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

[Pop23]

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.

The candidate that lost the popular vote was actually too damn dumb to visit those 3 States. Hell, I called them for Trump long before the Candidate even saw it happening. I'm thinking we are better off NOT having the popular vote decide just based on that!

 

[Pogo]

EVERY state, no matter how big or small, is entitled to equal representation within the federal government, hence the electoral college.

Technically not equal, but population proportioned representation.

Sorry, but I'm a stickler for details.

Your correction is correct.

As far as that state's representation in the Congress that's a functional plan. The problem comes in when that state's Presidential electors of the same number waltz into Congress and report that "wow, haven't seen anything like this in four years, literally everybody in our state voted for X. It was unanimous". And that's complete bullshit, it's dishonest, and it takes all the votes of anyone who voted for Y or Z and tosses them into a bonfire.

"Winner takes all" has its own issues, but to be fair some States don't do it.

I would be happier with the 2 Senate EV's going to the Statewide winner, and each Congressional district awarding 1 EV based on the vote there.

Of course that would make redistrcting even a bigger fight.

I am still not a fan of a national vote President though.

WTA is, as far as I'm concerned, the principal issue and while not the entire problem, definitely most of it inasmuch as it disenfranchises millions and creates those artificial bullshit divisions of "red" and "blue" states, a division which in effect replays the Civil War. Abolishing that practice alone, as Madison wanted to do, would fundamentally sea-change the entire electoral process, not the least of which reason would be a dramatic increase in voter participation since millions would have their vote actually counted for the first time.

To be correct there are two states who do not swing that way (Maine and Nebraska) but they in effect do the same thing by subdividing themselves into smaller states, where the resident of a given district gets fucked the same way, so it's essentially a wash. But you are acutely correct that it would engender even worse gerrymandering, which is another malpractice that needs to go yesterday.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And, of course, this speaks to how the presidency has become way to important.

it should not be that big a deal. But the left, aided by the right, has put more and more power in D.C.

If it didn't matter....it wouldn't matter.

 

[martybegan]

EVERY state, no matter how big or small, is entitled to equal representation within the federal government, hence the electoral college.

Technically not equal, but population proportioned representation.

Sorry, but I'm a stickler for details.

Your correction is correct.

As far as that state's representation in the Congress that's a functional plan. The problem comes in when that state's Presidential electors of the same number waltz into Congress and report that "wow, haven't seen anything like this in four years, literally everybody in our state voted for X. It was unanimous". And that's complete bullshit, it's dishonest, and it takes all the votes of anyone who voted for Y or Z and tosses them into a bonfire.

"Winner takes all" has its own issues, but to be fair some States don't do it.

I would be happier with the 2 Senate EV's going to the Statewide winner, and each Congressional district awarding 1 EV based on the vote there.

Of course that would make redistrcting even a bigger fight.

I am still not a fan of a national vote President though.

WTA is, as far as I'm concerned, the principal issue and while not the entire problem, definitely most of it inasmuch as it disenfranchises millions and creates those artificial bullshit divisions of "red" and "blue" states, a division which in effect replays the Civil War. Abolishing that practice alone, as Madison wanted to do, would fundamentally sea-change the entire electoral process, not the least of which reason would be a dramatic increase in voter participation since millions would have their vote actually counted for the first time.

To be correct there are two states who do not swing that way (Maine and Nebraska) but they in effect do the same thing by subdividing themselves into smaller states, where the resident of a given district gets fucked the same way, so it's essentially a wash. But you are acutely correct that it would engender even worse gerrymandering, which is another malpractice that needs to go yesterday.

It still doesn't remove the fact that the Presidency was never meant to represent the people directly, and to change that really requires an amendment, not a half assed end run attempt that the law in question uses.

One is only "disenfranchised" if the presidency was the only office we voted for.

 

[martybegan]

And, of course, this speaks to how the presidency has become way to important.

it should not be that big a deal. But the left, aided by the right, has put more and more power in D.C.

If it didn't matter....it wouldn't matter.

This is the mic drop argument right here.

 

[DOTR]

As per usual when Democrats are defeated they try destroy the people who defeated them. Their attacks on the Constitution have no chance of succeeding...they will never repeal the Electoral College. So they do an end run around it. This benefits elites and the wealthy..as evidenced by support for from the RNC as well.

ANUZIS: Conservatives need the popular vote

All that said only state legislatures can vote for President. They can do as they please. And what they please is the the destruction of America.

 

[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?

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.

Clearly there are not, considering we already have 57 states trotting in to Congress every four years claiming unanimous votes, something that has literally never happened ever.

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.

