, New York, and Texas, for example. Under a popular vote system, only a fool would spend their time and money anywhere else.

    On the voting side, more than a few people on both sides in solid states don’t bother voting because they know how their state will vote. Under a popular vote system, this equation would change somewhat. It likely wouldn’t have mattered in 2008 or 2012, but in 2000 and 2016 the voting patters may have been very different under a popular vote system.

    I am afraid of abolishing the electoral college. States are not consistent, and it would allow voter fraud anywhere to be a factor, whereas now it would have to be in a swing state (which would be split enough to keep itself in better check). Running up the margin of victory now in California or Texas now does not have an impact, but under a popular vote system it would. Imagine one candidate loses by a couple hundred thousand votes, and suddenly a large state “finds” more votes changing the winner… then another state does the same, back and forth. A true nightmare and encourages fraud. To use the largest state as an example, a one million vote win may suddenly become a two million vote win if it increases the state’s voting power.

    The district system would probably make this worse, since even California has more red districts than blue ones.

    One possibility may be to reduce each state’s electoral votes by two, which would bring it in line with the population, thus reducing the likelihood of a different popular/electoral winner, while keeping the benefit of voter fraud in solid states in check.

    Keep in mind though, a lot of this is deliberate. In the two examples of discrepancy, 2000 and 2016, the president elect won more states and more counties, while losing the popular vote by less than half a percent. If memory serves, in 2000 Bush won more states 30-21 and counties about 2200 to 700. This ensured candidates have a broad area of support rather than the appeal in geographically small but populated cities.

    Best,
    John

  53. David Heckman3 weeks ago

    The framers recognized the fallacies of a “true” democracy relative to population centers. We have poor people in New York City that believe milk comes from the grocery store. Is it really the responsible thing for our government to give them the power to vote in a cow fart tax to curtail global warming – with the result being that they can no longer afford milk, dairies go out of business, and there is no longer affordable milk for the kids of the very people who voted for the tax?

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      According to your logic the electoral college is working against its purpose. Both times, in modern history, that the popular vote and electoral vote went to opposite candidates, the electoral college favored the republican candidate. If you look it up, you will find that republicans are generally less educated than democrats. So you see, the less educated end up making decisions for everyone.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The less educated or the less indoctrinated? The idea that college graduates are ‘more educated’ in politics and make better-informed decisions in elections is ludicrous in a country where every other succesful business has been founded by college dropout. Blacks voted 92-8 Democrat, what does this tell you? Reality was always the best tutor, but in no other time in history have our college campuses ever been that far estranged from the real world. All the fluffy ‘safe zones’ and affirmative action programs mean nothing in the real world — unless can avoid to face reality by getting a job in the protected public sector, so that you can continue whining how unfair reality is by rewarding the disciplined and hard-working.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      You’re only seeing the view from your front door. It was important when some states were barely populated and had previously & very recently only been territories . You have Reps.& Senators now who vote for your concerns.
      fyi: everyone knows dairy milk comes from cows.The Constitution was always meant to be amended.That’s why the authors put in that provision.Progress is a good idea, staying still or moving backwards is not healthy in a Democratic Republic.

  54. David Heckman3 weeks ago

    Or you could say that Trump lost the popular vote because of California alone – a state that would certainly top the list of nearly everyone as the state that least likely represents the political bent of rest of the united states. California, because of its huge population, garners 55 EC votes that all go to one candidate. However, they will not ever do anything like Maine and split up their EC vote because the northern part of the state is more conservative and the liberal masters that control the state would have to forfeit votes that would otherwise go to the more liberal candidate. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we change that by going to popular vote, we will be allowing California to elect our presidents. If Hillary does win the popular vote by a few 10s or even 100 thousand votes, keep in mind that Trump easily wins the popular vote if you subtract out the 1.5 MILLION more votes she got in California.

  55. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    If each state is to be equal then each state should have equal weight. One electoral vote per state, decided by popular vote of that state. California and New York and Florida etc. would then be equal to Wyoming and Hawaii and Vermont etc… then and only then would every state have equality in the election of their one presidential leader.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Why not one person one vote then. Every person’s vote should count the same.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      So by that logic you would agree that each state should only have 2 Senators (as they do currently) and only 2 Representatives? The electoral votes are based on the number of Senators and Representatives from each state… we are a representative republic, not a direct democracy. (popular vote decides all…) Any change to the electoral college system would require a Constitutional Convention, 2/3 of Senate and House… along with 3/4 of states (38 out of 50) ratifying. Slim chance on any of that seeing how we are virtually divided down the middle…. maybe adapting campaign strategies to appeal to a broader base and stop focusing on the demographic that is huddles in major cities would be an easier task.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      yes I agree then they would have to spend equal time and money in every state. I like your thinking!!!

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The EC is actually a combination of a vote per state and the popular vote. Under a strict democracy with a one man, one vote system, California and New York would decide the election each time. Under the system you propose with each state getting one vote, Republicans would win every election. Look at any EC map. It is majority red by a wide margin for about as many years back as you want to go.

      The reality is that most cities tend to vote Democrat while the rest of the country tends to vote Republican. This results in red states out numbering blue about 2 to 1. Bottom line, your suggestion would create the exact opposite problem of a strict popular vote.

      Our founding fathers knew what they were doing.

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      That is not faor either. This was the problem when setting up the Congress (upon which the EC is based). That is why we have a house of States (Senste) and a house of the People (House of Representatives). The system is brilliant. Why monkey with it?

  56. roger l3 weeks ago

    It is not at all clear Hillary won the popular vote. American Thinker blog posted in the last day or two explains that absentee ballots are not counted at all if a candidate wins enough votes to win presidency. Writer of that blog reports that 67% of absentee ballots historically vote GOP. So while Clinton may be shown to win popular votes counted, that is different from the popular votes actually cast. Given how close the popular vote is, Trump could well be the winner there, too.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Sorry, but American Thinker are spouting nonsense on both counts. First, all absentee ballots are counted, and second, their late counting led to increased electoral margins for Obama. I think this is because most of the absentee votes that are delayed and have yet to be counted are in California, because of their special rule that absentee ballots are still valid if received several days after the election, so long as they are postmarked before the close of polling. So it looks likely that Hillary’s advantage will also grow over the next couple of weeks.

      help.vote.org/article/8-are-abse…
      calvoter.org/voter/faq.html

      1. mlondeaux3 weeks ago

        Wrong. I live in California, and most of the absentee votes come from our servicemen overseas due to our large array of Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force bases. Most of them vote Republican which will definitely be to Trump’s advantage.

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          That was true up to about 20 years ago, demographics of absentee votes have changed dramatically, and number of absentee ballots have increased dramatically. Unless every US serviceman stationed abroad votes in California, and they are all married and all their spouses vote absentee, and all of them vote a couple of times, there are more absentee votes in California than can be driven by servicemen stationed abroad.

  57. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Very nice! But some of you are forgetting one single, yet really important thing. When you refer to “popular votes”, and how “electoral colleges prevents big states from deciding the future of the nation” and so on, you truly seem to assume that people in each state are bound to a single mindset like if every dweller in each state where obliged to think the same way, that is, in accordance to the majority in that state…that is not a valid case. A popular vote is all about people expressing themselves with their own mind, “democratically”, in accordance with their core values…That is not a group- thinking thing but their own personal opinion, that is why it is called popular vote, because every body, every single vote counts. Just wanted to point that out. Before you say anything, I do understand why the electoral colleges are necessary and all, but it sound to me like there are still people out there who seem to not get what the meaning of the popular vote is. Human beings are not robots with synchronized thinking but independent minds with the right to express themselves and be heard and respected…as far as I know.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Actually this is addressed in the article, when the writer broke it down on the macro level and showed county results…most states with rural populations and no major population centers voted overwhelmingly red…large populations and states with large populations centers vote blue…. we like to think that we are independent creatures but in the end we operate on a base level with a herd like mentality.

  58. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    A better way to do it would be to award one electoral vote for the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district, with the winner of the popular vote for the entire state getting two electoral votes.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The beauty of the system is that each state gets to decide how to allocate their electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska obviously feel a more proportional allocation is the way to go. Most states choose the winner-take-all system to help insure one candidate will achieve a majority, as opposed to electoral votes being scattered among three or more candidates with the potential of no one getting a majority, and the House of Representatives having to decide the election.

  59. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    The electoral college keeps 1 – sided majority in a few states from control of the election. For example, let’s just get the vote from New York and California. In other words, only large states with localized views would win the election.

    Problem is that university level students in California were harassed by the staff for supporting Trump. Just one example of mind control. As a result, such bias has resulted in brainwashed localized population on a statewide level.

    Equal rights includes listening to both sides without harassment.

    Electoral college was originally setup so that small states have a voice. Best to keep the electoral college so the minority are not disaffected by the bad policy of the majority.

    In this election (2016), the disaffected from the rust belt were heard. I read a final viewpoint (by a so-called “reporter”) who held contempt for people (before the election) in the rust belt. In reality, that person’s claim to being a reporter should be an “opinion” perspective. Such is the new legacy of the news media.

    Ultimately, what rights do the minority have in a democracy? In this case, the disaffected received attention and problems being identified can now be corrected. Wisdom from the founding fathers who came from a society controlled by the elitist of that era.

  60. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    This is why candidates spend so much time and money in the five states with the most electoral votes and so little time and money in the smaller states. I believe we should use the popular vote and I backed Trump! In a democracy it’s supposed to be majority rules not the electoral college. It’s the same reason businesses are leaving the U.S. Go where you make the most profit. In this case the profit is the all those electoral votes. The rest of the states, the ones with far less electoral votes, can for the most part, suck eggs! Their votes are only fillers.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Frequently, politicians, and many ordinary Americans, refer to the United States as a democracy. Others find this aggravating because, unlike in a democracy where citizens vote directly on laws, in the United States, elected representatives do – and, therefore, the U.S. is a republic.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Constitutional Amendment will never happen! Our Founding Fathers were brilliant…..still today!

    2. Rob Ervin3 weeks ago

      The Congress was set up as it is for the very same reason we have the electoral system.

      The founders KNEW they would NEVER get the smaller states to join the union, just to be DOMINATED by larger, more populated ones.

