Should the US switch to popular vote vs. electoral college?

[Galloism]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

I mean, do you realize that in two out of the last three republican victories, the candidate who won actually lost the popular vote?

Consider that.

[Alvecia]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

It's our right to complain. At least we're not shouting "RIGGED" from the rafters.

[Vassenor]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

You mean like Trump was screaming about how any poll that didn't have him winning by a landslide was fraudulent?

[Libertypendence Park]

People wouldn't have brought this up if Clinton won, to be honest.

But anyway. I think the current system in the US is effective as is.

Lolwat? Of course they would. Though admittedly it'd probably have been drowned out by all the voices shouting "RIGGED".
If Hillary won there is no way the Trump campaign would've accepted defeat quietly.

I will accept the results of this election unequivocally, unquestioningly, and unconditionally!
If I win!

...And then Clinton sends her people home without making a concession speech. Because she's the candidate of love and inclusiveness, of course.

We are so screwed.

[Libertypendence Park]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

It's our right to complain. At least we're not shouting "RIGGED" from the rafters.

Like Florida 2000? Or Ohio 2004?

[Alvecia]

It's our right to complain. At least we're not shouting "RIGGED" from the rafters.

Like Florida 2000? Or Ohio 2004?

No, like Trump 2016

[Alvecia]

Lolwat? Of course they would. Though admittedly it'd probably have been drowned out by all the voices shouting "RIGGED".
If Hillary won there is no way the Trump campaign would've accepted defeat quietly.

I will accept the results of this election unequivocally, unquestioningly, and unconditionally!
If I win!

...And then Clinton sends her people home without making a concession speech. Because she's the candidate of love and inclusiveness, of course.

We are so screwed.

IIRC a concession speech is forthcoming

[Neo Bretonnia]

I mean, do you realize that in two out of the last three republican victories, the candidate who won actually lost the popular vote?

Consider that.

By all means, consider it... then disregard it for the moment until all the votes are in.

As has already been said, the losing side always whines about the system. "We would have won if only the rules were different!!!!"

And so would the Capitals in '97 for the Stanley cup but it is what it is.

[Libertypendence Park]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

You mean like Trump was screaming about how any poll that didn't have him winning by a landslide was fraudulent?

Matter of interest; is this election considered a "landslide"? The bar was set so low for Trump that I'm worried getting fewer popular votes than John freaking McCain will be enough for him to claim a mandate.

This election was all about the mandate anyway. If either of them got a mandate, it would have been terrifying. Mandates excuse abuses of executive authority. See: FDR, Obama, and even Lincoln.

[Hirota]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

It's our right to complain. At least we're not shouting "RIGGED" from the rafters.

Well, apart from that thread about rigging, but there is always a few I suppose.

[Neragua]

I was waiting on this thread popping up.

Funny. The last time a candidate won the popular vote but not the electoral college was when a Democrat campaigned on continuing an outgoing president's policies against a Republican campaigning to restore 'traditional values'. Odd that.

As for switching to the popular vote? The biggest problem there is that campaigning would only ever focus on big population centres like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago etc. States such as Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina, which have featured heavily in this election season, would be almost entirely unvisited and considered irrelevant almost. One of the key points of the electoral college was so that smaller states would not be overlooked for forgotten in choosing the president.

And as I always say, the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Some democracies are republics, but not republics are democracies.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Let's get one thing straight; America is not a democracy. America is a republic. We elect representatives to serve our interests in the government. And we elect them in a democratic fashion. If it were a pure democracy, then all 315 million people would essentially be responsible for every facet of government behavior and direction.

With regard to the Electoral College, it is actually a solid institution because it reflects the population of states in terms of size in relation to the country as a whole. There have been multiple times in history where the popular vote was won but the Electoral College was lost, but the vast majority of times it has reflected the popular vote, generally speaking. The only reason you get results like those we see here today is because candidates focus on the individual states rather than an aggregate national total. This is exactly what the Founder's wanted due to fears of both mob rule and an overbearing federal government.

