11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[rightwinger]

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

it's not unwarranted, it's the end result of the purpose of the system.

Why do people feel the need to do so much at the federal level anyway? Blue States have shown they can go nuts with laws they like, why do they feel the need to force it on everyone else?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

 

[martybegan]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Ummmm news flash for those who skipped all their high school civics classes ---- the individual states all decide how their electors will be selected. They're not bound by any vote at all. The entire 'voting' charade is bread and circus.

Who says so? The Constitution. Prove me wrong.

Article II, Section l of the U.S. Constitution proves you're right.

The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..

Really. What FEC rule would this be?

In fact, states are not required to hold an election at all. All they have to do is choose electors, and how they choose said electors is entirely up to that state. Show us how that's not the case.

And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.

Presumably you've already been in court on the same complaint every time your state gave its entire electoral vote to a candy you voted against then, correct? Good for you, hope you get results someday..

There presumably some limits to how undemocratic a States Elector selection can be.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 guarantees a Republican form of government for each State, and if you add the whole 14th amendment thing, i doubt the governor could just pick electors whilly nilly.

Still the State does have some latitude, just not enough latitude, in my opinion, to select their electors based on mostly the votes of people outside the State.

 

[rightwinger]

Great news. Thanks Connecticut.

But in reality we need an amendment to not only abolish the EC Constitutiionally, but also to reform elections in general and abolish the corrupt monopoly the two parties have on our political system.

Due to the influence that small population states enjoy, they would never agree to an amendment that takes away their power

 

[martybegan]

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

it's not unwarranted, it's the end result of the purpose of the system.

Why do people feel the need to do so much at the federal level anyway? Blue States have shown they can go nuts with laws they like, why do they feel the need to force it on everyone else?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

 

[rightwinger]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Ummmm news flash for those who skipped all their high school civics classes ---- the individual states all decide how their electors will be selected. They're not bound by any vote at all. The entire 'voting' charade is bread and circus.

Who says so? The Constitution. Prove me wrong.

Article II, Section l of the U.S. Constitution proves you're right.

The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..

Really. What FEC rule would this be?

In fact, states are not required to hold an election at all. All they have to do is choose electors, and how they choose said electors is entirely up to that state. Show us how that's not the case.

And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.

Presumably you've already been in court on the same complaint every time your state gave its entire electoral vote to a candy you voted against then, correct? Good for you, hope you get results someday..

There presumably some limits to how undemocratic a States Elector selection can be.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 guarantees a Republican form of government for each State, and if you add the whole 14th amendment thing, i doubt the governor could just pick electors whilly nilly.

Still the State does have some latitude, just not enough latitude, in my opinion, to select their electors based on mostly the votes of people outside the State.

These modifications have been around for a while now
Haven’t seen a constitutional challenge

 

[rightwinger]

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

it's not unwarranted, it's the end result of the purpose of the system.

Why do people feel the need to do so much at the federal level anyway? Blue States have shown they can go nuts with laws they like, why do they feel the need to force it on everyone else?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I guess the left really does want a shooting war.

 

[Care4all]

THOSE 11 mostly big blue / metropolitan populous states get 2 electors each for their 2 senators so that means they have a total of 22 electors given to represent their US Senators, the 39 other mostly smaller and medium size states left, also each get 2 electors for their senators, which totals 78 electors for them....so they have 56 more electors than those 11 states with huge populations.

THIS is the 'smaller state advantage' our founders gave in the electoral college, (and in the US Congress) to the smaller populated states to help overcome the huge numbers in metropolitan voters and boocoos of electors they also get for their populous...(One elector for every 700,000 citizens)....it won't do it alone....but it will give these lesser populated states a fighting chance for someone they want as president, to actually win....especially if he is liked by some in/of the larger populated states.

Madison thought selecting a president would become too political if it were left up to the US Congress.... he thought the congress critters and Senators within States and within the separate congress houses, would collude with each other when voting for a President, by party affiliation of by regions of states etc, to select a President that was only good for their region or their Party....

Madison and Adams wanted our US President to be the best possible person out there, regardless of party or region.

So, they devised the Electoral process, to MIMIC the US Congress, ONLY DONE OUTSIDE of the US Congress and their federal political machinations and collusion deals.

Boy oh boy were those two wrong in thinking the States and Parties within the state legislatures handling it would eliminate this collusion he foresaw in the US Congress, from happening!