      Thus the concept of a bicameral Congress, where one body would be made up of 2 voting members from every state, no matter the size or population. The electoral system MIRRORS that concept, with each state getting the number of electors as they have members of Congress.

      This forces presidential candidates to look at the map and cobble together enough STATE victories to be elected, rather than just pander to the biggest population centers. This system was a GENIUS of compromise, without such we would have NEVER formed our union.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        I love the founders, I wish we still believed in the Enlightenment views of the founders… but we do not. The simple, material reality that will ultimately determine the fate of what are now called ‘rust belt states,’ the ‘small’ states we are now in contention with and will be forced to acknowledge the ‘power’ of for at least the next 4 years, is that the coasts, and major population centers, are what’s keeping this country afloat economically. Whether anyone votes or not, whether anyone likes it or not, much of what voting is about now is ideological, whether one acknowledges their ideology or not. We still believe in the power of voting, but in fact, corporations keep this country going, and if corporations refuse to move into the rust belt (even though I would, if I ran a corporation, because you can get land cheap) then money and technological innovation will keep being made in high-population centers, and the technological-deniers will continue to die out, ensuring that the poorest, least economically-advantaged states we’re pandering to now eventually die as well. Over time, their “voice,” which they already have through their congress and senate-members, will ultimately be silenced, primarily by virtue of technological change that has been coming for 50 or more years, is overtaking them, and will inevitably kill them off.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Think through your comment for a second. You argue that we should abolish the electoral college because “candidates spend so much time and money in the five states with the most electoral votes and so little time and money in the smaller states.” Although this comment, as phrased, is completely untrue, let’s just ignore that for the moment and go with it. Think how much worse this would be if we were to change to a popular vote system.

      Rather than camp out in several states, the candidates would campaign in New York, California, and Texas. No one else would matter, because that’s where the majority of the voters are to be found. Your comment is also ignoring the “tyranny of the majority,” which the electoral college is specifically designed to prevent. By granting a minimum of three electoral votes to even the smallest states, no state is completely ignored in the voting process.

      If, as you say, the small states suck eggs under the electoral college system, how do you possibly think they would fare better under a popular vote system where smaller states would have no voice whatsoever with the vote being almost completely determined by the liberal majorities in a few major cities?

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The smaller states actually have more of a say when it comes to the electoral college. There are less EC votes making it seem less significant but your vote matters more in those states.

      The amount of EC votes is determined by total population of the state. And the minimum amount of electoral votes per state is 3. Let’s say your state has 300k people living in it (for ease of numbers) and has 3 votes. If most of your state votes for x, then x wins.

      Consequently if you lived in a state with 30 votes but with 10m people your individual vote would mean way less, but the outcome would be the same.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        But since the larger states are winner take all the candidates must be tailored to take the larger states to have any chance of winning. If the electoral college returned to the system in which each congressional district gets one vote and the state winner takes the two votes that are represented by the senators then we would return to the original compromise and probably have more parity between popular and electoral college. Additionally it would encourage more political participation since people would feel like they had more of a chance of swaying voters in their congressional district then the whole state. It would mean that candidates would also have to appeal to a greater variety of communities rather than just the dominant communities in each state. REFORM THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE to prohibit winner takes all

  61. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    I assume I’m overlooking something basic, but I don’t understand why allocating each states electoral vote allotment by the percentage of popular votes that each nominee garnered is not a good option… I’d appreciate any insight anyone has on this methodology. For example – Florida: Trump (49.1%) = 14.2 Electoral Votes; Clinton (47.8%) = 13.9 Electoral Votes. Why is the “all or nothing” distribution used by 48 states the method of choice?

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I agree with this approach. I think it balances the power of the battle ground states and the big states. It also minimizes the effect of 3rd party candidates.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Thanks, this has been an itch in my brain for 30 years of relocation in military service. I’ve lived in so called deep blue/red states and people are people, God luv ’em.

      I’m reluctant to change from the EC system for fear of losing the charm of various regions and subcultures in America. But your question makes wonder what happens to states that have a huge urban imbalance, e.g. upstate NY, parts of Illinois that aren’t Chicago’s Cook County, not-NOVA Virginia? The density of population overrides rural needs frequently.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Fair point, but the reason all or nothing is used is to limit the value of voter fraud. In a winner-take-all system, there is no benefit to running up the vote count in solid states. However, make it proportional, just as with a popular vote, and then there is benefit to running up the count, especially in a close election.

      Let’s say we had proportional electoral votes (or popular votes) in place before the election, so Trump spent some time in California and Hillary spent some time in Texas to try to sway some votes. Hillary barely wins popular vote and the electoral college proportionally 270-268. Texas does a recount, despite the fact that Trump won it by 8% and declares Trump won it bigger than they thought, and the popular and electoral votes swing to Trump. Then California says “hey, we have some inconsistencies too, and now that we’ve resolved the hanging chads, Clinton actually won it by 15% instead of 12%.” Then states jockey back and forth indefinitely.

      Problems would no longer be isolated. Florida 2000 is considered a example of the system failing, but it is actually where the system worked. It was one state in question, rather than a nation of 120 million voters.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      That is exactly what I was thinking: ensure representation of small states fair, but get rid of the ‘winner takes all’ principle.

  62. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Thank you for the information-I’ve been combing the internet searching for information about popular vote vs. the electoral college vote. Here’s my question in regards to the recent petition that is gaining rapid traction to have the EC give Clinton the win based on popular vote-I’ve gone through state by state to examine who won each state-in some states, I reviewed county by county…am I missing something here? What electoral votes is she missing? Yes-she won the popular vote, but she was rightfully awarded the electoral votes in the states she won-Trump was given the ones he rightfully won…so is the petition overlooking the fact that it’s really California and New York that is pushing that popular vote margin higher? She won those states. I’m honestly confused and would love insight on this! I’m reading a LOT about “she won the majority” and that seems accurate for the states she actual won..not all the other states in the country that she didn’t win..even if it was only by a 13,000 vote loss. So what am I missing? What is left to award her with electoral votes? Help 🙂

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Washington Post article may help your inquiry: “Spoiler: That plan to have the electoral college elect Hillary Clinton isn’t going to work”
      archive.fo/bSmQW#selection-3319.…

      In short, no matter how the numbers are tortured, they won’t confess anything different from the 2016 election.

  63. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    No one knows who would have won the election of no electoral college…hundreds of thousands of people don’t vote because they live in a blue or red state. I mean what is the point of waiting hours in a line if the state is going blue or red anyway. It is all useless speculation. Fact is we live in a republic not a democracy and we do have the electoral college which Trump won in a landslide. Let’s all move on.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Lets not just move on! Conversation and Americans should engage!!! Always!

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        “Lets not just move on! Conversation and Americans should engage!!!11ALways!1”
        You cant change the rules after you lose. Where are your morals? it was a close fight but when you, your done, welcome try again. In 4 years.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I’m also aware of many people from the same party not voting because they knew were their state was going to fall so didn’t bother to vote

  64. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    You left out the part about slavery. Because of slavery, the southern states appeared to have a very small population. Slaves had no rights as humans, so they couldn’t be counted.

    But the EC solved this by counting slaves as 3/5s of a person. This inflated the population count in slave states, thereby allowing more electoral votes, without actually allowing blacks to vote.

    1. David Heckman3 weeks ago

      You’re on the correct path; however, the 3/5s compromise was to prevent slave owners from using the votes of their slaves to maintain the institutions of slavery by limiting the total number of votes from slaves. Abolitionist members of Congress in the north recognized that giving the slaves a 1 for 1 vote would just put provide slave owners with the tool they needed to inculcate slavery on a national level.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Well said. So when slavery ended the EC should have as well. Of course, well after slavery Blacks still had to fight for their right to vote. Southern states still benefited from them being in the population, yet continued to deny their rights. All the more reason for a one person one vote system – people actually died to be counted as equal!

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        If the system was with no EC, then the campaigns would have been totally different. They campaigned based upon how the EC is structured and how it works. Also, as others have stated…many people do not even bother to vote for red if they know they live in an overwhelmingly blue state (and vice versa), and the absentee ballots have not been even counted and factored in and usually skew toward red.

  65. Berni Paik-Apau3 weeks ago

    The electoral college is archaic and does not speak to the will of the people. Futher, the electoral districts in each state can and has been skewed to benefit one particular party. Play the redistricting game and see for your self how state electoral votes can and be manipulated. (By the way that is a real game you can play online and gives you a clear understanding why certain states show one party even if the state makeup is diverse).

  66. Richard Gilchrist3 weeks ago

    Apparently, when a Democrat loses the presidential election it is a time to rely on how uneducated their base truly is. The emotional cries for the popular vote (We are a democracy!!), and all new contrived ways to make electing someone more complicated. It’s like playing a board game with someone that is changing the rules for each move. We do not live in a democracy. If the total votes determined the winner a very tiny portion of the nation’s cities would decide. Unless the laws are changed, this is the system we have and probably after the votes are actually all tallied, the popular vote won’t be such a great thing either.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      From where I stand your description equally applies to your side. We have spent 8 years with your group not accepting Obama as president and sending representatives to congress whose only job was to block anything he proposed. Please don’t try to pretend otherwise now.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        What did you want Obama to pass that he didn’t and we blocked?

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Not actually true. During the last of the Bush years, it was the Reid/Pelosi team that blocked Bush, then the Dems controlled the senate and house, then the repubs got the house back. So, in fairness, it was not one group or another. As to accepting Obama as president, I ask you to show me the riots when he was elected twice. As to the electoral college, the popular vote would definitely disenfranchise large swaths of the us population that don’t live in urban areas, or highly populated states. I, for one, am glad for the electoral college.

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Maybe but we did it according to the constitution and the laws of this country. Democratic representives have done the same..don’t pretend otherwise.

      4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        I think what you’re missing though is the fact that his side as you call it acted like you should they waited and were not happy with the president as it seems you aren’t with the president elect and voted to make the change they wanted by sending representatives that would oppose him. The actions being taken right now by so many seem very childish. They should do the same thing and vote in the change that they want when the time comes. If a change to the election process is what they want then they need to vote in representatives who will do what they want and get it to the point where it’s a real discussion not what they are doing now.

