Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States. He's the 44th if you count Grover Cleveland as a single POTUS despite his two separate presidencies. In the course of 240 years and 58 elections there have been a total of 5 times where a person has been elected President without winning the popular vote. Two of these occasions have occurred within the last five presidential elections.

 

1-John Quincy Adams beat Andrew Jackson

2-Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel Tilden

3-Benjamin Harrison beat Grover Cleveland

4-George W. Bush beat Al Gore

5-Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton

Does the electoral college work? Do we still need the electoral college?

 

There have been calls for changes to the election process and the electoral college in the last 10 years. Will the elections of W and Trump bring about any real review or changes to the electoral voting process on an official level?

I've been advocating getting rid of it for a long time. It pointlessly skews the will of the people for reasons that not longer exist.

 

With it helping two Republicans overcome the popular vote there's no way it gets changed. Had it also sent a Democrat to the WH against popular will there might have been enough support from both sides to end it. I'm afraid it's here to stay for several more generations now.

Most of the people I heard complaining of the electoral college was Trump supporters. They have been quiet today.

Most of the people I heard complaining of the electoral college was Trump supporters. They have been quiet today.

 

All that means is they're human.

All that means is they're human.

 

I agree but they were throwing a fit yesterday.

If we truly want everyone's vote to equally matter, we'll do away it. I don't see it happening any time soon though.

I've been advocating getting rid of it for a long time. It pointlessly skews the will of the people for reasons that not longer exist.

 

With it helping two Republicans overcome the popular vote there's no way it gets changed. Had it also sent a Democrat to the WH against popular will there might have been enough support from both sides to end it. I'm afraid it's here to stay for several more generations now.

 

Exactly correct. Until the GOP can replace a Republican in the Oval Office with another Republican - and then maybe another Republican or two to follow after that - they're going to be fighting tooth and nail to keep the electoral college juuuuuuust like it is.

Very shortsighted to wish away the electoral college.

I honestly don't know the proper response to it. For sure, the original intention of the Electoral College - to protect the people from themselves essentially - is no longer there. The idea that the popular vote should be used is a logical one. One person, one vote, and winner take all. It just makes sense. I do think some of the other side of the coin is on how that skews to the population centers, and the interests of those areas may not match the interests of everyone else. Therefore, they need some system that protects them from having their will subverted. According to this article (Where Do Most Americans Live? – Wonk Wire), 50.03% of the population lives in the 144 largest counties in the US, while the other half live in the smallest 2,998 counties. It has an image that shows the vast disparity in those land areas. And where are most of those population centers? California, south Florida, and the eastern seaboard. Here in Kentucky we have one - Jefferson County. With the electoral college, we complain about how "certain states" control everything. This is only true, of course, because those states tilt back and forth between the parties. A pure popular vote would skew that in a different way. Why on earth would you ever visit many places that weren't shaded red on that image? What hope does someone in Missouri truly have of effecting change and having their voice heard if New York and Los Angeles dominate the vote? Wouldn't that allow those large states to exert even more influence?

It would certainly cut down on the expense of campaigning as the candidates would only need to go to about 8 cities.

It would certainly cut down on the expense of campaigning as the candidates would only need to go to about 8 cities.

 

If this were true the candidates would have never left Philadelphia, Colombus, or Jacksonville. If the Electoral College were gotten rid of it would open up much more engagement across the country.

If this were true the candidates would have never left Philadelphia, Colombus, or Jacksonville. If the Electoral College were gotten rid of it would open up much more engagement across the country.

 

Maybe, but if you look at the map on where the votes came from, it looks like Hillary won the popular vote from about 5% of the area of the US. Mostly about 8 cities.

If this were true the candidates would have never left Philadelphia, Colombus, or Jacksonville. If the Electoral College were gotten rid of it would open up much more engagement across the country.

 

Would you want the EC replaced with a straight popular vote?

I have been torn on this for several years. On one hand, I don't like the fact that my vote in Kentucky means less than one in California. Hate that. But, also don't like the fact that candidates could focus on a couple dozen cities and basically ignore the rest of the country. (And yes, I know they're doing that now anyway.)

 

The only alternative that I could think might better reflect the popular vote, but still utilize the electoral college philosophy, would be to eliminate the all or nothing aspect. So, instead of Hillary getting all 55 California electoral votes, she'd only get 61% of them (33 or 34). At least that way, a Republican candidate might actually campaign in areas that they right now would otherwise forfeit to the Democrats. Same way a Democrat might actually come to Kentucky.