Electoral colleague is sucks !

[Bull_ok]

The USA is proud of their honest elections. But taking a better look, is it really so? The election campaigns of recent decade prove that the government almost never takes into consideration public opinion.
Why this or that candidate was chosen? Have you ever asked this question to yourself? I want turn you mind back to the elections of 2000 , where George Bush Jr. was 543816 votes behind his rival Albert Gore. Nevertheless, the first mentioned took office. Have you ever figured out the reason for? Electoral colleague , of course !
Some parties need help of this dishonest tool in case if "improper" candidate won more voices than the "desirable" one!

If you are unable to get it, you're welcome to enjoy this video :


Now give me a sincere answer, please, do you agree with the existence of such dishonest institute?

 

[rightwinger]

Spell check is your friend

 

[Bull_ok]

I mean "college" , of course, thank you for being attentive !

 

[LiberalMedia]

The election campaigns of recent decade prove that the government almost never takes into consideration public opinion.

Why this or that candidate was chosen? Have you ever asked this question to yourself? I want turn you mind back to the elections of 2000 , where George Bush Jr. was 543816 votes behind his rival Albert Gore. Nevertheless, the first mentioned took office. Have you ever figured out the reason for? Electoral colleague , of course !

There have been only two cases in American history where the presidential candidate who won the popular vote wound up not being seated as the president. I am unaware of any case of candidates for other offices losing the popular vote and being seated regardless, but while I'd imagine that it has happened at least once somewhere in the country, I do not believe it is a pervasive problem or an intrinsic weakness of any elections laws or systems in place anywhere in the United States.

Now give me a sincere answer, please, do you agree with the existence of such dishonest institute?

This is a loaded question that must be separated into two distinct sub-questions in order to preserve the intellectual honesty of discussion.

1. Do you agree with the existence of the Electoral College?

Yep.

2. Do you agree that the Electoral College is a dishonest institution?

Nope. I have seen nothing to suggest that the EC is in any way dishonest. Can you better clarify why you believe they are? Is it simply because two elections in the nation's history were decided by the vote of the EC rather than by popular vote?

 

[Steven_R]

The EC has got to go. NY, Cali, and Chicago know what's best for America. The sooner flyover country just accepts it and stops trying to have a say in matters, the better off we'll be.

 

[norwegen]

The president doesn't represent the people of the United States. He represents the United States.

An electoral college is suitable to his selection.

 

[boedicca]

The OP clearly doesn't understand the concept that the U.S. is a federal republic comprised of states.

 

[Nyvin]

The original intent of the EC was to give smaller population states a larger voice on the national stage, similar to giving each state two senators regardless of population.

Giving each state two senators has succeeded very well at giving the small states a voice....the EC however...has failed miserably.

The reason it's failed is because the candidates rarely, if ever, focus any attention at all on smaller states (outside of New Hampshire and Iowa, more for the primary elections) and instead actually focus on swing states with large populations (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania). This was not the intention of the electoral college at all.

Either way, the way the country is setup right now, the democrats have the advantage both with the popular vote and the electoral college. The large urban cities are spread out in just the right way to give them an edge in the EC, and the popular vote seems to be in the democrats favor (winning five of the last six elections) and also is trending "more" in the democrats favor.

Switching to a popular vote would greatly empower "middle of the road" voters in all states, and would probably marginalize each party's base (hardcore conservatives and liberals). The big cities and surrounding suburbs would still be the focus of most of the candidates attention, while rural and small town areas probably still left out in the cold.

 

[AbsoluteFreedom]

The electoral college needs to be abolished if we are to have truly free and fair elections in the US.

 

[Meathead]

It's a non-starter. Smaller states will never ratify.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Given that there is a move afoot to "game" the EC so that they are "winner takes all" in red states but EC votes are allocated by congressional district in blue states it is patently obvious that it needs to be looked at again.

Yes, it served it's original purpose but direct elections of Senators have replaced the original method so there is precedent for updating the current system to direct election of the POTUS.

If it was up to me I would prefer that to the "gerrymandering" that is being proposed for the blue state EC votes.

