Nearly every state's share of electoral votes doesn't match their share of US population, thus elections can fail to reflect the will of the people.

[my2sence]

Trump's win was no landslide "of the people for the people". It was the way the electoral college is biased towards less populated rural & usually red states that have a bigger share of electoral votes that their share of the US population. In all but 2 states the votes of minority candidates are effectively thrown out as surely as any of the Trumps false 2020 election fraud lies because every state except Alaska and Maine gives all their electoral votes to the state's majority party in a "winner take all" approach as if falsely pretending that everyone in the state voted for the majority candidate.

It's no wonder that Trump won as a Republican largely because of the red states' disproportionate share of electoral votes, winning with only 22% of the US population resulting in a 1% advantage over Harris. When there's no incentive for blue voters to waste their time voting in reliably red states and vice versa, it allows a few swing states to decide elections for all 50 states resulting in false mandates, division, and problems.

The article at the follwing website https://usafacts.org/visualizations/electoral-college-states-representation/ graphcally shows that 32 mostly rural red states have a bigger share of electoral votes than their share of the US population, that only 3 states have an equal share, that 16 blue & red states have a smaller share of electoral votes. The 4 heavily populated states of New York, California, Florida and Texas that have a far smaller share of electoral votes than their share of the US population.

Dividing the states into red and blue by political parties and letting the red biased electoral college determine the outcome has caused so much dissatisfaction that is sometimes feels like the conflict between blue & red states will become the 21st century version of the confluct between the blue and gray states of the Civil War. We already had one red insurrection attempt in 2020.

It's time to eliminate political parties and retire the concept of representative government that was a convenient variation of our 1776 experiment in democracy that's no longer needed with modern mass education and communication. Our representative government (i.e. republic) is, in modern times, inefficient, divisive, dependent on the decision making of relatively few mere mortals, and results in corrumption, gridlock and flip-flopping political agenda's & policy at the expense of the people.

We should eliminate voting for candidates and have voters directly decide issues that receive at least 80% of the popular vote reflect widespread agreement. The issues are what matter to people, what they understand the best, and what is hard to mislead about. The gossip, lies, and misinformation of candidate campaign side shows that hype up impressionable voters for and against mere mortal candidates is a transient waste of time that fades away after the election. See the attached snip from that article showing the distortions of the electoral college and it's contribution to blue & red conflict. It almost seems like it was designed to divide and conquer the US by the enemies of democracy. Government isn't a sport and doesn't need teams of different colors and names like gangs to divide us.

 

[dseag2]

I don't disagree with you at all re: the electoral college, but unfortunately Trump did win the popular vote as well.

 

[Pyrite]

Trump's win was no landslide "of the people for the people". It was the way the electoral college is biased towards less populated rural & usually red states that have a bigger share of electoral votes that their share of the US population. In all but 2 states the votes of minority candidates are effectively thrown out as surely as any of the Trumps false 2020 election fraud lies because every state except Alaska and Maine gives all their electoral votes to the state's majority party in a "winner take all" approach as if falsely pretending that everyone in the state voted for the majority candidate.

It's no wonder that Trump won as a Republican largely because of the red states' disproportionate share of electoral votes, winning with only 22% of the US population resulting in a 1% advantage over Harris. When there's no incentive for blue voters to waste their time voting in reliably red states and vice versa, it allows a few swing states to decide elections for all 50 states resulting in false mandates, division, and problems.

The article at the follwing website https://usafacts.org/visualizations/electoral-college-states-representation/ graphcally shows that 32 mostly rural red states have a bigger share of electoral votes than their share of the US population, that only 3 states have an equal share, that 16 blue & red states have a smaller share of electoral votes. The 4 heavily populated states of New York, California, Florida and Texas that have a far smaller share of electoral votes than their share of the US population.

Dividing the states into red and blue by political parties and letting the red biased electoral college determine the outcome has caused so much dissatisfaction that is sometimes feels like the conflict between blue & red states will become the 21st century version of the confluct between the blue and gray states of the Civil War. We already had one red insurrection attempt in 2020.

