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

[Taitung pinyin]

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?

Mod Edit: Edit title to get rid of "topopular" because it was driving me crazy.

[Murovanka]

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.

[Alvecia]

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.

Arguably it is broke if you consider popular vote the most important.

[Timmy City]

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.

It is broken,Clinton received more votes than Trump yet lost the election. That system seems pretty undemocratic to me.

[Hirota]

it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc.

The opposite is actually true

[Valcouria]

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.

[Reedian]

Electoral college has been proven flawed and the election should be up to the people. Just look at 2000, where it took way longer than expected to tally votes from the electoral college.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

It is broken.

[Havenburghe]

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.

Even the first-past-the-post system used in elections makes everyone focus on the individual candidate rather than the grand total. It is not the goal to elect nationally by numbers, but by candidate. While this unfortunately can lead to crises in candidate's ethical and moral stances, by and large it represents the goal of the nation, which is to make people vote for the person, not the party or the country.

A republic is is a democracy. Its like saying a pig isn't meat its pork. Either way we aren't really a democracy anymore. More an oligarchy.

[Libertatema]

I've found 3 sources, two of which say Clinton won the popular vote and one of which says Trump won it.

The Trump source is the more trustworthy IMO, as they have lists of the amount of votes in all the counties, and it adds up.

[Skyviolia]

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.

But it doesn't protect states in terms of size. One Wyomians vote is five times more valuable than a Californians and that doesn't really matter because those states are safe states. The electoral college system forces candidates to only focus on around 3-9 states.

[Xadufell]

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.

[Alvecia]

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.

[Valcouria]

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.

Even the first-past-the-post system used in elections makes everyone focus on the individual candidate rather than the grand total. It is not the goal to elect nationally by numbers, but by candidate. While this unfortunately can lead to crises in candidate's ethical and moral stances, by and large it represents the goal of the nation, which is to make people vote for the person, not the party or the country.

A republic is is a democracy. Its like saying a pig isn't meat its pork. Either way we aren't really a democracy anymore. More an oligarchy.

First, not all democracies are republics (such as constitutional monarchies). And, more importantly, certainly not all republics are democracies (North Korea/People's Democratic Republic, anyone?).

Secondly, if you were to ask my opinion, Trump's victory last night really demonstrates the opposite of the US turning into an oligarchy, since very few business leaders endorsed or supported Trump.

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.

But it doesn't protect states in terms of size. One Wyomians vote is five times more valuable than a Californians and that doesn't really matter because those states are safe states. The electoral college system forces candidates to only focus on around 3-9 states.

That harkens back to a fundamental issue of the Founders when creating the US Government; the question of whether states should have equal or proportional representation. The Electoral College is, in theory, a combination of those (since all states have two votes for their Senators and at least one vote for a representative). So really, the Electoral College's flaws are linked to the Senate thanks to its policy of equal representation for states.

[United Empire of Humanity]

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

[Mefpan]

The electoral college is a shitty idea, as is the winner-takes-all system. Go parliamentary, is what I'm saying.

Even if that means forming coalitions and shit or getting into the mess of minority governments.

[Jello Biafra]

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

Sure, because she won the popular vote; if she'd won both the popular vote and the Electoral College there'd be no need for a push to go to just the popular vote.

[Oceara]

Regardless who would've won, the Electoral college makes more sense back before long distance communication was reliable -- Since the electors would have the most up-to-date information to vote accordingly that people back home wouldn't have. But in today's technological state this is an unnecessary measure barring the event of a global communications failure.

[Libertypendence Park]

I notice that the electoral college system is only a problem when your candidate loses because of it. Hypocrites. No party that works so hard to suppress third parties retains its integrity when it tells me that the electoral college system is broken and/or rigged. I speak to Republicans, too.

The popular vote places disticnt favoritism on regional favorites. If the popular vote was institutionalized, presidential politicians would only campaign in Texas and the coasts. This system gives representation to states without much clout of their own. Same reason why we have senators.

Ask yourself this question: would you abolish the electoral college system if it also meant eliminating the senate and having a unicameral, proportionally representative legislature?

[New Axiom]

No. if you can't win the hearts and minds of the electoral college, then that's your fault.

[Libertypendence Park]

I was honestly expecting Trump to win the popular and lose the electoral college. Enough people in non-swing states would lean his way because of the anti-establishment wave, but the swing states themselves would narrowly prefer the liar over the lunatic.

We forget it because the opposite happened in 2000, but that's exactly what most were predicting in Gore v. Bush--Bush wins popular and loses the electoral college.

[Vassenor]

I've found 3 sources, two of which say Clinton won the popular vote and one of which says Trump won it.

The Trump source is the more trustworthy IMO, as they have lists of the amount of votes in all the counties, and it adds up.

What sources?

[Libertypendence Park]

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.

[Galloism]

I notice that the electoral college system is only a problem when your candidate loses because of it. Hypocrites. No party that works so hard to suppress third parties retains its integrity when it tells me that the electoral college system is broken and/or rigged. I speak to Republicans, too.

The popular vote places disticnt favoritism on regional favorites. If the popular vote was institutionalized, presidential politicians would only campaign in Texas and the coasts. This system gives representation to states without much clout of their own. Same reason why we have senators.

Ask yourself this question: would you abolish the electoral college system if it also meant eliminating the senate and having a unicameral, proportionally representative legislature?

I would abolish the electoral college, but I would not eliminate the disproportionate representation in the senate and the house. That's where the check for state interests should be - the senate.

[Western-Ukraine]

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.