If you went by popular vote, it would reflect the popular vote 100% of the time.

[Libertypendence Park]

I will accept the results of this election unequivocally, unquestioningly, and unconditionally!
If I win!

...And then Clinton sends her people home without making a concession speech. Because she's the candidate of love and inclusiveness, of course.

We are so screwed.

IIRC a concession speech is forthcoming

But postponing it at all sends an objectively terrible message.

[Alvecia]

It's our right to complain. At least we're not shouting "RIGGED" from the rafters.

Well, apart from that thread about rigging, but there is always a few I suppose.

Indeed, all those ones of people

[United States of Natan]

HELL YES.

[Alvecia]

IIRC a concession speech is forthcoming

But postponing it at all sends an objectively terrible message.

Honestly? Given her health, I wouldn't be surprised if she outright fainted

[Libertypendence Park]

Like Florida 2000? Or Ohio 2004?

No, like Trump 2016

^-^
As a general rule, Americans of all stripes do this. Few are guiltless. This time is only exceptional because it happened before the election.

[Alvecia]

No, like Trump 2016

^-^
As a general rule, Americans of all stripes do this. Few are guiltless. This time is only exceptional because it happened before the election.

Almost like he had no intention of accepting a loss.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

Because, even if it was FPTP, she would have won.

In any other version of democracy, she would have won.

[Galloism]

I mean, do you realize that in two out of the last three republican victories, the candidate who won actually lost the popular vote?

Consider that.

By all means, consider it... then disregard it for the moment until all the votes are in.

As has already been said, the losing side always whines about the system. "We would have won if only the rules were different!!!!"

And so would the Capitals in '97 for the Stanley cup but it is what it is.

Well, I'm not saying the win was illegitimate. It was legitimate under the rules of the game. The rules are just bad.

However, I'm looking at politico's map, and it looks like other than Washington, Utah, New Jersey, and Maine, over 95% of the vote is in and counted in every state.

I'm pretty sure she won the popular vote.

[Libertypendence Park]

^-^
As a general rule, Americans of all stripes do this. Few are guiltless. This time is only exceptional because it happened before the election.

Almost like he had no intention of accepting a loss.

You're gonna win so much, you're gonna get sick of winning! You'll be begging me, "please, Mr. Trump, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop winning!" But I'll say, "NO! I'll keep winning and winning and it'll be win. That's what I do.

[Neo Bretonnia]

So far, I haven't seen a single argument for doing away with the Electoral College that isn't based on partisan politics. This is one of those issues people are fine with when they benefit form it, and curse it when they don't. That's not enough of a reason to change.

[Alvecia]

So far, I haven't seen a single argument for doing away with the Electoral College that isn't based on partisan politics. This is one of those issues people are fine with when they benefit form it, and curse it when they don't. That's not enough of a reason to change.

Honestly, as I mentioned before somewhere, the only difference I see it making is redefining which handful of specific states are fawned over by politicians.

[Galloism]

So far, I haven't seen a single argument for doing away with the Electoral College that isn't based on partisan politics. This is one of those issues people are fine with when they benefit form it, and curse it when they don't. That's not enough of a reason to change.

I just think it's absurd to have the minority candidate win, regardless of politics.

Now, ideally, I'd set up an instant runoff preference election that's FPTP and based on the popular vote for the general election. That seems most representative to me, and also would give third parties a chance (albeit a small chance, but a chance).

[Libertypendence Park]

So far, I haven't seen a single argument for doing away with the Electoral College that isn't based on partisan politics. This is one of those issues people are fine with when they benefit form it, and curse it when they don't. That's not enough of a reason to change.

I just think it's absurd to have the minority candidate win, regardless of politics.

Now, ideally, I'd set up an instant runoff preference election that's FPTP and based on the popular vote for the general election. That seems most representative to me, and also would give third parties a chance (albeit a small chance, but a chance).

It'd also do away with the "wasted vote" mentality. Oh glorious reform that would be. I think the Founding Fathers would approve. They touched on a similar sentiment with the idea of the second-place electoral college winner being the VP.