 

[Nyvin]

Given that there is a move afoot to "game" the EC so that they are "winner takes all" in red states but EC votes are allocated by congressional district in blue states it is patently obvious that it needs to be looked at again.

Yes, it served it's original purpose but direct elections of Senators have replaced the original method so there is precedent for updating the current system to direct election of the POTUS.

If it was up to me I would prefer that to the "gerrymandering" that is being proposed for the blue state EC votes.

The GOP's attempt to game the system is truly horrible. I'm virtually certain no state would ever pass something so ridiculous, but it should be outlawed regardless.

 

[Bush92]

Electoral College was designed to keep power in the hands of the states. It does make candidates spend the most time in battleground states, but with modern technology the issues reach everyone. BTW, if Gore would have carried his home state he would have been President. Democrat County Clerks in Florida's Dade and Broward Counties approved the messed-up and confusing "butterfly ballots."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The USA is proud of their honest elections. But taking a better look, is it really so? The election campaigns of recent decade prove that the government almost never takes into consideration public opinion.
Why this or that candidate was chosen? Have you ever asked this question to yourself? I want turn you mind back to the elections of 2000 , where George Bush Jr. was 543816 votes behind his rival Albert Gore. Nevertheless, the first mentioned took office. Have you ever figured out the reason for? Electoral colleague , of course !
Some parties need help of this dishonest tool in case if "improper" candidate won more voices than the "desirable" one!

If you are unable to get it, you're welcome to enjoy this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYNqi20ZtTM


Now give me a sincere answer, please, do you agree with the existence of such dishonest institute?

Your English is sucks.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The USA is proud of their honest elections. But taking a better look, is it really so? The election campaigns of recent decade prove that the government almost never takes into consideration public opinion.
Why this or that candidate was chosen? Have you ever asked this question to yourself? I want turn you mind back to the elections of 2000 , where George Bush Jr. was 543816 votes behind his rival Albert Gore. Nevertheless, the first mentioned took office. Have you ever figured out the reason for? Electoral colleague , of course !
Some parties need help of this dishonest tool in case if "improper" candidate won more voices than the "desirable" one!

If you are unable to get it, you're welcome to enjoy this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYNqi20ZtTM


Now give me a sincere answer, please, do you agree with the existence of such dishonest institute?

Your English is sucks.

How many languages do you speak, conservatard? Protip: For the purposes of this discussion, "Sean Hannity psychobabble" does not count as its own language.

 

[TheOldSchool]

A big problem with the electoral college is that the votes of citizens in many low population states count for more than the rest of the country. For example a vote in Wyoming counts almost 4 times more than a vote in California. This, of course, benefits the Republican party.

 

[boedicca]

The electoral college needs to be abolished if we are to have truly free and fair elections in the US.

Translation: The EC must be abolished in order to ensure Mob Rule Prevails.

 

[boedicca]

A big problem with the electoral college is that the votes of citizens in many low population states count for more than the rest of the country. For example a vote in Wyoming counts almost 4 times more than a vote in California. This, of course, benefits the Republican party.

That's not a problem...it's a FEATURE.

One purpose of the Constitution is to protect minority rights from mob rule.

 

[TheOldSchool]

A big problem with the electoral college is that the votes of citizens in many low population states count for more than the rest of the country. For example a vote in Wyoming counts almost 4 times more than a vote in California. This, of course, benefits the Republican party.

That's not a problem...it's a FEATURE.

One purpose of the Constitution is to protect minority rights from mob rule.

That's the purpose of the senate. The founder's could not have predicted that one day a person from one state's vote would be equivalent to 4 from another.

 

[boedicca]

A big problem with the electoral college is that the votes of citizens in many low population states count for more than the rest of the country. For example a vote in Wyoming counts almost 4 times more than a vote in California. This, of course, benefits the Republican party.

That's not a problem...it's a FEATURE.

One purpose of the Constitution is to protect minority rights from mob rule.

That's the purpose of the senate. The founder's could not have predicted that one day a person from one state's vote would be equivalent to 4 from another.

I didn't say the EC was the only aspect of the Constitution that protected minority rights, bub.