That's because the way the Constitution is written, individual states have a strong incentive to choose a winner-take-all system. If you're a conservative state like Texas, why would you split your EVs when that would make it harder for the conservative candidate to win the presidency? Same goes for liberal states like New York.
How to achieve world piece: replace actual wars with Twitter wars. Unfortunately Trump would lose them all.
I lol'd. The man baby strikes again. Seriously people, read his tweet. He's like a toddler that didn't get his way even though he won the election. What makes the tweet even worst is that he might of received that information from a bullshit website. This plus reports he doesn't like to sit through briefings and would rather watch TV to get the cliff notes is a troubling thing. Sent from my BLU LIFE ONE X using Tapatalk
Good argument, It's "retarded". The system gives a slight bit more power per person to less populous states but not enough to be unfair. This is The United States of America, emphasis on "States", and as such needs to keep some power with individual states as was originally designed. Why not do away with states all together if you are going to take away their power? That is rhetorical, it would be a terrible idea besides not having a chance in hell of happening. You keep talking about the popular vote but how about talking about Trump winning 60% of the states to Clinton's 40%? Or how about the Governors, House and Senate all being majority Republican? It's quite obvious that the majority of the states at this time want Republican rule. I'll admit, at one time I also thought the electoral college was the wrong way to go but after seeing the direction some states have taken I have reevaluated my position on that. No, it has nothing to do with this election even though I am happy it worked at keeping Clinton out of the White House..
Trump won 60% of the states, yet they were smaller states with small populations and are super anti-liberal. That's not impressive. That's basically what every other Republican has done. It's an awful system. At no point should a bunch of small states govern a couple big ones. The majority have to suffer because of this system. Majority should always rule and the electoral system allows for the opposite to happen. That isn't okay. Every other country has figured this out, why can't we?
Americans suffer so much more than people in the rest of the countries. That's why everyone wants to come here.
Every other country has it figured out? You mean like Venezuela, that worked out well for them. Turkey, Sierra Leone and let's not forget Russia. We should aspire to be like the Philippines, yep. This doesn't even include monarchies, leaders elected by parliament and other elected forms of government. I see numerous posters have tried to point out the significance of state power in elections but to you it doesn't matter that the majority of the states wanted Republican rule because "they were smaller states with small populations and are super anti-liberal". I've got an idea, start a movement to have California, New York and Illinois go to proportional electoral votes. They are supposed to be the trend setters so after they go to that system maybe the rest of the country will follow.
I don't believe the states should have the power. I think the people should. It's simple. Most other countries that are successful figured it out. Canada, the UK, etc. etc.
Don't bring us into it! At the last election the Conservative party won about 38% of the vote...and got a majority in the House. Democracy, my arse.
If you honestly think these countries are so much better you could always go live there instead. I'm not saying gtfoh, I'm just saying why not go to where the grass is so much greener if that's what you truly believe?
So each locality should vote their representative in the house and Senators should be appointed by the Queens representative on advice from the Prime Minister. And let me guess, you want Hillary to be the Queen.