It's time to eliminate political parties and retire the concept of representative government that was a convenient variation of our 1776 experiment in democracy that's no longer needed with modern mass education and communication. Our representative government (i.e. republic) is, in modern times, inefficient, divisive, dependent on the decision making of relatively few mere mortals, and results in corrumption, gridlock and flip-flopping political agenda's & policy at the expense of the people.

We should eliminate voting for candidates and have voters directly decide issues that receive at least 80% of the popular vote reflect widespread agreement. The issues are what matter to people, what they understand the best, and what is hard to mislead about. The gossip, lies, and misinformation of candidate campaign side shows that hype up impressionable voters for and against mere mortal candidates is a transient waste of time that fades away after the election. See the attached snip from that article showing the distortions of the electoral college and it's contribution to blue & red conflict. It almost seems like it was designed to divide and conquer the US by the enemies of democracy. Government isn't a sport and doesn't need teams of different colors and names like gangs to divide us.

Clinton won the popular vote but was denied the Presidency because of the vagaries of the Electoral College.

That said, we're stuck with the vagaries of the EC for the foreseeable future.

 

[----------]

Trump's win was no landslide "of the people for the people". It was the way the electoral college is biased towards less populated rural & usually red states that have a bigger share of electoral votes that their share of the US population. In all but 2 states the votes of minority candidates are effectively thrown out as surely as any of the Trumps false 2020 election fraud lies because every state except Alaska and Maine gives all their electoral votes to the state's majority party in a "winner take all" approach as if falsely pretending that everyone in the state voted for the majority candidate.

It's no wonder that Trump won as a Republican largely because of the red states' disproportionate share of electoral votes, winning with only 22% of the US population resulting in a 1% advantage over Harris. When there's no incentive for blue voters to waste their time voting in reliably red states and vice versa, it allows a few swing states to decide elections for all 50 states resulting in false mandates, division, and problems.

The article at the follwing website https://usafacts.org/visualizations/electoral-college-states-representation/ graphcally shows that 32 mostly rural red states have a bigger share of electoral votes than their share of the US population, that only 3 states have an equal share, that 16 blue & red states have a smaller share of electoral votes. The 4 heavily populated states of New York, California, Florida and Texas that have a far smaller share of electoral votes than their share of the US population.

Dividing the states into red and blue by political parties and letting the red biased electoral college determine the outcome has caused so much dissatisfaction that is sometimes feels like the conflict between blue & red states will become the 21st century version of the confluct between the blue and gray states of the Civil War. We already had one red insurrection attempt in 2020.

It's time to eliminate political parties and retire the concept of representative government that was a convenient variation of our 1776 experiment in democracy that's no longer needed with modern mass education and communication. Our representative government (i.e. republic) is, in modern times, inefficient, divisive, dependent on the decision making of relatively few mere mortals, and results in corrumption, gridlock and flip-flopping political agenda's & policy at the expense of the people.

We should eliminate voting for candidates and have voters directly decide issues that receive at least 80% of the popular vote reflect widespread agreement. The issues are what matter to people, what they understand the best, and what is hard to mislead about. The gossip, lies, and misinformation of candidate campaign side shows that hype up impressionable voters for and against mere mortal candidates is a transient waste of time that fades away after the election. See the attached snip from that article showing the distortions of the electoral college and it's contribution to blue & red conflict. It almost seems like it was designed to divide and conquer the US by the enemies of democracy. Government isn't a sport and doesn't need teams of different colors and names like gangs to divide us.

I am not going to bother reading that nonsense. Trump won in a landslide. I know it, you know it, and everyone knows it.

 

[Parker_Chess]

I am not going to bother reading that nonsense. Trump won in a landslide. I know it, you know it, and everyone knows it.

Uh definitely was not a landslide 48 to 50%. That's a two point victory. And won only 6 more electoral votes than Joe Biden in 2020.