  67. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Very interesting. ..had forgotten a lot of this ..since government classes. Ha

  68. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Has anyone calculated the total electoral vote share for each candidate in this election if the electoral voters in each state were apportioned according to the proportion of the popular vote?

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Hi, I was actually just doing this very thing yesterday. After crunching a bunch of different numbers, I found that Clinton would’ve won the electoral college had the votes been awarded based on popular vote.

  69. Debbi Atkinson3 weeks ago

    I saw no mention of absentee ballots which traditionally break very hard right as they are primarily the elderly and overseas military. Though George Soros has been spending a fortune to get liberal expat’s to vote, I rather doubt he can alter the numbers to break any where near even; the legal and red tape hurdles are formidable.

  70. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    If we want to really be fair, the fix is simple.Change election mandate to state that candidate must receive two thirds of the Electoral votes. If they don’t receive this amount, then we rely on the popular vote. IIt then becomes more likely we rely on the popular vote and the people’s choice will prevail.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      If Hillary had won I don’t think this would be an issue. We need to all come together and work as a United States that we were founded as. This is the only way we can accomplish anything.

    2. Jason Simpson3 weeks ago

      I had considered that, myself. The problem is that it would basically allow the East coast to dictate who wins as where the opposite is true of the popular vote, where California has the most people. I think we should divide the country in thirds, based on population. Take the western most 100 mil of the population and draw a line, then do the same on the east, which will leave about another 100 mil in the central area.
      Now, a candidate has to secure the popular vote in two of the sections.
      It would make it still possible to win, while losing the popular vote, but highly unlikely.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      There should be no point in having electoral vote because as closely devided as the USA is now no one would ever get two thirds. The way it is now every state has a say. Otherwise the overly populated states that lean heavily one way or the other would determine in many cases who would be President. For example, if Hillary wins popular vote by 300,000 but she won California by 2.5 million

  71. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    ” in all four instances the Democratic nominee ended up the loser”. While factually correct, this may be misleading to many who don’t realize that there is very little similarity between the Democratic Party of today and the one of even 40 years ago, let alone in the 19th Century.

  72. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Someone needs to update this article. As of this morning, news that’s Trump actually did win the electoral votes by more than 3 million is making news. Why isn’t this trending?

    1. David Kent3 weeks ago

      Thanks for your interest – this post will be updated once final tallies are in.

  73. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    What an undemocratic way to ‘vote’ for a President. Ie. It’s not even a vote. This election was essentially a referendum on the direction of the free world.

    From another western ally to another…your ‘democracy’ is rigged.

    Even trump on Twitter in 2012 said: electoral college is a ‘disaster for our democracy’

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      America is not a democracy. We are a Democratic Republic, which means we vote for those who then vote for the President and laws. It’s fair, and is the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        AT the time of the founding fathers, only wealthy (less than 5 percent of the population) white men could vote. Is this your concept of fair?

        Such a philosophy dooms the nation to one of dominance by the few over the many.

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Apparently you have never bothered looking into why the founding fathers did this. Early on many argued that each state should get the same number of votes, each state would be equal to any other. Others argues that population should determine the number of votes. What we got was a compromise. Then, like now, there was concern that states with higher populations would be able to dictate to the larger number of states but which had smaller populations. I live in a blue state, but I don;t want the blue states dictating all national policy to the far more numerous red states, which have far different local cultures.

        2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Perhaps not fair, but it did mean that only those with “skin in the game” could vote. I’m in no way advocating such a system, but when those who contribute nothing (and “take”) have an equal voice in voting themselves benefits as those who produce the surplus, you have a potentially dangerous scenario. What happens when taker voters outnumber producers? Answer: end of country

        3. Matthew Newman3 weeks ago

          The original language restricting the vote to landowners has some merit. I think the vote should be restricted to those with skin in the game–i.e., something to lose if they vote carelessly or frivolously. In today’s world, I think the vote should be restricted to taxpayers–those who have filed a 1040 or paid property tax of some type. Those who are on the dole and not paying any such taxes will of course vote for candidates and policies that perpetuate the redistribution of wealth. I understand that people in poverty are easily overlooked in a system such as this, but the current tax code rewards charitable giving and should continue to do so in order to provide those without means a helping hand up. Such a requirement also gives people an incentive to get a job so they can pay taxes and vote. Thus, the low income class would be transformed from a permanent class to a transitional class as people work their way out of it.

        4. Douglas Self3 weeks ago

          Ah, the canard about ‘only rich white guyz’ could vote back when this country was new.

          Well, gee, did it occur to you that the same ‘elite’ group, over time, opened up the vote VOLUNTARILY? It’s not as if there was some Bolshevist revolution (actually preceeded by a populist revolution that kicked out the Tsar, which the Bolshevists subverted and finally supplanted) in this country that ‘overthrew’ the ‘elitists’, carrying pitchforks and torches.

          The actual reason for the EC was to balance the selection process for the POTUS between the large state and the small ones, not unlike how Benjamin Franklin’s “Great Compromise” worked out the bicameral Congress we’ve had all along. The intention was THAT the STATES would elect the President, but the “people’s” voice would come into play by having Congressional representation, as determined in the House, be the dominant factor in apportioning electoral votes, and, if that step didn’t give us a President, deciding the manner in the House of Representatives, BUT…each state, regardless of size, gets but ONE vote. Again, another compromise between the large and small states.

          What is forgotten is that there was NEVER any intent to have a nationwide direct election. Why is this country the United STATES in the first place?

      2. Andy Narain3 weeks ago

        So? Our founding fathers didn’t want women, or slaves, or even poor white men to vote.

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        We are a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Not once.

      4. Berni Paik-Apau3 weeks ago

        Not quite. We ate a Republic, yes. We choose representatives. In the beginning, however, only the elite could be senators. People in general were nit considered smart enough to make decisions. The electoral college is archaic. It was set up that way because distance was too great. That is no longer a problem. Further, the political party makeup of a state can and has been manipulated to favor one party over the other. We as a Republic do choose representatives to represent what we want. However, mist decisions today are not based on what people want but but lobbyist. Another not so democratic entity.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      If you believe it is rigged it is because for good reason the “founders” rigged it this way. If you will just look at a county by county or even better a district by district red/blue map it should restore your confidence in the Electoral College system we use. This election is a prime example of why it was designed. And without correctly being taught American History or Government one cannot understand that we were never intended to be a true democracy. The founders designed a system that would not allow a centralized federal government to override the wishes of the majority of the states. We are a Republic set up as a representative democracy. It worked exactly the way it was intended and to do it differently would require a total repudiation and rewriting of integral parts of our constitution. That is a very difficult thing to do. The founders provided us with a magnificent system of government that is the envy of the free world. Suck it up and enjoy it. One side will never totally have its way in raping the other side and it is by design. Respectful arguments are expected and encouraged. Ideas can be forced on others. Persuasion is the tool to use. We have resorted to base political tactics because we have become pigheaded narcissists who belittle everyone who doesn’t agree with us. Liberals and Conservatives should act as opponents not enemies. Statesmen used to operate that way. Politicians have built political machines advanced by making our differences divisive wedges. We are human and naturally selfish. When we realize that we can welcome thoughts and ideas from our opponents. We may not change our minds often but every once in awhile we will. And that is how it is supposed to work.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Those who voted for Nixon in 1960 were also disappointed, Nixon won popular vote, JFK won the electoral vote!
      We should also remember that at the time that Trump got 274 electoral votes to give him the Presidency, he was also ahead in the popular vote. Hillary wound up getting .2% more of the popular vote. She got 47.7% to Trumps 47.5%.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        No time to give you the facts, but Nixon did NOT win popular vote in 1960

  74. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    It seems that control of congress has a strong bearing on the out come of the presidential elections.

  75. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    It’s funny that the party that claims to represent minority groups wants majority rule.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Not when “minorities” are becoming an overall majority of the population. Some states in the Western United States already have less of the “majority” of Caucasian Americans. Reevaluate what you think of minority and majority, because it is truly all relative to the group (i.e. States are the groups in the Electoral College).

  76. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    the only thing loseing the popular vote means is that the blue sectioned had a hire populations that voted but the rest of the country did not. new york and Califonia have the largest population so there votes are what made the popular vote. not her over all popularity.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Concur. States that have an almost guaranteed outcome (California and NY) result in the minority party (Republicans) not voting much. If the system were based purely on total popular vote (not state by state), many more republicans in such states would vote. While the opposite is of course true in conservative states (more dems would vote), it does not have the same effect given the large California and NY populations. Focusing on the total popular vote outcome given the electoral system means nothing, as the popular vote outcome would be different if we counted the total popular vote.

  77. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    If the shoe was on the other foot and trump had the popular vote and Clinton had the electoral vote, all you Clinton supporters would be saying nothing

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      But the Trump voters would be in a huge uproar and Trump would not have accepted it – saying the system was rigged – there would have been NO graciousness on Trump’s part you can bet on that

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Sort of like the way that the Democrats are calling foul right now.

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Except that Trump himself would be leading the charge. Clinton has accepted the result.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Perfectly stated. Thank you.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      If strictly ruled by the popular vote, large states could dictate their policies to the rest of the states.

      In this case, the boohoo I feel cheated crowd, would have 17 states dictating their policies to the 33 states that voted for Trump.

      Living in Illinois, I can attest as to how this can get incredibly lopsided.

      Cook county (Chicago) consistently bullies the rest of the state (101 counties) with their votes and spending. The rest of the state has no say so over how the Chicago machine continues to destroy our state.

      Without the electoral college system, voters in the red states would be disenfranchised. Our country would be controlled by the eastern and western seaboard.

      No thank you…I like it just as it is. To remove the EC from our system would be disastrous. Trump’s opinion is on the wrong side of this debate. (Methinks his thoughts on this subject has probably changed since voiced in 2012)😏

  78. Charles Baker3 weeks ago

    The overriding concept that is all but forgotten is that The USA is a Union of States not a united State. The electoral college is about the only thing remaining that allows the cultural distinctives in individual states and the innovative legal diversities to remain. One state can make a mistake without wrecking the entire union, One state can devise a system within their law that can become an excellent model for others. Regional differences in rural vs urban, manufacturing vs service and liberal arts vs commercial education can be accommodated so long as states have some autonomy.
    California, New York and Florida are all wonderful places but the necessary cultural differences from their population density are dramatically different from Montana and Wyoming! The electoral college maintains some power for each state and has never been equaled in it’s effectiveness. It simply must be kept in place!

