Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[RDD_1210]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

 

[Papageorgio]

So basically you want no representation of rural America by the executive branch

I want all people's votes to count equally.

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

So you want to do away with the House and the Senate also? They as you claim would give Wyoming a bigger voice in lawmaking.

 

[RDD_1210]

I want all people's votes to count equally.

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

They do, they have more electoral college votes... lol

So you think California should get more of a say then.

 

[RDD_1210]

I want all people's votes to count equally.

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

So you want to do away with the House and the Senate also? They as you claim would give Wyoming a bigger voice in lawmaking.

Not at all. They are critical.

 

[easyt65]

So....after losing their 1st 'popularity contest' PRES Election, how fast would / will the democrats move to reverse eliminating the Electoral College?

 

[Rustic]

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

They do, they have more electoral college votes... lol

So you think California should get more of a say then.

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

 

[Papageorgio]

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

People do have a voice with a Republic, Democracy not as much. The Electoral College helps for all to have a voice, even minorities. All voices from all over the nation get a voice, it matters not the flavor of the day, it equalizes the might of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.

 

[peach174]

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

 

[Pogo]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

The frickin' "Democratic Party" has nothing to do with the EC question, Dumbass. 1992 was in fact when the "FairVote" project was launched, as noted earlier, from both sides of politics.

Time to grow the fuck up and shed the binary-bot shit.

Bill Clinton, if snowflakes had had their way - no electoral college in '92, would have LOST!
Instead, he lost the 'popular vote' BS but won the Presidency with the Electoral College....NO TANTRUM.

Hillary ran the worst campaign in US history in 2016, did not even visit the states she list - which cost her the election....she did what Bill did not do - win the popular vote - and failed to do what he DID do - win the Presidency.

Hillary supporters openly wept, and for the last 2 years they have continued to throw a tantrum...and you laughably tell ME to 'grow up'...

Bwuhahahaha......

Once AGAIN moron, there is no "Hillary" in this question. And also AGAIN, just because you were too fucked up to notice or chose to ignore it, the EC question has been gurgling for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Including the year of 1992.

 

[RDD_1210]

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

They do, they have more electoral college votes... lol

So you think California should get more of a say then.

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

 

[RDD_1210]

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

People do have a voice with a Republic, Democracy not as much. The Electoral College helps for all to have a voice, even minorities. All voices from all over the nation get a voice, it matters not the flavor of the day, it equalizes the might of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.

Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.

 

[Pogo]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

Bill Clinton didn't get the majority but did earn the plurality by getting 5½ million more votes than the runner up in basically a 3-way race. Those proposing elimination of the Electoral College still desire to have the winner determined on a plurality basis. Otherwise even in 2016 there would need to be a run-off election seeing that neither Trump nor Hillary got to 50% + 1.

That would have been a step in the right direction actually.

Nobody won a majority of votes in my state that year, and yet our electors went to Congress and dishonestly cast 100% of our votes for one candidate, zero for anyone else. That's in effect no different from somebody going out to vote fifteen times on election day.

 

[RDD_1210]

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

 

[peach174]

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

They do, they have more electoral college votes... lol

So you think California should get more of a say then.

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

 

[RDD_1210]

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

They do, they have more electoral college votes... lol

So you think California should get more of a say then.

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

 

[peach174]

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

No, that's exactly why we have the EC.

 

[easyt65]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

The frickin' "Democratic Party" has nothing to do with the EC question, Dumbass. 1992 was in fact when the "FairVote" project was launched, as noted earlier, from both sides of politics.

Time to grow the fuck up and shed the binary-bot shit.

Bill Clinton, if snowflakes had had their way - no electoral college in '92, would have LOST!
Instead, he lost the 'popular vote' BS but won the Presidency with the Electoral College....NO TANTRUM.

Hillary ran the worst campaign in US history in 2016, did not even visit the states she list - which cost her the election....she did what Bill did not do - win the popular vote - and failed to do what he DID do - win the Presidency.

Hillary supporters openly wept, and for the last 2 years they have continued to throw a tantrum...and you laughably tell ME to 'grow up'...

Bwuhahahaha......

Once AGAIN moron, there is no "Hillary" in this question. And also AGAIN, just because you were too fucked up to notice or chose to ignore it, the EC question has been gurgling for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Including the year of 1992.

HHillary, again, ran the worst campaign in US history. The 2 states she refused to visit and lost made up the difference in her loss.

The Electoral College was / is not the problem.

This crooked criminal bitch couldn't even win a rigged election.

 

[RDD_1210]

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

No, that's exactly why we have the EC.

No?

But right now all votes are not the same. A vote in Wyoming is worth more than 3x as much as a vote in California.

Is that fair?

 

[peach174]

They do, they have more electoral college votes... lol

So you think California should get more of a say then.

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

 

[RDD_1210]

So you think California should get more of a say then.

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.