A popular vote would be far superior to an electoral college. Would make it where candidates need broad nationwide appeal rather than only catered to swing states. It would probably make the U.S. Political System less polarizing and more boring.

 

[----------]

Uh definitely was not a landslide 48 to 50%. That's a two point victory. And won only 6 more electoral votes than Joe Biden in 2020.

A popular vote would be far superior to an electoral college. Would make it where candidates need broad nationwide appeal rather than only catered to swing states. It would probably make the U.S. Political System less polarizing and more boring.

President Trump won in a landslide. To deny it is delusional.

 

[Parker_Chess]

President Trump won in a landslide. To deny it is delusional.

Republican standards are low. If a Democrat won by similar margins it would be another victory as usual.

 

[----------]

Republican standards are low. If a Democrat won by similar margins it would be another victory as usual.

If you exclude the east and west coast states that the Liberals always win, Kammy got a total of 44 Electoral Votes. LOL


President Trump wins all 7 swing states.


Kammy did not out perform Biden in a single county.


Kammy spent over one billion dollars in 3 months and still got her ass handed to her by President Trump.

 

[Cosmo]

The candidates knew it would be an electoral college election, so that's what they aimed to win, and by electoral votes, it was a landslide. By the popular vote, Trump only won by a few million, but that wasn't what they were aiming for anyway. It's just the cherry on top.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Uh definitely was not a landslide 48 to 50%. That's a two point victory. And won only 6 more electoral votes than Joe Biden in 2020.

A popular vote would be far superior to an electoral college. Would make it where candidates need broad nationwide appeal rather than only catered to swing states. It would probably make the U.S. Political System less polarizing and more boring.

Nope, but it would let the urban vote decide the election.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nearly every state's share of electoral votes doesn't match their share of US population, thus elections can fail to reflect the will of the people.​

That’s also true of a state’s representation in the federal legislature (US Senate plus US House). That was done intentionally.

 

[Slartibartfast]

He won the popular vote. America has spoken and wants to decline. We will have to pick up the pieces when this is over.

 

[my2sence]

I don't disagree with you at all re: the electoral college, but unfortunately Trump did win the popular vote as well.

Trump received votes equal to 1% of the US population more than Harris. If Trump had not achieved that 1% advantage with his exaggerations, unvetted gossip, lies and misinformation that 1% of the US population was bigoted, gullible &/or impressionable enough to believe, then the popular vote would have been for Harris and the electoral college might have still been for Trump since there was a 15% discrepancy between Trumps 1% popular vote and his 16% electoral college vote win. If this is to be a country of the people, for the people, then there's no need for an electoral college. Issues and voters are what matter, and all people are supposed to have a vote that counts.

The electoral college gives disproportionatly more electoral votes to farms, sparsely populated & vacant rural land, and large landowners than to densely populated states. Trump can exaggerate & whine about big blue cities being Sodom & Gamorrah, migrants eating cats & dogs, and characterizing migrants as rapists, and gangs that take over cities and most rural voters wouldn't have any idea that Trump was spreading exaggertations & misinformation and would be mislead into voting for him out of fear or merely because they usually vote Republican regardless of who the candidate is like a religion instead of a contrived political entity.

I also think religion played a role in Trump's votes, especially among Latinos. Trumps rallies were like Elmer Gantry revivals full of hype, misinformation and distortions of the truth and some Latinos have reportedly become attracted to right-wing evengelical movements. And the Latinos who have stayed Catholic were also likely influuenced by the Pope who offered advice to Catholics to choose the lesser of 2 evils between Harris & Trump, with abortion being Harris's evil that the pope automatically objects to for religious reasons, and authoritarianism, criminality, dishonestty, insurrection, and attraction to dictators being Trump's evil. So much for separation of church & state and external influences.

If Trump had not mislead people, he would have lost the popular vote. If he had run as an independent instead of a Republican with no red state electoral college advantage bias he would have lost and most voters would have written him off as a raving lunatic. But unfortunately too many voters treat their political party as a religion and will vote for anybody the party throws at them.