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I agree. Well said.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Really trying to get all this wrapped around my brain. I understand why the EC was put it place BUT what if I am a Republican living in California, why should I bother to vote knowing that the state is going to go blue? On the other hand, say I live in Texas and I’m a Republican not wanting to vote my party, again why vote knowing my state will go red? in either case my vote wouldn’t feel like it would mean anything because of majority of the state I live in. Someone make my head stop spinning!

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        That is exactly why Trump is very, very VERRYYYYY NARROWLY losing the popular vote. Because a million Republicans in California said “screw it, this state always goes Dem anyway”.

        But the electoral college simply MUST stay. Without it, candidates would make ALL of their campaign rallies in California, New York, Florida and Texas, and would totally ignore the needs and lives of the other 46 states!

        Since the United States is a union of 50 “countries” (states), we MUST have the electoral college to protect against “mob rule” where the emotions of people in the 3-4 mega-state oppress the remaining 46 states.

        So we have this system, where it is like 50 different Baseball games played all at once. We then pick the winner of each game, and tally the total to determine who won the season (who becomes president of the entire country).

        It is a system that guarantees that liberal mob-rule echo-chambers of two cities on the west and east coast could not oppress the vast majority of the ENTIRE country that wanted REAL CHANGE in politics.

        Go to this map and press the “Counties” map, and you will see that the majority of the country is Red. People want change.

        nytimes.com/elections/results/pr…

        America is a Democratic Republic, which means that all people’s voices matter Democratically, but that no emotional herd mentality mobs in certain cities can oppress the whole country.

        Great system. The only part I dislike about it is that the electoral college individuals themselves then get to vote. They come from the parties they represent and most are bound to the vote of the state by pledge, which ensures that most follow the will of the people of their state, but “faithless electorals” exist that vote against the will, and a few states actually allow that. Just get rid of that entirely. So that the way the state swung is the actual result. Automatically.

        The reason that the electorals do the final vote is because they wanted one final way to protect against mob rule. But in this day and age, that part is archaic.

        The electoral college system itself is brilliant.

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Excellent explanation of why the EC is absolutely essential!

        2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          You had me until “liberal mob rule echo chambers”. Why make what was oh wise an excellent explanation political?

        3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Ok, but under EC hand handful of “Battleground oe Swing States” decide all elections and get all of the attention from candidates. they haven’t been to even half of the states. So it’s the same situation. For that reason popular vote would be more far.

        4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          I disagree in today’s era of technology. This was true before we had 24/7 television, Internet, and radio. Before we had airplanes and interstate highway systems. Today’s technology allow you to understand, identify with, or against, and choose to cast your vote for a candidate without ever having attended a campaign event. Honestly, when was the last time any of us went out to watch a politician speak? With the traffic, security, and general mayhem involved with the event I would rather watch his or her speech online or read it the next day. I do not believe the EC is required in the 21st century. I do not think politicians can, or will, avoid stopping at smaller population centers any more than they do now. Technology has connected us with the politicians and vice versa.

        5. Jason Simpson3 weeks ago

          Actually, it’s still pretty balanced when you take that into consideration. I have several friends who didn’t even vote, because their state always goes red.

        6. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          When did winning a majority of votes in a election become “Mob Rule “?

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Don’t feel like your vote won’t count…I am a Republican in Pennsylvania, and the state went RED this year, for the first time in a loooong time! But if we don’t have the EC, your vote surely would not count unless you lived in those few, heavily populated areas of the country.

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        “if I am a Republican living in California, why should I bother to vote knowing that the state is going to go blue?”

        I live in California and I went to the polls, voted for a few local offices, and the absurd number of voter initiatives. I don’t bother with anything broader since I know it makes no difference. If I lived In a red state with the same imbalance, I’d do the same thing. The electorate college seems a petty fair way of giving the majority a strong voice but not complete control.

      4. Antoinette TwentyTwoTwelve3 weeks ago

        Example: I live in California, a Blue state, but voted for Trump. On that ballot there were 17 important state props I voted on! Plus a congressional senate seat, and state assembly and senate seats; mayoral and city council elections, various local measures — all on that same ballot! So — even if you’re in a Red or Blue state, aren’t there other reasons to go vote besides voting only for POTUS?

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Thank you Charles. A well stated description of the system for this Brit.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I’m a legal inmigrant naturalized American from Cuba. I believe in american constitution and want it as it was written by founding fathers for my kids and generations to come. I learned from this article. Thanks you guys

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      the overriding concept is not forgotten, its just so obvious we dont mention in a small response box. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers provided us with a way to change the current method of electing the president so that the candidate receiving the most popular vote in all 50 states always wins the White House. The U.S. Constitution empowers each state to choose the method of awarding its electoral votes. Under the compact, when the Electoral College meets in mid-December, the candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) would receive all the electoral votes from all the enacting states (and thereby become president). When the state legislatures convene in 2017, they should enact the National Popular Vote compact

    6. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Thank you! Well said.

    7. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I’m still having trouble understanding – if the argument is that there are states with larger populations and a popular vote would favor those states how does that differ from the larger states having more electoral college votes?

      1. Jacob Rice3 weeks ago

        It allows larger states to have more influence than smaller states while at the same time caping the maximum effect that one state can have on the election. The secondary effect is that a state retains its influence while not have to have 100% of its population voting

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        It makes the votes of those in the smaller states relevant. While 300,000 votes one way or the other might not make a difference, 4 electoral votes are a substantive piece of influence to be courted.

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        There is a minimum number of electoral votes per state (3). Additionally, while the number of electoral votes in porportional (aside from the exception just noted), it is not perfectly porportional; there are not fractional electoral votes. Thus low population states gain more advantage from the remainder being voted “up.”

    8. Jason Simpson3 weeks ago

      Yes, we are a union of states, which is why we have elected officials from each state as representatives.
      Also, there is good reason for the popular vote to rule and that’s because the president picks the third branch of our system, Judicial.
      That means that a smaller number of people in the United States can elect a president and that president can appoint a chief justice, etc, who would uphold laws that only benefit the smaller number that elected the president.
      It is flawed.

      My proposal is to divide the nation in quarters. I had originally said thirds, further up in the comments, but have since revised it.

      We could and have NE, NW, SE, SW @ 75 mil voters. You’d keep the culture, for the most part. The idea here is you either win 3/4 to win the presidency, or you win 2 + popular vote. Winning 3/4 pretty much guarantees the popular vote itself, so you get smaller segments of the country, with similar cultures, voting together.

    9. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Well put. However, I could argue that in 2016 the EC does the exact opposite – allowing a few “swing” States (or even one like Florida in 2000), to control the outcome of the whole election. This contradicts the very purpose of the EC! We are a very diverse nation now. In any given state the vote will be split among its many voters. Wouldn’t it be nice to know your vote would always count no matter who you voted for? Perhaps it’s time to start thinking in terms of People , not geographical areas .

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The ‘people’ who farm and produce our food live in a different environment than the close-cloistered residents of NYC, Houston, LA, or Chicago. Their low-density geography is a necessity to the country.

        This Union of States agreed we will have a contest of Popular Vote for President; done by 50 States + District of Columbia.

  79. Vince Clancy3 weeks ago

    Thank you, for this article! It is a real shame that most people do not understand this! And as someone notes in the other comments, it would seem a disaster if the voting results of a small number of large population states ran the country!

  80. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    It’s now my understanding that the electoral college should act as a check and balance system in elections. If electoral college members feel that the winner of the vote is unfit for office for some reason, they can vote for a different candidate. Originally, this was designed to undo a popular vote win for an unfit candidate (to prevent tyranny), but it can also be used to give the win to the candidate who actually won the popular vote. I think a simple reform doing away with winner takes all (I.e. split up electoral college votes proportional to popular vote in a state) would maintain the check and balance feature of the electoral college while making the electoral vote more closely match the popular vote.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The states decide how to collect the votes. Some, I’m not sure which ones, do allow for split votes. Some also allow no change from the majority vote while others do allow it.

  81. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Can you do a blurb on popular votes in the House versus seats awarded by party. I haven’t seen the numbers for the 2016 race.

  82. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    How is it in 2016 a great nation as this allow 538 people to decide who becomes president. Next time we should let only those 538 go to the polling station because our vote does not value bag of beans. People stand in long lines for hours to waste there time

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Never thought of it this way

  83. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    I believe that scrapping the electoral college and using a strictly popular vote would encourage more people to vote. Many people don’t bother simply because they do feel their votes don’t count. If this election had been by popular vote, and if more people had voted because of that, no one can really say which way it might have gone.

  84. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    There is no such thing as a national presidential vote so why do people keep talking about it,

  85. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    I just happened upon this article and I think the Electoral College is brilliant to a certain degree. I think it should be refined more like Maine’s electoral votes are counted. I think that if one state has 4 representatives. That would mean a state has 6 Electoral votes(to include the 2 Senators from that state). Those districts the representatives represent should vote and if 2 of the districts vote for the democrat, then the democrat gets two electoral votes. If the other two districts vote republican then the republican gets two electoral votes. The remaining two electoral votes goes to the nominee who gets the plurality of the votes in that state.

    There cannot and will not ever be a popular vote for President. Like a lot of others on here have said, the 4 most populous states in the country will always choose the next president if that was the case and ignore other smaller states. I have also noticed one person on here asked how does his vote count. Easy, you vote within your state. Which ever nominee gets a plurality of the vote, get the electoral votes. Except Nebraska and Maine.

    Please add a comment if you agree or disagree with what I said.

  86. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    You’re wrong when you say “Maine and Nebraska award some of their electoral votes by congressional district rather than statewide, though that didn’t come into play this time around.” This time around, Maine did in fact split their electoral votes.

  87. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Folks, Everyone that runs KNOWs the rules of the game. The rules are the same as they have been for centuries and they are there to keep the major population centers for dictating the outcomes. It’s about a balance of Power. I get liberals don’t understand that concept since their party leader the last 8 years has not understood it himself and bypassed the balance of power set up in the Federal Government. Complaining that Hillary should have won because she won the popular vote is akin to complaining that your baseball team should have won because it got more base hits, even though they had less runs. Or complaining your football team should have won because it had more first downs, but less points. Good campaigners know the rules, know how to score and design a campaign to get those electoral college votes.

