I see people argue the electoral college ensures New York and California don't decide the entire election.
How does that makes any logical sense at all?
One person, one vote.
The TOTAL votes from COUNTRY WIDE are stacked against each other and the winner is whoever had more people vote for them. What is so...
I am going to answer a question with a couple of questions. Do you understand our form of government and the way we select local, state and federal leader and representatives?
Do citizens in cities have the same needs and dedires as citizens who live in rural areas?
Do citizens who live in arid, desert like areas have the same needs and desires as citizens who live in more green and fertile areas?
Do citizens who live in mountainous regions have the same needs and desires as those who live in coastal regions?
Will all those citizens vote according to their needs and desires?
Should the more densely populated group always set the agenda for all or should a compromise be struck?
It is the brain dead gullible libtards that do not understand how we elect a president.
The States elect the president and the candidate that get the most popular votes wins the Electoral votes from that state.
This has been explained about 10 million times but we still have brain dead libtards that do not know how we elect a president.
The Framer's of the Constitution understood some concepts 230 years ago you are missing now. They understood that the US, among other things, is a Federation. Election of the president represents the Federation, not the people directly. The Democracy of the presidential election is inside the states to determine who the state puts it's support behind. Presidents controlled by New York or California is precisely what the Framer's didn't want. It would be like Rome being the only population center than mattered in the Roman Empire. It is like how many games a team in the World Series wins is what's important, not how many runs on team gets across all games played, although it is key within a single game. It is a reflection of the political landscape across the entire country, not of just a few population centers. This attitude is reflected in why Washington DC is not a state, so no one state rules over the rest.
Contrary to what you may want to believe, the US not simply a Democracy, it's a Republic first, a Democracy a close second, a Democratic Republic. The Framer's were as suspicious of Democracy as they were Monarchies. National Democracy was mainly represented in the House of Representatives, although states were required to respect the will of the people too.
Why don't you understand it's nothing to do with Republicans?
Look, when the constitution was written, the small states insisted on a bias towards them so the big states don't decide everything all the time. That was written in or they wouldn't have agreed to it.
Remember the USA is a FEDERAL country so being a state should count for something. One person, one vote doesn't reflect federation. What is so hard to understand about that? Why aren't you also complaining about the Senate?
Wrong way round, an Ohio voter's vote is worth LESS because it's a larger state than Vermont. What's wrong with the system is the way nearly all the states have gone for "winner takes all" to decide the electors.
You get better answers if you don't ask your question in such an aggressive way in the first place.
The Electoral College system can work far better if the EC votes were proportional to the amount of votes cast.
You definitely do not understand the system. California and New York are two of the most populous states. Residents vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers. they can easily sway election results while the rest of the country goes 51% to 48% for the Republican.
The electoral college is a compromise between representation of the state and the population within. Each state is equally granted two extra electoral votes, while the rest of the votes are derived from the population of said state. These two extra votes will only ever create a significant difference if a vast majority of states vote in one direction. This prevents any one state with an exceptionally massive population to single-handedly dominate an election. However, if the opinion across the states of candidates are relatively split, then the extra electoral votes will generally not be reflected within the final results.
So plenty of people do understand your argument, but there is a fundamental reason in which the system exists. While it may seem unfair when the election is stacked against certain states, every state is equally granted the two extra electoral votes.
If 1 million people nationwide voted for Trump, that is called "popular votes." Our elections do not run on popular votes. Each state is assigned a number of "electoral votes" based on its population.
If you believe it should be one person, one vote, then fine. Go ahead and work toward getting it changed to suit your belief. But you are the one who does not understand the basic idea of how voting works in our country. The simple truth is that the STATES elect our President, not the people. You vote in your state on whom you want to be president, and then your state (Ohio) carries that view to the electoral college and votes accordingly.
Why have the electoral college? It is supposed to ensure that the new President has widespread GEOGRAPHIC support, and not just being really, really popular in a few huge states. I support the electoral college.
It's obvious that you don't know that when we elect a president we aren't voting for prom queen. Go back to high school civics class.
Like in the Soviet Union?
One man one vote. There are many places like that.
Venezuela suggests itself.
Apparently, this is very confusing. As a voter from Ohio, your vote has much LESS power than a voter from Vermont.
Vermont - 3 electoral votes, 315,067 voters - each popular vote counts for 0.0000095218 Electoral votes
Ohio - 18 electoral votes, 5,496,487 voters- each popular vote counts for 0.0000032748 Electoral votes
Therefore, in the electoral college, a Vermont voter has about 3 times more power in deciding the outcome than you do.
It was originally set to protect the cities from the rural areas. You weight the population just a bit but having it House plus Senate and all states have two Senators.
That's the reason all states have two Senators too.
My bigger issue right now is living next to California I don't trust the integrity of their voting. I suspect they aren't actually all citizens. So now if they want to water down their citizen's votes I can't stop it, but at least I know it isn't getting mine.
if you don’t like the system than change it, until then….
OK idiot, enough smaller states can over rule a large one like when Trump was elected, it takes more than just Ohio to win dumbass
if it were just a popular vote than the entire country would lay siege to the whims of a few
Why can't democrats understand we do NOT select our presidents using one person one vote precisely because we don't want 4 states picking our president.
This is s principle of a representative republic. We're not a democracy. Democracy is 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.