Why the Electoral College is trash and needs to be removed.

The whole structure and rules makes no sense and just sucks all together.
1. The 12th amendment made things worse. It needed to simply say that the electors get 1 vote and the president and vice president must be elected as a ticket. That's all. Why the duck did they make the rules that if no one gets a majority that it goes to the house and the house has to vote in state blocks and not individuals. My guess is either 1. Someone said, we have an odd number of states but an even number of house members. or 2. Said why the hell not and thought that was the best way from it getting political.

2. If it ties in the house it goes to the senate as the final vote. Okay yeah um the senate has an even number. I legit want to see a presidential race come down to a coin flip and watch america look stupid as duck forcing a change.

3. It gives 0 rules on how states have to choose the electors. So yeah for who knows how long some states didn't have a popular vote. Again just to say the constitution allows this I would love to see a state decide by like pulling a name out of a hat.

4. Primaries are not a requirement and forever it was done by the legislative caucuses of the parties in congress to nominate.

5. It allows for 3 in a run off not 2. Thats ducking random.

If you can't already tell that the EC was not made for the states but to allow the elites to have a ruling class of politicians who could just take turns at the presidency, then you need to take off the blinders. The states don't have to let you vote, the parties don't have to let you run, and the electors don't have to vote the way you told them to.

 

But they do and electors are released by popular vote in every state even though the states have different rules.

And remember that the electoral college was developed to give all states representation, not for individual voters.

America is a collection of states, it is not one nation. It is 50 states working together.

We don't have a national election for the president, we have 50 separate ones and the EC represents that extremely well and extremely fairly based on population.

There is nothing wrong with the EC you are just butthurt that Hillary lost.

 

It will never be abolished.

There will never be enough support to get a Constitutional Amendment to overturn it.

Besides--The GOP knows that it is impossible for them to ever win another Presidential election without it.

 

If liberals quit popping out 20 welfare babies a year then sure, get rid of it.

 

Firstly the current system means that those who live in the bush get an equal say in how the country is run as those who live in the city.

Moreover, the current system ensures that your Zip code doesn't matter when it comes to electing the president.

Secondly, the only reason why you think that the EC needs to be abolished is that you lost the presidential election. So using that same argument, I think we should abolish the house as the Republicans lost the election, and its no longer representative of the American people,

 

Without the electoral college, the largest states would be the only places that matter and the voters in places like Vermont, Oregon, and Arkansas would be totally irrelevant.

 

Well aside from the fact that the demorats would have been in power since 1992 with out it, the EC was not created to give states representation, it was to be a check on the people who were at the time mostly ignorant and had no concept of how politics worked. It makes no sense today since everyone can find information at the click of a button. It didn't check Trump who is about to send the country into a full blown constitutional crisis, so its not useful anymore.

The first 7 presidents were from Virginia. Almost every election before the civil war was won by large population north states because it was north v south. If we didn't have the EC then every state would be important and no more solid blue or solid red states stopping candidates from caring.

Zip code still determines importance because of red/blue states.

Nope, Vermont is pointless they vote blue every election, Oregon is pointless they vote blue every election, Arkansas is pointless because they vote red every election.

Also if your state is small and solid double blow, if I was running as a democrat I would still go to Texas because they have 25 votes, but I would not bother with some 3 vote state.

 

California is always blue, so it's irrelevant. Let's just do away with it.

 

The Electoral College is fine.

I also think Trump is an asshat.

Of course, Hillary is too, but that's beside the point. We were going to end up with a great big stinker in the White House either way, we just got the one who's better at letting us know that he's a great big stinker. Hillary would have just been a little bit more on the down-low about it, but would have been no less of a great big stinker.

 

Perhaps you should move to North Korea. I am pretty sure they do not have an electoral college there.

 

It is enlightening to know you are so much more prescience than the framers, but it would be more convincing if you you understood the procedures spelled out in the framers' Constitution.

 

The EC will never get removed, as the voters in the States the left wants to erase won't stand for it.

 

What is supported on the part of yourself is nothing more than mob rule.

 

Do you want civil war? because scrapping the EC is how you get civil war.

 

It was that, but I think with the current size and power of the federal government, and of the president in particular, this is arguably no longer quite the case. While we're still made up of states, the federal government has taken on new power and significance since the nation's founding.

Not that this necessarily justified scrapping the Electoral College. I'm not at all convinced that doing so is at all necessary or warranted at this point. Democrats could do more to reach out to rural America, and Republicans could do more to reach out to urban Americans, and then it wouldn't matter so much. Is the Electoral College responsible for the two parties becoming so demographically and geographically isolated? I don't think so.

 

Its only when Democrats lose, that there is a "problem" with either the popular vote or the electoral college. When the Democrats win, there is only a declaration that the election was "fair and square", even if they counted dead people and hanging chads or "hole not filled in" as meaning a vote for Democrats. And even if there is irregularity in finding votes days and weeks later after the election day results.

 

The framers only intended/expected the constitution to last 10 years. It was meant as a transition from the abysmal AoC.

 

Show the basis of the claim.

 

No Western jurisdiction elects their leaders by direct popular vote. Almost all use the system the US system is designed to emulate.

The difference is the US has a strong separation of powers, so the members of the House can't just pass a vote of confidence and appoint an executive from within the legislature.

All the winner takes all districts are still the same. As an example, Bob Hawke lost the 1990 election, the other guy had 50.1% of the popular vote. But all countries appoint their HOS/PM through districts, not a direct popular vote, so be won.

When you can't win elections, don't campaign better, just change the rules for your benefit.

 

Precisely what they are up to in Fl, as we type.

OP, sorry your Gal lost.

 

Source?

 

Is the mistakes in the constitutional writing not enough? They accidentally allowed for an individual to sue states that they did not live in LOL

 

Your baseless claim has no credibility without proof. Second claim, quote the Constitution.

 

he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

You answered your own question there and don't even realize it.