    Hillary ignored it, thinking she was the coronated successor, ignore traditionally blue states in the rust belt and arrogantly thought she had nothing blocking her path to the White House. Hillary lost that election, plain and simple. If you are playing football, do you run your offense to score more points or get more first downs? Hillary is probably the only democrat that could have been nominated that would have lost to Trump. She and the DNC rigged the election to ensure she would be the candidate, even though it was obvious that Bernie was the popular choice of the Democratic primary voters.

    Understand the rules and play by the rules. Whining and crying isn’t going to change the rules. A court challenge, as some have suggested, is not going to change the rules because this rule is in the Constitution, which is the full bases and foundation of the laws. Its impossible to rule the Constitution unconstitutional.

    Get your state to propose an amendment to replace the Electoral College and if enough of the states agree with you and the proper percentages in the House and Senate agree with you, it will change. Stop whining and do something. Don’t be sore losers. If you don’t like the rules, work within the law to change them. Its your right. Walking the streets and starting fires is not going to change the rules and its not going to get you sympathy.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Well said. Thank you.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Agree well said.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I’m sorry, did the “sore losers” spend weeks before the election saying the system was rigged and that they would refuse to accept the outcome of the election? No. The “sore losers” – who have the majority of the votes, at this moment – are trying to understand how the EC and the popular vote have not matched 2 times in the last 5 elections. If we were in business having 2 deviations from the expected behavior would be something we would evaluate. If we were running an experiment we would do the same thing. Why shouldn’t this we be something we evaluate with an open, intelligent, conversation? It may be the best system or it may need a change. Please consider having a respectful dialogue.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Nicely stated with great analogies.

  88. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    The electoral college also forces a two party system… which is both a good and a bad thing… :-/

  89. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Very simple. Without the electoral college, rural states haven’t voice. The election would go with what ever the big cities feel like doing and we all know who is favored in big cities.

    The idea was to keep big states (and in modern America, big cities) from ruling over all of us.
    Go take a look at the population distribution in the US. You can then see why it would be a problem to get rid of the electoral college in a country as physically large as ours is.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Yes, even though electoral votes weigh heavier in large population centers, the rural areas at least get SOME say with the electoral college. In the case of this election, it is clear that the more rural areas finally had the ultimate say. California, with 55 electoral votes, is notoriously blue, as are NY and other east coast states, yet the red states won this time.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Exactly; there really aren’t blue STATES. There are a collection of blue city states.

  90. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    The electoral college needs to accurately reflect the voting population of the United States. People are upset because in some states votes are worth more when you compare number of voters to the amount of electoral college votes in that state. Oklahoma and Oregon have the same number of electoral college votes (7) but Oregon had 20% more voters. Alabama and Colorado have the same number of electoral college votes (9) but Colorado had 15% more voters. This is geographic discrimination.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The electoral college votes are assigned based on actual population, not the number of people who choose to vote. The number of electoral college votes has absolutely nothing to do with the number or % of people that vote. It’s not geographic discrimination when voters choose not to exercise their right to vote and influence the electoral college votes. Oregon and Colorado voters represented. Oklahoma and Alabama voters should’ve stepped up. Unfortunately, there is no way to mandate voter participation. The electoral college is to follow the popular vote of their state. Mathematically and fairly, you can win the popular vote and still lose the election.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Well said. Also remember that we have positioned ourselves to be the shining example of democracy to the world. We preach to non Democratic countries the importance of 1 person 1 vote, and how each persons vote matters. How then can we justify a system where a candidate that receives the most votes can still loose an election? If this is confusing to Americans, what is the rest of the world thinking?

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The number of electoral votes is determined by the number of representatives in a given state, plus the two senators. Apparently there are more representatives per capita in some states than in others. That is a state determination, not a federal determination. We keep forgetting that we are a nation of states (basically nations unto themselves), not one big overriding nation. What Oregon does is not what Oklahoma does, not should it be.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Large states could choose to divide to become a set of smaller States. Has it happened before? Maine used to be part of Massachusetts til the compromise of 1820, and West Virginia was part of Virginia till 1863. Of course, then the candidates might have to work harder for those states, and the new smaller states would have less clout on legislation and budgetary issues. And you dont hear complaints from California or New York about the outsized weight they have in the House of Representatives on issues that unite their delegations. …
      The only large state that I know of that is not able to divide into multiple state is Texas, due to provisions of the annexation treaty.

  91. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    The electoral college should be abolished. We are one nation and each vote should carry the same weight as any other vote does. We are not a nation where states compete with each other. Our votes taken collectively are the only true representation of what we the people have decided. The electoral college robs us of our true voice in choosing who we wish to be POTUS.
    Maria Baxter

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The United States is a Nation of United States, It isn’t a Nation of a single state. To Eliminate the electoral college is to say you wish to abolish states, You want the federal government to control all and not have state governments.

  92. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Is it possible for Electorial college states representatives to vote other that the states Electorial votes?

    1. FARIKO MAYHEM3 weeks ago

      In 21 of the states they can switch their vots

  93. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    So what will defenders of this current electoral college system tell people when the result of the next election looks like this: Party 1 – 48 million votes nationally ( 270 electoral college votes) AND Party 2 – 55 million votes nationally (268 electoral college votes). What will we tell the people who voted for Party 2 who had 7 million more votes but lost the election via the Electoral College system?

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Just because people in California really like one candidate doesn’t mean the people of North Dakota should be forced to live with their decision. Our country is too diverse geographically to allow population centers to determine our leader. Imagine if we had a president that failed to see the importance of giving federal aid after a hurricane induced disaster in South Carolina because the west coast (who doesn’t get hurricanes) voted overwhelmingly for that president? Or what if the widespread populations of rural America banded together and voted in a president that was anti big city? I know these are hypothetical situations but the sentiments can apply in a lot of ways. At least with the EC each unique state has a semblance of equality in choosing who is going to lead the federal government and more importantly advocate for federal to state funding and support.

  94. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Looking at the last paragraph, which states -Many of the elections with the most-inflated electoral votes featured prominent third-party candidates, who served to hold down the winners’ popular vote share without being significant Electoral College players themselves.

    Who decides who the third party votes should affect? How do the electorates decide which candidate should get electoral for a 3rd pty candidate that has 18% of the vote?

  95. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    There could be no “popular vote” in 1824 because some state legislatures still chose their electors.

    Even today, states run presidential elections under very different rules. ID and early registration deadline in AZ, ID and same-day registration in WI, same-day registration but no ID in MN, no registration at all in ND. In 1916, the national popular vote margin was half the number of women who voted just in Illinois. But no women voted at all in New York and Pennsylvania. The first “baby boomers” voted in the 1964 election– but only in Georgia.

    So different states’ votes are inherently unequal, thus making the wadding of them into a national vote doesn’t meet the test of fairness.

    Also, this election is notably different from 2000. Trump’s EC margin is relatively enormous for this small a margin. This is a new phenomenon– the small states ganging up on the large ones with their “senatorial” elector advantage. Traditionally, small states would vote like their larger neighbors, i.e., sectionally, making the issue moot before this century.

  96. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Is there a way to get the names of all the 2016 electoral voters and their contact information?

  97. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    remember kids: the states elect the POTUS, there are 50 POTUS elections, not one.

    the founders intended the EC totals to “appear to give landslide” or “higher win than the popular vote would indicate” as a tool to help in the peaceful transition of power, that there should be no question that whomever won the election (except in the super-rare case of an EC tie) has some form of mandate to rule.

  98. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    Why do people keep on saying it would be a few states that would determine our president. If we went on popular vote, it would be on individual vote (of the people), take where they live out of the equation.
    With the electoral system it actually does come down to states determining, not individuals…

  99. Eric Gumpher3 weeks ago

    The Constitution is about a balance of power. It won’t allow a few (4) big state to bully small states (46). If we relied on popular vote then California, Texas, Florida and new York would pick our presidents every time. Let California, Texas, Florida and new York do what they want at the state level. Federal law includes all the states. It’s a simple concept.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Amen. I originally thought the electoral college should be abolished when I was in high school way back when. BUT I realized that a few states could elect a president. Somehow that didn’t seem right.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Indeed, unfortunately, that’s also the case in the status quo. Candidates focus all their attention on big swing states, ignoring most of the population. Having a national popular vote, rather than the current winner take all system, would equalize the field, making a vote in texas or california (states that consistently vote for a specific party), worth just as much as a vote in michigan or florida (states that often decide elections). A national popular vote doesn’t consolidate power in the hands of a few big states either, because this system means that a Texan’s vote is worth exactly as much as a Pennsylvanian’s, and no matter how red or blue your state might be, your vote could still be integral to the election of your preferred candidate.

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        With the current system, a few swing states decide the president. Why is that fairer?

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Yeah, when I was young I thought that way too, mainly because I was from progressive Wisconsin and the school system was well on its way to rewriting history and the teaching on how our government works by then.

      4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Those were my thoughts before but as you say, it makes sense now.

      5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        As it is now, the Electoral College can allow a few states to control the Presidency.
        If one had a BARE majority in fewer than 10 large states, the President could be elected with less than 30% of the popular vote.
        And that’s without any third party interference which could cause the same wins with Mere Pluralities in the same states, for an even lower popular vote.
        And that’s what Trump got here in Florida this time, a MERE Plurality; more than half of the voters in the state voted against him, but he STILL got all of the Electoral Votes.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      This argument that “the big states would choose the president every time” is totally fallacious, because it is only in the electoral college where states vote as a unit. Back when the founders implemented the EC, our country had less than ONE PERCENT of the population we have today. One percent! The entire US population was about the size of the population that Los Angeles is today… Consider also that voting was restricted back then to property-owning white men, and you will realize that it was totally different world from our country today. Back then, states were not diverse or heavily populated like they are today. To have the states vote on president as a unit made more sense, because the small number of voters in each state was more likely to be adequately represented by their Electors. For that reason, the big states were likely to have unique interests which outweighed the interests of states with smaller populations.

      Compare that to today, and you will see that each and every one of our states is far more diverse and has more disparate interests when it comes to choosing president. In your deepest red/blue state will have millions of people in the minority party who effectively have no say in who is president because their state (as a unit) is voting one way or the other.