Madison was able to see it in his lifetime! He even wrote regrets of allowing the state legislatures to create their own rules on how electors were chosen and how they voted!!!

 

[martybegan]

Ummmm news flash for those who skipped all their high school civics classes ---- the individual states all decide how their electors will be selected. They're not bound by any vote at all. The entire 'voting' charade is bread and circus.

Who says so? The Constitution. Prove me wrong.

Article II, Section l of the U.S. Constitution proves you're right.

The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..

Really. What FEC rule would this be?

In fact, states are not required to hold an election at all. All they have to do is choose electors, and how they choose said electors is entirely up to that state. Show us how that's not the case.

And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.

Presumably you've already been in court on the same complaint every time your state gave its entire electoral vote to a candy you voted against then, correct? Good for you, hope you get results someday..

There presumably some limits to how undemocratic a States Elector selection can be.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 guarantees a Republican form of government for each State, and if you add the whole 14th amendment thing, i doubt the governor could just pick electors whilly nilly.

Still the State does have some latitude, just not enough latitude, in my opinion, to select their electors based on mostly the votes of people outside the State.

These modifications have been around for a while now
Haven’t seen a constitutional challenge

Because they don't mean anything until enough States sign on to it.

That means no one has cause to sue, because no harm has been done yet.

 

[martybegan]

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

it's not unwarranted, it's the end result of the purpose of the system.

Why do people feel the need to do so much at the federal level anyway? Blue States have shown they can go nuts with laws they like, why do they feel the need to force it on everyone else?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

 

[rightwinger]

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

it's not unwarranted, it's the end result of the purpose of the system.

Why do people feel the need to do so much at the federal level anyway? Blue States have shown they can go nuts with laws they like, why do they feel the need to force it on everyone else?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

Suppose 40 States want to implement Jim Crow laws and 10 don’t.

We need a strong federal government to protect the persecuted minority

 

[martybegan]

it's not unwarranted, it's the end result of the purpose of the system.

Why do people feel the need to do so much at the federal level anyway? Blue States have shown they can go nuts with laws they like, why do they feel the need to force it on everyone else?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

Suppose 40 States want to implement Jim Crow laws and 10 don’t.

We need a strong federal government to protect the persecuted minority

Jim Crow laws have been found to violate the 14th amendment.

Again, what does that have to do with forcing people not to use plastic bags?

 

[Pogo]

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If that's a virtue, why don't states elect governors that way? Why doesn't each of its counties (parishes, boroughs) have its own electors to pick the governor?

Or Senator? Or Representative? Or Mayor? Or sheriff?

Prior to the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings, they could have, but most didn't.

You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.

The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.

Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

Suppose 40 States want to implement Jim Crow laws and 10 don’t.

We need a strong federal government to protect the persecuted minority

Jim Crow laws have been found to violate the 14th amendment.

Again, what does that have to do with forcing people not to use plastic bags?

I don’t know
I don’t give a fuck about plastic bags

Want to discuss the Supremacy Clause?

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

You mean the system the Blue States agreed to when joining the union?

Have you actually not yet figured out that when "blue states" joined the union there was no such thing as a "blue state" or a "red state" and that that artificial division was created by the later WTA abuse of the Electoral College?

You do realize I referenced Blue and Red according to today's reputation as to how they vote right? Not their actual color?

You can attempt to deny you own words as they sit nested directly above but what they (still) allude to is "blue states joining the union". And that's impossible, and I already explained why. Yet here I am re-explaining the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..

It would appear you need to actually read the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth about what "su

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If that's a virtue, why don't states elect governors that way? Why doesn't each of its counties (parishes, boroughs) have its own electors to pick the governor?

Or Senator? Or Representative? Or Mayor? Or sheriff?

Prior to the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings, they could have, but most didn't.

You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.

The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.

Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.

They did it at the federal level because they were afraid of an overbearing federal government controlled by 2-3 large States.

Well we now have the overbearing federal government, and people like you want it controlled by 2-3 large States, so it appears they were correct in their worries.

I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.

1st:

Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.

2nd:

The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.

The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.

One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.

Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.

 

[martybegan]

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

Suppose 40 States want to implement Jim Crow laws and 10 don’t.

We need a strong federal government to protect the persecuted minority

Jim Crow laws have been found to violate the 14th amendment.

Again, what does that have to do with forcing people not to use plastic bags?

I don’t know
I don’t give a fuck about plastic bags

Want to discuss the Supremacy Clause?

The Supremacy clause only applies to concerns explicitly granted to the federal government.