 

[my2sence]

Nearly every state's share of electoral votes doesn't match their share of US population, thus elections can fail to reflect the will of the people.​

That’s also true of a state’s representation in the federal legislature (US Senate plus US House). That was done intentionally.

If voters directly decide issues instead of candidates there's no need to allocate electoral college votes and government jobs will be hired based on merit instead of elections based on biased electoral college votes, popularity contests, religion, side shows, & propaganda. It was done intentionally based on 18th cntury conditions that no longer exist.

 

[my2sence]

Clinton won the popular vote but was denied the Presidency because of the vagaries of the Electoral College.

That said, we're stuck with the vagaries of the EC for the foreseeable future.

The founding fathers weren't stuck with a monarchy, and the blue states weren't stuck with slavery. They changed the status quo and did something about it. It's time to dump the 18th century electoral college and allow the republic to mature into a more direct democracy in which the people make the decisions and the government executes those decisions instead of turning them into a bidding war for corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and special interst groups and religions.

 

[my2sence]

Nope, but it would let the urban vote decide the election.

It would let an 80% majority of the people directly decide issues to reflect widesprad agreement. There wouldn't be elections of candidates. Government jobs would be filled based on advertising opening and hiring based on merit like any other job, not elections.

 

[Pyrite]

The founding fathers weren't stuck with a monarchy, and the blue states weren't stuck with slavery. They changed the status quo and did something about it. It's time to dump the 18th century electoral college and allow the republic to mature into a more direct democracy in which the people make the decisions and the government executes those decisions instead of turning them into a bidding war for corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and special interst groups and religions.

Sure, I think it's way past time to get rid of the EC. But that involves amending the Constitution, which was difficult enough to do in the good old days of somewhat responsible voters. In recent years, Republican Presidential nominees haven't been harmed by the existence of the EC, and trump in 2016 benefits hugely from it. I do not see the GOP's jumping on board with getting rid of it.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Would make it where candidates need broad nationwide appeal rather than only catered to swing states

Nope. Candidates would only need mainly West coast and East coast appeal. Thats a little over 45% of the population. Throw in just one or two more big cities like Philly and Vegas and you win the popular vote without campaigning anywhere else, thereby ignoring most of the rest of the country. You wouldn't even have to campaign in Texas if you so choose, even though it has slowly been turning purple.

 

[my2sence]

I am not going to bother reading that nonsense. Trump won in a landslide. I know it, you know it, and everyone knows it.

You aren't a mind reader. Therefore you're spreading lies saying I know it and everybody knows it. You've obviously learned how to spread misinformation from your mentor. It's how he won the popular vote with people who believed him. Trump received votes equal to 1% of the US population more than Harris did. A red state biased electoral college win is no credit to Trump. If he had run as an independent his antics would have been perceived as a lunacy that few would have voted for. He won the popular vote by the skin of his teeth largely because he ran as a Republican and automatically won the red states disproportionate share of electoral votes since enough voters worship their party regardless of the character of their candidate.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Trump's win was no landslide "of the people for the people". It was the way the electoral college is biased towards less populated rural & usually red states that have a bigger share of electoral votes that their share of the US population. In all but 2 states the votes of minority candidates are effectively thrown out as surely as any of the Trumps false 2020 election fraud lies because every state except Alaska and Maine gives all their electoral votes to the state's majority party in a "winner take all" approach as if falsely pretending that everyone in the state voted for the majority candidate.

It's no wonder that Trump won as a Republican largely because of the red states' disproportionate share of electoral votes, winning with only 22% of the US population resulting in a 1% advantage over Harris. When there's no incentive for blue voters to waste their time voting in reliably red states and vice versa, it allows a few swing states to decide elections for all 50 states resulting in false mandates, division, and problems.