      If the popular vote was implemented, than votes would be counted as individuals rather than states, and it would actually allow for more people to have a say in who is president. As it stands today, it actually IS a small number of states who choose the president–Swing states like Ohio and Florida.

      The Electoral College needs to go.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        In that case, the word States should be eliminated from the name of our country. We should just be America, not the United States of…
        If, however, we truly are the United STATES of America, then we need to let the individual states decide for themselves, and then be represented by the electors based on the number of representatives and senators in each state. Hey…I think that’s what the Fathers had in mind.

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          That is totally NOT what anybody here is saying. It should be the People who determine the election. Also popular vote would allow a candidate to get their fair share of votes in states that they don’t win. This would encourage a higher voter turnout because every vote would count – unlike our winner take all EC system.the

        2. Tennis Takes3 weeks ago

          I wish everyone one can take out their partisan or political views for a minute and ask yourself this question: Why shouldn’t the candidate receiving the most overall individual votes win? I don’t want to hear about tradition or systems people created in the 18th and 19th century. Don’t give me the california/new york think either (keep in mind Texas is 2nd in population and Florida is 4th).

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I believe that a restructuring of the electoral college is necessary, and I don’t blame Californians for wanting to secede because they have the 6th largest economy in the world, pay a lion’s share of taxes and their votes don’t count that much. I don’t believe a Californians vote should count less than a North Dakotans vote. I know this would never go through Congress, but maybe there could be a war. I’d be willing to fight and die.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Your logic is so backwards. Without the electoral college, maybe the 43% of voters in Texas who voted for Hillary would actually have their voices heard, instead of all 38 of Texas’s electoral votes going to Trump. Let alone the rest of us from the those “smaller states” who also didn’t vote for Trump. But no; that must just be some liberal nonsense right?

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      How does the electoral college prevent certain geographic areas from dominating campaign focus? The only thing it does is shift focus from the largest, most politically one-sided states to the more diverse swing states. With the electoral college, politicians are free to ignore New York, California, and Texas to instead focus on Florida, New Hampshire, etcetera. That means the political minorities in those politically unified states get completely ignored while the majority hands easy victories to their party’s candidate. Meanwhile, the total voter turnout is still only around half the country, which means most people get completely disenfranchised by the American election system instead of just under half. It’s a tyranny of the minority instead of the majority and it does nothing to protect anyone. Besides that is the grossly corrupt gerrymandering system which manipulates the political composition of individual state districts in such a way as to force a particular political leaning for the state as a whole, skewing the results for particular states and further disenfranchising the masses. And if you’re still so concerned about a 2-wolves-1-sheep scenario, then why not lobby for an alternative voting system where voters rank the available candidates from most favorable to least so the largest number of people can get the best candidate available to them instead of forcing the strategic voting we just saw in this election with former Sanders supporters supporting either Clinton or Trump to keep the other out of office. That system also excludes the spoiler effect, which the article above shows to be a serious factor in determining electoral college voting results. Seriously, all of this is plenty reason to abolish the electoral college. It’s an outdated system proposed by men who intended the Constitution to be a living document that would appropriately change to better fit the attitudes and opinions of the time. With public opinion turned so far against it, it’s time to shut this horrible system down and embrace a better democratic way.

    6. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      You are right, but refine the electoral college system. Each state should get two for the popular vote and then vote by districts in that state, just like voting for a representative, and split the electoral votes based on who won the districts.

    7. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Right on

    8. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Do you find it more just somehow, that the smaller States should be able to bully the larger ones?

      Why shouldn’t the vote of every citizen have exactly the same weight as every other citizen?

    9. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      One person one vote. It should carry the same weight as any other citizen. It’s a simple concept.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Absolutely.

    10. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Thanks, this now makes sense.

    11. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      The concept is direct election popular votes decides nomination. It no longer matters big vs.small states we are not being thwarted or suppressed by a group who threatened our right to vote, unless you are talking about the electorate. This college was set up for protection of voting privilege, an because an educated board needed to direct the vote, because people did not understand politics and what was best for the country. “The Roman paraell”..look it up.

    12. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      So your saying all the people in California, New York and Fla are going to vote the same way??? We are all just people living in an area with our own voice and feelings why would a vote from CA have anymore merit than a vote from Wyoming…A vote is a Vote.

  100. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    electoral college is a means of power sharing between the large populous states and less populous states. this balance of power is to keep the power 4 to the people then to just specific States. the USA is a combination US representative government and democracy. it is it was a brilliant idea of our founders of shares power.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      If it is fair, why does Wyoming, approximate population, 592,414 is represented by two senators and California, approximate population, 38.8 million, also is represented by two senators?

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The difference in the other side of the electorate is that California has how many more house reps than does the Dakotas to balance out that part of the equation? The answer to the question is to why the process is fair to each. / Mr. B – Kansas

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      If the electoral system is gone, it won’t be about states electing a President, it will be about the majority of people electing them.

  101. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    So if the Electoral College votes outweigh the Popular vote, maybe the belief that my vote carries no weight is an accurate one?

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      It does in your state. Your party does the same in the primary process.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I sure felt that way – again, as I voted for Gore in 2000 too.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Depends on where you live, and how many others share your thought process.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Your vote carries weight in your own state if you have the majority along with you. The Electoral Representatives (usually) always follow the will of the people for that state

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Don’t forget that the State Legislatures used to choose the representatives for the selection and send them off to to the Electoral College select the President and the second most votes was the Vice President.

    6. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      In the early life of our nation the state legislatures chose the delegates. They were sent to the Electoral College to elect the president. The most votes was president and the second was vice president.

    7. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      This is my question too. I always vote no matter what then I hear people say it doesn’t matter because it’s not like it would count.

    8. Carolyn Skaritza3 weeks ago

      Your vote would not count at all if the few largest populated states were the only votes that would count (i.e. popular vote) There would really be no point in elections. Thank you to the brilliance of our founding fathers…a guarantee of a balance of power. The Electoral College requires that a candidate must significantly win many more states that a popular vote nominee In the 2016 election Trump won more states by 9 or 10. Not all the votes are in is of this moment. Clinton won about 20 states; Trump won about 30 states. That my friends accounts for a majority of the states a fact that cannot be ignored

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Thank you for this wonderful explanation. Right on facts.

  102. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    The electoral should be replaced by the national popular vote so that one state does not have more power than another state so that a few votes don’t have more power than the majority votes

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      That’s exactly what the Electorial College does. It prevents a few states with high populations from selecting the president.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        I am a US Citizen first. That means I should have equal rights. In this day and age it is not hard anymore to count ALL the votes before declaring the winner of the race. The electoral college goes agains MY democratic rights!

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          We are not a democracy. We are a republic

  103. Anonymous3 weeks ago

    You’re doing the country a disservice. Trump has not won the electoral college. It hasn’t even met. 29 states have laws binding electors to the state popular election results, but 21 do NOT–some large states where Trump “won” with 50% or less

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      If there are 21 states that allow electors to change their vote, is there a chance that a compromise could be made this year? For example if the Democratic electors all voted for say Gary Johnson and maybe 20-30 of the Trump Republican electors flipped and voted for Johnson as well. I am a life long Democrat and I think I could live with Johnson over Trump. I think by giving up all of the Democratic electoral votes, this would appease the concerns of most Republicans. Johnson is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. In the future maybe we could include candidates like him and Jill Stein in the debates and at the same time, not do away with the Electoral College, but make it a simple majority to win instead of 270.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        And have someone who got less than 15% of the popular vote win the election? How does that make any sense?

  104. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    I feel it’s time we got rid of the editorial college. In now way should their be someone in office who has not won the vote of the people Hillary has the votes of the people so did Gore. ,and I am hearing why should we bother to vote the voting system is rigged .this makes people feel like their vote doesn’t count.

    1. the day is nigh3 weeks ago

      HILLARY AND TRUMP BOTH KNEW THE STAKES, Why should california or new york have the final say on the whole of america, you take california away Trump wins by 2 million according to source. So the system is inplace to stop big state bullying

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Yeah – lets allow a few smaller “swing” States to bully the whole country instead.

  105. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    Thank you for the accurate information. !

  106. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”
    -Donald J. Trump

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      A 100% true statement. It is a disaster for a “Democracy”. Most people are unaware that America is not a pure democracy, by design. It was formed as a Constitutional Republic, which built in this safeguard to protect the country from tyranny. It stops the majority from imposing their unrestricted will on the minority. Not arguing for or against it here, just pointing out the founders rationale

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      “Wrong.”
      -Donald J. Trump

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      He is right. That’s why we have a constitutional republic.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      And he is absolutely correct. But, if you are using his comment to refer to the United States election he just won… You would be mistaken. The United States is NOT a democracy.

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      He’s absolutely right, however we are not a democracy. We are a republic or a representative democracy. Big difference. A true democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep. The US Senate gives 2 votes for each state no matter what the popolation is of the state. The whole system our founding fathers set up is brilliant. It balances power and eliminates mob rule.

    6. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      We are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

  107. Lowell Mitchem4 weeks ago

    The electoral vote decides the President elect not the popular vote.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      yep because like they said 4 large (populated) states would choose the presidency. Not gonna happen !!

  108. Blue Magus4 weeks ago

    An interesting thing is that every time someone won the electoral votes but not the popular vote, it’s been a Republican (with the exception of John Quincy Adams as a democratic Republican). Why do you think that’s never happened to a Democrat nominee? Is it due to the states they try, or is it just confidence?

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      It is due to the penetration of public assistance programs in urban areas – and hence their tendency to vote democratic.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      It’s because of the states they’re in. Plus, Republicans in solid Blue states are less likely to vote when knowing they can’t sway the state then Dems in red states. Trump needed a large contingent of Republicans to hold their nose to vote for him to stop Hillary, but in CA, NY and Ill, there’s no reason for these conflicted voters to do so. They would have if the popular vote mattered, and Trump would have won by a million votes, if exit polls are any indication.

  109. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    Trump actually won one of Maine’s congressional districts (you said that did not come into play this time around).

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Because Maine’s electoral votes wouldn’t have tipped the balance regardless.