Everything else belongs to the States.

 

[Pop23]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

You mean the system the Blue States agreed to when joining the union?

Have you actually not yet figured out that when "blue states" joined the union there was no such thing as a "blue state" or a "red state" and that that artificial division was created by the later WTA abuse of the Electoral College?

You do realize I referenced Blue and Red according to today's reputation as to how they vote right? Not their actual color?

You can attempt to deny you own words as they sit nested directly above but what they (still) allude to is "blue states joining the union". And that's impossible, and I already explained why. Yet here I am re-explaining the same thing.

Hard to deny anything when you are asking a question, but you do like to hear your own righteous indignation even though it makes everyone else giggle.

 

[oreo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

GOOD--it's about time. There is no need for the electoral college vote today. Everyone can get to polling a precinct and or use mail in ballots. The electoral college was designed for people who couldn't vote because they lived out in the middle of nowhere. So our forefathers decided to do the electoral college system, in essense casting a vote for those people.

And as we saw on election night, any state west of Michigan didn't count, because Trump secured the 270 electoral college vote requirement by a measly 73K accumulated votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states.

Meaning that the Electoral college today is the worst case example of voter disenfranchisement still operational in the nation today.

Incorrect.

There was a bitter debate over whether or not the Constitution made the Federal government too powerful, as well as debate as to whether more populated states would hold more power over less populated states. That is why the Senate has two representatives per state no matter how big the population levels are.

And so it is with the Electoral college. If it were not for the Electoral College, the populations of both New York and California would decide each Presidential election as the rest of the nation would be held captive.

New York and California, combined, have a total of 84 electoral votes. It is impossible to decide a Presidential election with 84 votes Matter of fact you could multiply it by 3 and you still wouldn't have enough.

Ever take a math class? Might be time.

The electoral college is archaic and was designed for people who could not get to the polling precincts to cast a vote back since this country was founded. Everyone can vote today. There are voting precincts everywhere with the use of mail in ballots.

Trump winning on an accumulated vote total of 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states while losing the popular vote by 3 million makes him the most illegitimate President to ever be sworn into the Oval office. Any state west of Michigan didn't count in this National election, and the President is supposed to be representative of every single vote in this country, not just certain states.

The electoral college is the very worst case of voter disenfranchisement used in this country today. It's got to go before another disaster like this happens again.

And you only btich about it because your candidate lost.

Too bad, so sad.

It's purpose is to make the President, and only the President, the representative of a population skewed majority of the States.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted. The President is supposed to be the representation of the majority of votes cast in this country, NOT a few select states.

The electoral college has got to go.

 

[martybegan]

GOOD--it's about time. There is no need for the electoral college vote today. Everyone can get to polling a precinct and or use mail in ballots. The electoral college was designed for people who couldn't vote because they lived out in the middle of nowhere. So our forefathers decided to do the electoral college system, in essense casting a vote for those people.

And as we saw on election night, any state west of Michigan didn't count, because Trump secured the 270 electoral college vote requirement by a measly 73K accumulated votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states.

Meaning that the Electoral college today is the worst case example of voter disenfranchisement still operational in the nation today.

Incorrect.

There was a bitter debate over whether or not the Constitution made the Federal government too powerful, as well as debate as to whether more populated states would hold more power over less populated states. That is why the Senate has two representatives per state no matter how big the population levels are.

And so it is with the Electoral college. If it were not for the Electoral College, the populations of both New York and California would decide each Presidential election as the rest of the nation would be held captive.

New York and California, combined, have a total of 84 electoral votes. It is impossible to decide a Presidential election with 84 votes Matter of fact you could multiply it by 3 and you still wouldn't have enough.

Ever take a math class? Might be time.

The electoral college is archaic and was designed for people who could not get to the polling precincts to cast a vote back since this country was founded. Everyone can vote today. There are voting precincts everywhere with the use of mail in ballots.

Trump winning on an accumulated vote total of 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states while losing the popular vote by 3 million makes him the most illegitimate President to ever be sworn into the Oval office. Any state west of Michigan didn't count in this National election, and the President is supposed to be representative of every single vote in this country, not just certain states.

The electoral college is the very worst case of voter disenfranchisement used in this country today. It's got to go before another disaster like this happens again.

And you only btich about it because your candidate lost.

Too bad, so sad.

It's purpose is to make the President, and only the President, the representative of a population skewed majority of the States.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted.

The electoral college has got to go.

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.