The standard argument used to apologize for the Electoral College giving the presidency to someone who does not earn the national popular vote is that states with small populations must be protected against the will of just a few very populated cities. Because "diversity" is more important than giving the voting majority the victory.

Well guess what? In the current "winner take all" regime, you win the presidency just by winning 11 states!!!!



Excellent illustrative video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM

How many EC threads do you need? You've already proven your ignorance with anything to do with the constitution. Do you have some need to further point out your mental weaknesses?

This is a new and different discussion.

The previous discussions pretty quickly converged to a consensus that we need to protect small population states.


Well, this proves that the EC does NOT do such a thing. It needs to be abolished.

(11-12-2016 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The standard argument used to apologize for the Electoral College giving the presidency to someone who does not earn the national popular vote is that states with small populations must be protected against the will of just a few very populated cities. Because "diversity" is more important than giving the voting majority the victory.

Well guess what? In the current "winner take all" regime, you win the presidency just by winning 11 states!!!!

A popular vote with no electors would require only winning these areas

(11-12-2016 11:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, this proves that the EC does NOT do such a thing.

No, it doesn't. Do you understand the concept of proof?

How does is not???

As shown: you only need to win the 11 most popular states to win the EC. That proves the EC does not protect small population states.

(11-12-2016 11:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  This is a new and different discussion.

The previous discussions pretty quickly converged to a consensus that we need to protect small population states.


Well, this proves that the EC does NOT do such a thing. It needs to be abolished.

Prooves?

Well, it does prove it.

This is getting kind of sad.

(11-12-2016 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is getting kind of sad.

Agreed...

"Guys, he's getting too close to the truth. You know we don't have any arguments to counter him! What do we do??"

"Hmmm ... I know! We'll just pretend what he's saying doesn't make sense. Deny and deflect! Go!"

Why did everyone jump on to bitching about the EC this year?

It's feels so good to win...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-12-2016 11:45 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  Why did everyone jump on to bitching about the EC this year?

Not everyone. Just the so-called "educated" ones.

Once again. If the popular vote was all that mattered. The entire election would have been different. There is no way to tell who would have won.

Why is this so hard to understand?

(11-12-2016 11:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-12-2016 11:45 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  Why did everyone jump on to bitching about the EC this year?

Not everyone. Just the so-called "educated" ones.

Who don't know how the constitution works, at all...

The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/pol....html?_r=0

(11-12-2016 11:45 AM)uofmcamaro Wrote:  Why did everyone jump on to bitching about the EC this year?

I imagine it happened after the other 4 times it's come up in US history, as well.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

If it is changed then they will lose their Federal Republic....and they will miss it.

I said it earlier, if it was based upon popular vote, Trump would have won by several million votes at least.