    2. Drew DeSilver3 weeks ago

      When I put this post together Wednesday afternoon Clinton was leading, narrowly, in both of Maine’s CDs. I see now that Trump is ahead in ME-2, but the results are still unofficial. (Maine’s Bureau of Corporations, Elections & Commissions, as far as I can tell, doesn’t post official results until the vote is certified.) Once the popular votes nationwide are certified in advance of the electors actually meeting (on 19 December), I’ll update this post with the final results.

  110. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    Without the electoral college three or four states would decide every election.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      As opposed to the 4 states of Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin, I suppose.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In democracies simplest form 6/10 jurors you are guilty, 3 of 5 yeas to nays, and the yeas has it. In a everything else it is majority rules EVEN IN THE SENATE majority rules. TEXAS (The bleeding RED state) less populous than FL has more electoral votes….Everything else on the ballot is a yes or no…not proportioned…..Democracy/ Hypocrisy

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      It’s the other way around. Electoral vote is won by campaigning in large few swing states.

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      How so? Seriously, I don’t understand how this could ever be the case. The electoral college is what focuses presidential campaigns on individual states. Abolishing it would do nothing but allow everyone’s voices be heard instead of the majority of each state.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Really I don’t how it’s hard to understand, NY and CA would choose the President in every election because they are more popular. Different states have different view and different needs of change. Hillary only won a handful of states…. Trump won most of the country! Big Difference.. He is the winner

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Your logic here is flawed–you are looking at area rather than population density. The cable news channels spent much of their time looking at the counties in Florida, so let’s use these as an example. For most of the night, Clinton was leading in just 7 of Florida’s 67 counties. But the two candidates had roughly the same number of votes–the winner flipped every time more votes came in. But there are as many people in those 7 counties as in the other 60! Miami-Dade county has more than 10% of the state’s population. Similarly, California is large in both population and area, while states like Wyoming and West Virginia, though large, have many fewer residents. California is always blue, Wyoming and West Virginia always red. So a vote for either party in these three states has little sway in the election, whereas a handful of votes in Florida or Ohio could mean the difference between one president and another.

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Its not about the States; its about “We the People…”
      Sound familiar?

    6. l taylor3 weeks ago

      So true….

  111. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    ELECTORAL COLLEGE – the Answer? Many unhappy citizens have challenged the US presidential election concept of the Electoral College. However America’s founding fathers invented the Electoral College for a layer of protection in case of an inappropriate (!) popular vote. Could this year’s Electors to follow through on the intentions of Thomas Jefferson et al and cast their Electoral College ballots away from Trump if they perceived that the outcome was inappropriate? Only maybe 10-20 of them would be needed to alter the result. Is this a constitutionally valid ‘undo’ option?

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Nope. Because then the house has to approve it.

  112. Layla Shade4 weeks ago

    Is there any logically legitimate argument for keeping this system?

    ‘It’s in the comstitution’ is not logically legitimate argument; amendments do exist, among other things, to fix 18th century ideas completely out of whack with modern times.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Yes. Over 50% of the US population lives in big cities in just a handful of states. A vast majority of the GDP comes from agriculture and manufacturing in less densely populated areas. As the current population stands in the US, all agriculture and most industry would be underrepresented 100% of the time, which would be a pretty big incentive to move that agriculture and industry to another country or just do something else. It would end up being big city dwellers always making all the rules for all farmers. That’s an enormous conflict of interest and would effectively make actual producers of food and valued goods slaves to the hive mind of the big cities. This is what is meant by “tyranny of the majority.” The electoral college, not unlike the legislature, was designed to give more populated areas more power than less populated areas, but also ensure geographic interests are adequately represented and not subject to every whim of the densely populated clusters.

      Remember the United States is constitutionally a union of states, not one big collective federal hive. The electoral college gives all states representation, and it gives more weight to states with more people. Without it, California, Florida, New York, and Texas could collectively rule the entire country if every citizen of those respective states voted the same.

    2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Amendment would never gain ground. Chance of successfully changing this law is near zero. I support the electoral system.

    3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Sure – want to continue to have food on your table, then make sure that the rural areas maintain their representation – which they won’t have absent the electoral college.

    4. Jim Olsson3 weeks ago

      The Electoral College idea isn’t out of whack with modern times. I was a Johnson/Weld guy this time around, so I don’t want you thinking I’m a Trump guy… but as mentioned elsewhere here, the electoral college gives us BETTER representation geographically, as four or five large urban states could always outvote 45 less populated agricultural or desert states.

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      You need to go back to high school civics (maybe this isn’t taught in school any more) . We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. This is the reason for the electoral college. The federal government is a federation of sovereign states. The electoral college balances the playing field so that 2 or 3 states do not have undue influence over the rest. If you want your eyes opened, look at a red / blue US map that shows election result county by county, or congressional district by district and see how the whole country looks.

    6. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Well consider this: Hillary may have won the popular vote by a considerably narrow margin (less than either of the third party vanadate vote totals, and maybe as much as a medium sized city’s population), but Hillary only won 20 states (assuming Michigan and New Hampshire do not flip). If you believe that the rights of theae 20 states and their population (most of which is derived from the Northeast megalopolis and Californian San Francisco area) are important enough to override the will of the 30 states that voted for Trump, then you are advocating for the devaluation of our state reprensentation. Which is your prerogative, but not one I agree with.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        She’ll likely win the popular vote by 1 million (CA still counting millions of ballots). However, I agree with you point about the electoral college and the importance of state representation. The United States is not a direct democracy. No matter how thankful I am that a majority of American voters did not vote for Trump, our republic’s democratic system worked as designed.

        Though it may be up for discussion if it is worth considering have the president be elected by popular vote, giving equal weight to the vote of each citizen (likely increasing voter turnout as well). I don’t think it is bad to discuss whether the electoral college still works as we want it to.

    7. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      the character and influence of man doesnt fundamentally change with the times.This process need not change because mans behaviors never change

  113. Wendell Ball4 weeks ago

    Electoral votes are a fraudulent way to win an electoral. The efforts put forth by the people by voting should be the deciding factor.

  114. Cristoval Jesús Amado4 weeks ago

    It does not mean anything in US presidential elections if a candidate loses in the popular vote count, even if it is by quite a big margin. Hillary made a blunder. She never went to Wisconsin even once to show her face while Trump showed up several times and won. She could ill afford to have lost 10 electoral votes from an established blue state since 1984. Same thing happened to her in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two blue states she lost. Had she won these three states as she should have her total electoral votes would have been 278 and she would have been President elect. But this honor went to the smarter Trump instead and he fully deserved his victory. Candidates for US Presidential election should not pay too much importance on the popular vote which amounts to nothing other than a moral victory.

  115. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    The national popular vote just doesn’t matter very much.

    If elections were based on popular vote, candidate strategies would change to reflect that. I’m sure Republicans could win more votes in NY and California, and Democrats could win more votes in Texas. But since the electoral outcome in those states is really not in question, why bother?

  116. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    How often electoral college members change, whether there are term limits, number of men & women, and their profiles is an important topic to America given the fact that Republicans can only win through the electoral college of late, i.e., 2000 & now 2016.

    Who has, keeps a list of the electoral college members, their identity & profiles so that America can be sure it is free from fraud to assure fair elections?

    How can America presume elections are fair if the popular vote is inconsistent with the electoral college?

    If electors are not bound, and the penalty for not voting as pledged is only $1,000, how can voters presume that electors are not in control, and the popular vote is irrelevant because there is no such thing as a fair election – especially if electoral college can be bribed, like primaries?

    American wants the answers to these questions!

    What kind of post election audit process is in place to create the security of a fair election?

    1. Anonymous4 weeks ago

      Excellent question. As I have tried to explain this to my overly intelligent,14 year old high school freshman. I was left with questions such as these that I had no answer too.

      1. Craig W3 weeks ago

        Rather form your son’s opinion, encourage him to research it for himself. See what conclusion he draws. He’s at an age that he should be inquiring himself.

    2. Anonymous4 weeks ago

      Anonymous,
      You can easily find the statistics you are looking for: the “electors” of the Electoral College are our Congress members. 100 senators+ 435 members of the House of Representatives+3 Reps from District of Columbia=538 votes.
      It’s a fairly transparent process. If you can count, you can figure out exactly how each elector votes just by looking at the popular vote of their state. Ex: if Hillary won the pop vote in NH, then every senator and representative from NH votes for her in the Electoral College. It’s pretty easy to tell if those 4 votes were cast correctly. You don’t even need a human to do it. News services provide Electoral vote counts as soon as a state’s popular vote has been tallied. They don’t need to wait for 4 human beings to fill in a ballot.
      As long as the popular vote is calculated correctly, and fraud free, the Electoral vote will be correct.
      (It would be incredibly obvious and therefore ridiculous for an elector to take a bribe and vote against the outcome of their state’s popular vote, because #1- in all but two states everyone’s vote is the same. #2- once the popular vote has been confirmed across the nation, all any of us would have to do is look at the map and we’d be able to figure out who the Electoral vote will go to. Virtually impossible for bribery/fraud to happen in that part of the process, my friend.)

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The electoral college members aren’t the senators or congressmen. They are people nominated in advance by the presidential candidates and their parties and are usually officials from the local state party. So each candidate will nominate a batch of people in each state (eg 29 people for Florida).

        When you vote for a president, you are actually voting on which set of nominees become the Electoral College members for your state.

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Thank you!

      3. Drew DeSilver3 weeks ago

        Actually, this is not correct. In fact, the Constitution specifically prohibits members of Congress from being electors (Article II, Section 1: “… no Senator or
        Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector”). States have the same *number* of electors as they do senators + representatives (plus the 3 for DC), but the actual slates of electors in each state are picked by the respective state parties, (usually by their state-level conventions, the state central committees or by the presidential campaigns themselves). More info can be found here: archives.gov/federal-register/el…

    3. Anonymous4 weeks ago

      On election day we are voting for electoral delagates not for candidates. The electorate are people loyal to the candidate they vote for. In my lifetime there has not been a faithless electorate. archives.gov/federal-register/el…

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Then you must have been born after 2004, because on of the Democratic electors in Minnesota voted for John Ewards and not John Kerry (yes, that elector even spelled the name wrong).

    4. Jay Peg3 weeks ago

      Usually, CSPAN televises the Electoral College Votes in Many States. It is public information.

