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

[Reti]

The system isn't broken, the electoral college is how it's always been done. Majority vote doesn't work in a country of America's size. Direct democracy fails time and time again.

[Vassenor]

Majority vote doesn't work in a country of America's size.

Why not?

[Galloism]

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.

Exactly.

Not that I would have voted for anyone except Hillary this time around, because the other three candidates were varying levels of crazy, but people in 2000 could have put down "#1 Ross Perot, #2 Al Gore" or "#1 Al Gore, #2 Ross Perot", and without the "wasted vote mentality" as you put it, one of those two probably would have become president, and Ross Perot was so popular, it could have been either one.

[Blackwater PMC]

First off we would have to ammend the Constitution which is highly unlikely going to happen. 2nd off the Congress is fully controlled by Republican with a Republican President and Vice-President say goodbye to your chances, because its not going to happen, ever.

[United Empire of Humanity]

Why yes I did support this before it would have made Hillary win, thank you very much.

No. That's not even... a legitimate reason to develop a major metapolitical belief.

That's why I said I developed it before.

[Nocturnalis]

Yep, just tell a significant portion of your country to get fucked. Good idea.

[Alien Space Bats]

To be honest, it really doesn't make any difference.

We've likely had our last Presidential election.

[Libertypendence Park]

No. That's not even... a legitimate reason to develop a major metapolitical belief.

That's why I said I developed it before.

Oh, sorry. I thought you were saying you only supported a popular election now because it would have made Hillary win. '^-^

[Galloism]

To be honest, it really doesn't make any difference.

We've likely had our last Presidential election.

Provided he doesn't try to nuke Syria, I think we'll make it four years with an asshole for president.

[Alvecia]

Yep, just tell a significant portion of your country to get fucked. Good idea.

That's literally any vote

[Libertypendence Park]

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.

Exactly.

Not that I would have voted for anyone except Hillary this time around, because the other three candidates were varying levels of crazy, but people in 2000 could have put down "#1 Ross Perot, #2 Al Gore" or "#1 Al Gore, #2 Ross Perot", and without the "wasted vote mentality" as you put it, one of those two probably would have become president, and Ross Perot was so popular, it could have been either one.

What happens to the people who only sent in two acceptable candidates, versus those who sent in three? Huh. Also, it would change the idea of the mandate... I'll look into this., sounds intriguing.

[The Corparation]

To be honest, it really doesn't make any difference.

We've likely had our last Presidential election.

Provided he doesn't try to nuke Syria, I think we'll make it four years with an asshole for president.

Don't kid yourself, with our current luck it's going to be 8.

[Galloism]

Exactly.

Not that I would have voted for anyone except Hillary this time around, because the other three candidates were varying levels of crazy, but people in 2000 could have put down "#1 Ross Perot, #2 Al Gore" or "#1 Al Gore, #2 Ross Perot", and without the "wasted vote mentality" as you put it, one of those two probably would have become president, and Ross Perot was so popular, it could have been either one.

What happens to the people who only sent in two acceptable candidates, versus those who sent in three? Huh. Also, it would change the idea of the mandate... I'll look into this., sounds intriguing.

You could align the ballot via ranking, most people would fill it out all the way down I think.

I guess if someone didn't fill it out all the way down, and all their choices were disqualified, then there's no further vote from that ballot.

[United Empire of Humanity]

Provided he doesn't try to nuke Syria, I think we'll make it four years with an asshole for president.

Don't kid yourself, with our current luck it's going to be 8.

How long until they call for repealing the 22nd Amendment?

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

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.

Heck, Hillary even congratulated Trump on winning the election, which is quite surprising considering there was a literal war between the two just hours earlier.

[United Empire of Humanity]

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.

Heck, Hillary even congratulated Trump on winning the election, which is quite surprising considering there was a literal war between the two just hours earlier.

She knows in the end she'll get her speech money from Wall Street no matter what. She probably likes that more anyway.
/facetious

[Canton Empire]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Don't fix something that ain't broke.

A 7 percent failure rate for the electoral college means broken

[Galloism]

Don't fix something that ain't broke.

A 7 percent failure rate for the electoral college means broken

Imagine if 7% of flights crashed. We would ban air travel.

[Zakuvia]

A 7 percent failure rate for the electoral college means broken

Imagine if 7% of flights crashed. We would ban air travel.

If 7% of flights crashed, then air travel should be banned. I think that was your point, but text is poor at indicating emphasis.

[WhatsamattaU]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

One of the purposes of the Electoral College is to thwart highly populous states from riding roughshod over smaller states. In the event that no candidate reaches the required states, the election is turned over to the House of Representatives.

[Harkback Union]

I am a supporter of the electoral college.

Colleges are ought to elect presidents and congress!
Technocracy!

[Calladan]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

One of the purposes of the Electoral College is to thwart highly populous states from riding roughshod over smaller states. In the event that no candidate reaches the required states, the election is turned over to the House of Representatives.

Erm - how? Surely if you based it on the popular vote - as in how many votes each candidate got, then it wouldn't matter on the size of the state, because the vote of every single citizen, no matter where they lived, would matter equally.

And surely the Electoral College does the opposite of what you are saying. In that (in this election) the vote of someone in California counted for more than 11 times as much as the vote for someone in Idaho. Which - for a country that prides itself on democracy, and a country that was apparently founded with the words "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" is a tad hypocritical and somewhat full of bollocks, if you ask me.

[Luziyca]

As much as I am not a fan of first-past-the-post, even that would be an improvement over the electoral college.

[Libertypendence Park]

Provided he doesn't try to nuke Syria, I think we'll make it four years with an asshole for president.

Don't kid yourself, with our current luck it's going to be 8.

Who'd the Dems need to nominate in 2020 to ensure a Trump re-election?

[Ostroeuropa]

Don't kid yourself, with our current luck it's going to be 8.

Who'd the Dems need to nominate in 2020 to ensure a Trump re-election?

Debbie.
God.
Can you fucking imagine?