The article at the follwing website https://usafacts.org/visualizations/electoral-college-states-representation/ graphcally shows that 32 mostly rural red states have a bigger share of electoral votes than their share of the US population, that only 3 states have an equal share, that 16 blue & red states have a smaller share of electoral votes. The 4 heavily populated states of New York, California, Florida and Texas that have a far smaller share of electoral votes than their share of the US population.

Dividing the states into red and blue by political parties and letting the red biased electoral college determine the outcome has caused so much dissatisfaction that is sometimes feels like the conflict between blue & red states will become the 21st century version of the confluct between the blue and gray states of the Civil War. We already had one red insurrection attempt in 2020.

It's time to eliminate political parties and retire the concept of representative government that was a convenient variation of our 1776 experiment in democracy that's no longer needed with modern mass education and communication. Our representative government (i.e. republic) is, in modern times, inefficient, divisive, dependent on the decision making of relatively few mere mortals, and results in corrumption, gridlock and flip-flopping political agenda's & policy at the expense of the people.

We should eliminate voting for candidates and have voters directly decide issues that receive at least 80% of the popular vote reflect widespread agreement. The issues are what matter to people, what they understand the best, and what is hard to mislead about. The gossip, lies, and misinformation of candidate campaign side shows that hype up impressionable voters for and against mere mortal candidates is a transient waste of time that fades away after the election. See the attached snip from that article showing the distortions of the electoral college and it's contribution to blue & red conflict. It almost seems like it was designed to divide and conquer the US by the enemies of democracy. Government isn't a sport and doesn't need teams of different colors and names like gangs to divide us.

We have states for a reason. If you want more issues to be decided democratically, you should advocate for more to be done at the state level. 75% of what the Federal government does and spends could and probably should be done at the state level.

 

[----------]

You aren't a mind reader. Therefore you're spreading lies saying I know it and everybody knows it. You've obviously learned how to spread misinformation from your mentor. It's how he won the popular vote with people who believed him. Trump received votes equal to 1% of the US population more than Harris did. A red state biased electoral college win is no credit to Trump. If he had run as an independent his antics would have been perceived as a lunacy that few would have voted for. He won the popular vote by the skin of his teeth largely because he ran as a Republican and automatically won the red states disproportionate share of electoral votes since enough voters worship their party regardless of the character of their candidate.

You can't change the fact that President Trump won in a landslide.

 

[my2sence]

Sure, I think it's way past time to get rid of the EC. But that involves amending the Constitution, which was difficult enough to do in the good old days of somewhat responsible voters. In recent years, Republican Presidential nominees haven't been harmed by the existence of the EC, and trump in 2016 benefits hugely from it. I do not see the GOP's jumping on board with getting rid of it.

The south didn't jump onboard with abolishing slavery. Too bad self interest & corruption required a Civil War to satisfy the Declaration of Independence's "all men are created equal".

What will it take to abolish the electoral college and satisfy the Gettysburg Address's "Government of the people, for the people"?

 

[my2sence]

You can't change the fact that President Trump won in a landslide.

If the electoral college makes you fell all warm & fuzzy and sleep better at night for voting for a criminal with an unpresidential chararcter perhaps for no other reson that he happened to by your party's candidate that you automatically voted for just to continue feeling like you belong to something and feel helpless making decisions on your own after careful consideration of the alternatives, then the electoral college is contributing the problem, not the solution.

 

[----------]

If the electoral college makes you fell all warm & fuzzy and sleep better at night for voting for a criminal with an unpresidential chararcter perhaps for no other reson that he happened to by your party's candidate that you automatically voted for just to continue feeling like you belong to something and feel helpless making decisions on your own after careful consideration of the alternatives, then the electoral college is contributing the problem, not the solution.

There is no need for a solution because there is no problem. LOL Why do Liberals whine so much?

 

[ttwtt78640]

It would let an 80% majority of the people directly decide issues to reflect widesprad agreement. There wouldn't be elections of candidates. Government jobs would be filled based on advertising opening and hiring based on merit like any other job, not elections.

What would prevent the 80% majority from deciding that only the top 20% must pay any (all) federal income tax?