    5. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Did you read the article at all? The electoral votes are given to the winner of the states popular vote so whoever has the most votes in a state gets those electoral votes. Just because California and New York have more people doesn’t mean the rest of Americans just have to go along with what they want. The only thing that matters is you win more states and more districts to get more electoral votes.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Very good comment, is the answer to all the questions, simple as that.

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        So I, as a Californian, deserve 1/4 of the voice of a person in Wyoming? How does THAT make any sense? The reason that California would have such a strong voice in an election is because 12% of the US population lives here. One person, one vote is the only truly fair way to hold an election.

        Just because Wyoming has less people doesn’t mean that Californians should have to just go along with what they want, either. All of your arguments could be made on the opposite side with just as much validity.

        1. Robin Galey3 weeks ago

          But I’m in Alabama and I want my voice and vote to count. Look at the map and all of the red.. for sure way more than blue!

    6. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Anonymous: Of the four large states, Texas (Red) and Illinois (Blue) cancel out the effect of their vote pluralities. That leaves CA and NY which, this year, gave HRC a plurality of 4,000,000 votes. The remaining 46 states gave Trump a plurality of 3.8 million. That was not enough to balance out the 4 million head start the Democrats got from CA and NY. Without the Electoral College, CA and NY would always determine the winner. In fact, the CA advantage alone would always give the election to a Democrat. If that becomes the new rule, why would a state like Nebraska stay in the Union. The Union is “indivisible” only so long as the original balance of electoral power is maintained. If we change that, the Union would ultimately dissolve. Beware of unintended consequences. I did not vote for Trump but I do not want to delegate my vote to the great state of California.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Instead, you’re more or less delegating your vote to Florida and Ohio.

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Look up republic and please understand our form of government. It was set up to function this way……
        It works regardless of party…….

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Honest answer. thanks

    7. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Maybe you should brush up on your history my friend. The EC was made bc a large amount of people in southern states whos population when put together strongly supported slavery and OUT NUMBERED the many northern states who were becoming more industialized and opposed of slavery but had less populations than the south. Our founding fathers recognized this and created the EC because they believed that the special interests of one majority populous DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT dictate the rest of the country. Now bringing that same system to modern day it is no longer southern states with majority rule but a mix of heavily populated democrat states (California, New York, Illinois) and those large majority STATES do not get to be the voice of the rest of the NATION. Get it? If we were to have it your way and not have a EC then back when all of the southern states populations combined would be the determining factor to who would be our nation’s president.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The union population was 18.5 million. The Confederate population was 5.5 million. There is no way the south could have won by popular vote.

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        This whole process was always confusing but once you break it down, now I have the answer when someone is upset that this vote system should be dropped. Kids in school now are confused and they should just tell them in a very simple way so that when they get into all details they understand it a bit better.

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Thank you. I finally understood why it is better to have electors say who will be president but many lay people.

      4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Close, but WRONG. Southern states had a large population only if you counted the slave population. the voting public was lower in the south. The EC was created to give to balance to the voting public by allowing the south to count their slaves as three-fitfths of a person, allowing the south a more equal representation. Slavery now gone but the EC is still in place with its skewed math. EC votes by state needs to be reworked. Alaska (pop 700,000) gets 3 EC votes where Colorado (pop 5 million) gets only 9. That’s 1 EC vote per 200k people vs 500k. Should Alaskas votes get counted double that of Colorado?

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          How was this balancing the voting public? Allowing the south to count slaves as three-fifths of a person when those slaves had the rights of zero-fifths of a person??

    8. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Great post great, great, grateful

    9. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      the popular vote and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks!

  117. Anonymous4 weeks ago

    I disagree. I think this will be close in the electoral college as well.

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      So far you are wrong…..big difference. I have no doubt if there was some way to cheat this….it was done.

  118. Anonymous1 month ago

    The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
    No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
    No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
    The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

    NationalPopularVote

    1. Michael Zaman4 weeks ago

      The national popular vote is a terrible idea. How many countries in the world use a popular vote to determine their head of government? I only of two, Mexico and France, because it’s a ridiculous notion. More importantly, it conflicts with the constitutional structure of our country. We are not a unitary nation. There is technically no such thing as US body politic. We are formally fifty separate body politic’s joined in a Union, in which we are all represented. The NPV is also inherently undemocratic, politically dangerous, and amounts to dereliction of representative duty. So California votes for Abraham Lincoln for President while the rest of the country votes for Adolf Hitler. Are California’s electors expected to vote for Hitler, against the will of the people of California? The popular vote is an amateur system of selecting the president. That’s how I thought the president should be elected when I was five.

    2. Anonymous4 weeks ago

      “No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.”

      But you are then trading in the system you describe for one in which only the major population centers matter. Rural America would lose its voice in the Presidential election process as the candidates would only have to tailor their platforms to urban areas. At least in the current system states like North Dakota, Idaho, Iowa etc. still need to be accounted for by each party even if they do tend to vote a certain party. This bill is a dangerous proposition in a representative democracy as large and diverse as ours.

    3. Anonymous4 weeks ago

      I agree this is what should happen

    4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      Then mob rule will prevail anarchy will follow and the Unitrd States will succumb to a military or religious dictatorship. Be careful what you wish for. The founding fathers knew that all previous pure democracies failed in this way. That is why they set up a representative republic.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Here here. Good Reply. We are a REPUBLIC! Not a DEMOCRACY!

      2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Thank you.

      3. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        The founding fathers foresaw such situations i.e. That big cities with higher populations could usurp rural areas in their representation, there is no ‘undo’ option lol. We put up with liberals ruling for eight years and may I add, did not riot and make asses of ourselves if we didn’t like the outcome.

      4. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        So I guess the Southern States (the ones who benefited the most from the EC at the time it was created) didn’t try to usurp the authority of President Lincoln when they seceded from the Union right? Did they make asses of themselves by dividing our country and causing a war because they didn’t like the President or his policy? If people feel that their votes did not count, they have a right to a peaceful protest. (Not the same as a riot) As far as EC goeqes, many people from all parties feel it’s outdated for our country in 2016.

  119. Bruce Apar1 month ago

    Sorry but that ham-handed headline is painful to read: Try this–Why landslides are easier to win in Electoral College than in popular vote

    1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

      I find it fascinating that people are wanting to change the electoral college election process because their candidate lost. I thought we were a republic. Did common core education make people feel we are a democracy? I for one do not want mob rule. The founding fathers of this country were absolutely brilliant in creating the electoral college. If I remember correctly, many media outlets had predicted a Hillary EC landslide and a Trump popular vote win. The media and their followers didn’t seem to mind as long as their person won.

      1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

        Except in an actual democracy (rather than a banana republic the whole world has had the joy of witnessing), elections as geopolitical as this (like Brexit) would be done by referendum. You’re supposed to VOTE for a president. Electoral college is a bizarre institution that disenfranchises certain voter demographics because of Partisan gerrymandering and was designed as a tool of the elite to rig your elections.

        The rest of the world would consider it ludicrous for you not to elect the candidate with the majority of votes. I mean that’s the whole purpose of having a democratic vote in the first place so you get a democratic outcome based on the overall number of people who voted.

        Why should the democratic rights of 400,000 voters just be disregarded just because the unrepresentative college is rigged in your favour.

        And it’s not just about this election, it’s about being a grown up democracy going forward. In 2016 not to have a system that enshrines representative voting is preposterous. The college should just be abandoned, and if you’d really prefer the college determine the presidency, then why bother going to the farce of publishing the popular vote at all, because all it does is advertise how undemocratic it is when the popular vote and college are in conflict.

        1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Your whole argument is wrong.

          1. We are not nor have ever been a true democracy and unless you discard the constitution we cannot become one.
          2. Gerrymandering has no effect on the Electoral college since they generally vote the way the total popular vote in each state tells them to. Variances have been very rare and some states don’t even allow it by law.
          3. The 400,000 you mentioned had just as much right to vote in whatever state they were in as anyone else. If that 400,000 feels under represented they could all move to one of the states that vote more to their liking. The popular vote elects the electors.
          4. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic rather than a true democracy by design and law and it really does guarantee that the majority of the populous is represented well. Look at the red/blue map and the fairness of it all is very plain.

        2. Anonymous3 weeks ago

          Except this is not a “grown up democracy” this was never and is not a “democracy” at all. It is a constitutional republic. Not a “banana republic” as so callously maligned.

          The “one nation” is actually a misnomer because it is actually a federation of 52 smaller “nations”, with their own individuality, laws and sovereignity. “We the people” have the choice to go and live in and represent any one of these member “nations” that we choose. If one “nation” does not align to our individial tastes we can move to another that more aligns with them and the union is still preserved.

          The only system of electing a president or CEO of such a union, that will maintain the individuality and autonomy of each member “nation” in the union is the electoral college. This was not designed because of the times or population size or any such temporal variable, but was a forward thinking concept born out of the realization that democracies do not work, they implode. Democracy is naught but mob rule, and if used in this union a few states would become the mob and rule over other, less populous states. They wanted a system where every state had to be recognized and could not be ignored and they achieved it.

          The electoral college was not drafted by any “elites” but by the very founders of the union, who actually fought and bled for independence of these union states from the same kind of mob rule of the crown from which they fled in the first place, and thumbing the nose at such forward thinking geniuses who actually put such an effective system in place that has preserved the union for over 200 years reveals not only an arrogant but petulant mind which needs to either seek more knowledge or re-evaluate its own significance in the grand scheme of things

          1. Anonymous3 weeks ago

            I live in Kentucky I feel like my vote didn’t count, Trump carry most of Kentucky, the electoral college was put in back in a time maybe it was needed, but in today times, we don’t. If one state carry the President elected their still part of America, However I don’t live in a Blue state, yet and many others voted Blue here in Kentucky for Hillary, My voted didn’t count. Years ago electoral college was put in place by rich white men, it was in their best interest, to make sure the smaller states, 200 years ago, had no voice, to protect their slaves. Hillary won, by the people, Trump won by a 200 year old law. The electoral college wouldn’t be overturn, however it should be, If Trump had won by the people, and lost by the electoral college, he be saying, rigged, rigged, Trump stated years ago Electoral college is so unfair, now this law puts him in office, bet he loves it now.