Well. now we van have a discussion.
The reason it was put in place was valid at the time and that is not in dispute. The question is whether it is still valid in our modern society and the answer to that is not as clear as you attempt to present it. That is evidenced by opinions on both sides of quite competent and learned people. However, in my opinion one thing IS clear that a simple majority vote would not be any better either.
yep it is still valid more so now than ever before as it equalizes the population power of certain states. it is another check and balance to stop corruption. The founders didn't want a direct democracy which we don't live in.
we live in an elected republic. they saw pure democracy as a major issue open to corruption.
That is an ignorant partisan talking point and not intelligent or competent reasoning.
Nope it is pretty much fact that is why liberals are constantly crying about the EC.
it's not fair. sure it is fair.
Indeed, but today when communication and reaching out to all the people of this nation is not the barrier it was then the EC was conceived, the net result of the EC is that the vote of countless individuals is made meaningless.
Since the purpose of the EC had nothing to do with communication this is irrelevant.
No it does not, nor do you have any evidence to support such an assertion. I repeat, reaching out and being able to get a candidate's message to ALL citizens is not an issue anymore. Even adding up all the participants at the rallies that the candidates held does not even come close to the total of the voting public so it can not be claimed that reaching out is a valid reason.
Sure look at 1 district in CA. Trump only scored 700k votes Clinton scored over 1m votes in that one district alone. Before CA was counted trump was beating her in the popular vote.
why should the people of CA and CA alone determine who the president is?
Popular Vote 2016 Update: Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million | Heavy.com
There is enough people living in NY and CA to determine the presidency by itself. that is the entire reason for the EC.
Yes it was, because back then the citizens could not be reached as they can be today. Clearly that reason does not apply today.
And what is that other than the fact that without it Trump would not have won?
it has nothing to do with communication. This is why I said liberals try and argue something they don't understand. The EC was a compromise for those wanting a popular vote.
Less populated states worried that with a popular vote they would be ignored and their voice not heard. That politicians and the president would ignore them for densely populated
cities. there would be no reason to listen to those people. The EC was a compromise. A popular vote would take place in the state and whoever won those states electors would
vote for the president.
Why do you believe that the vote of 2+ million votes should not matter? Are those not citizens and does their will simply not matter?
they did matter. They voted in their state and their vote was counted. if they didn't muster enough votes in their state for their candidate then that is their issue.
pretending that their vote didn't count is pure nonsense, but what I expect.
Not anymore. Why should a vote in Wyoming for instance carry several times more weight than one in California?
It doesn't 1 vote in WY counts as 1 vote not 3. if you think it does please provide proof.
same as CA 1 vote is 1 vote in that state for their candidate.
A presidential election should not be won by strategy or by stunts but by a good platform and and plan. Was either candidate in Alaska or Hawaii? Why is it OK to marginalize those people?
Which is what the EC forces candidates to do. They have to lay out a good platform that addresses people in all states. Clinton failed to do that. she didn't even travel to some states and it came back to bite her
more so in WI, MI, etc ... she just assumed that she would win. she didn't. They weren't marginalized.
did they vote? yes. did their vote count for their candidate? yes. If the person they voted for won their state good.
if they didn't then they should try to get more people to vote for their person.
Oh but I do. Too bad it is lost on you.
It wasn't but it evidently was lost on your which is why I mentioned it.