The legislature rather than the governor actually, but yes the individual state gets to select its electors however it wants, even to the point of "faithless elector" state laws that clearly violate (and nullify) the whole purpose of the EC.

But hey, if you can find a Constitutional provision that requires states to get in line and actually represent their own citizens' wishes, more power to you.

 

[jillian]

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?

LMAO That electoral college has elected Dems, many Dems in the past. Guess WE THE PEOPLE didn't count then either. LOL

Tissue???

when did a democrat ever become president with less than the popular vote because of the electoral college.

now lie....

i'll wait.

 

[jillian]

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

States elect the President, not people. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. Do you want MOB RULE, and NY, and CA to control the entire U.S.? What if they decide slavery is legal again? Do you want to be forced to go along with that, or have a say?

because that is how the electoral college is set up. and now it has become a tool to put candidates who don't get the popular vote into the white house against the will of most of the country.

slavery would have to be found legal by the supreme court.

same as loons who try to take away my right to reproductive choice.

but please, pick the absurd example instead of the real one.... which is that the person in the white house is opposed by 60% of the country.

 

[jillian]

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.

Clearly there are not, considering we already have 57 states trotting in to Congress every four years claiming unanimous votes, something that has literally never happened ever.

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.

The legislature rather than the governor actually, but yes the individual state gets to select its electors however it wants, even to the point of "faithless elector" state laws that clearly violate (and nullify) the whole purpose of the EC.

But hey, if you can find a Constitutional provision that requires states to get in line and actually represent their own citizens' wishes, more power to you.

you know that if it were a dem who got less than the popular vote, he'd be hysterically pounding the table.

 

[oreo]

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.

This is how it starts. To change or a repeal an amendment to the Constitution requires that 2/3's of the Senate & 2/3's of the house vote for it and then it has to be ratified by 36 state legislatures. This is good for this country & including both parties. Because this election was really a National brain fart, and had 73K stupid people in 3 blue rust belt states not voted for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today. That's not going to HAPPEN ever again, which will be bad for Republican Presidential nominee's, so the popular vote is the only way to go to insure that this nation gets the President they want and that each and every vote is counted to determine who the President will be.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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?

If this keeps up, Trump will have no path to defeat Hillary.

Don't worry, I'm sure Vladimir will be there to assist again.

I hope so. He might be our last hope.

I never thought I would ever read or hear an American citizen ever say those words.

Wow.

You people keep disgusting me everyday.

Turns out after all these decades of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a commie in a lame attempt to silence them, it's you republicans who turn out to be the real commies.

Nothing like taking ONE person's silly comment and applying it to everyone you don't like. Lol.

Yeah, pot, meet kettle.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Courts do not view it that way

 

[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.

Clearly there are not, considering we already have 57 states trotting in to Congress every four years claiming unanimous votes, something that has literally never happened ever.

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.

The legislature rather than the governor actually, but yes the individual state gets to select its electors however it wants, even to the point of "faithless elector" state laws that clearly violate (and nullify) the whole purpose of the EC.

But hey, if you can find a Constitutional provision that requires states to get in line and actually represent their own citizens' wishes, more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Courts do not view it that way

Courts also thought Plessey was good law. Courts can be wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Courts do not view it that way

Courts also thought Plessey was good law. Courts can be wrong.

Courts have viewed that way for 100 years

 

[martybegan]

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.

This is how it starts. To change or a repeal an amendment to the Constitution requires that 2/3's of the Senate & 2/3's of the house vote for it and then it has to be ratified by 36 state legislatures. This is good for this country & including both parties. Because this election was really a National brain fart, and had 73K stupid people in 3 blue states not voted for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today. That's not going to HAPPEN ever again, which will be bad for Republican Presidential nominee's, so the popular vote is the only way to go to insure that this nation gets the President they want and that each and every vote is counted to determine who the President will be.

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Courts do not view it that way

Courts also thought Plessey was good law. Courts can be wrong.

Courts have viewed that way for 100 years

And they were OK with plessey for over 70, time doesn't make things automatically right.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Clearly there are not, considering we already have 57 states trotting in to Congress every four years claiming unanimous votes, something that has literally never happened ever.

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.

The legislature rather than the governor actually, but yes the individual state gets to select its electors however it wants, even to the point of "faithless elector" state laws that clearly violate (and nullify) the whole purpose of the EC.

But hey, if you can find a Constitutional provision that requires states to get in line and actually represent their own citizens' wishes, more power to you.

you know that if it were a dem who got less than the popular vote, he'd be hysterically pounding the table.

No, i would not. I am a fan of following the rules, and the rules are the rules.

If I don't like the rules I would support beginning the amendment process.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Doesn't the Constitution give the States the right to choose the way it's electors are selected?

It's it a double edged sword anyway?