New York and California definitely skewed the popular vote. Hillary won by 2.5 million votes in California and 1.5 million in New York.

 

On the other hand, "the midwest and south really skewed the electoral college vote. Trump won all of them"...

I understand the population point. I was only saying that these two states are heavily Democratic and their results are going to be landslide proportions whereas a big electoral state like Florida or Pennsylvania winning margin is around 1 to 2%.

Why does it matter if they are more democratic? The population as a whole is more democratic.

Couldn't they say:

 

"Great! Another year Florida and Ohio decide our election!"

 

No. There were other states that helped.

Why should their votes be less important than ours??

 

They're not.

1 vote=1 vote. Doesn't matter where it comes from, they all add up the same.

 

If that were true there would be no electoral college.

I hate the argument that California and New York skew the votes. THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK! Their collective voice should have more say than the people of Kentucky because they are dealing with more people. The individual voice of a citizen in California and Kentucky are equal without the EC.

 

They do have, that's why they have more electoral votes.

On the other hand, "the midwest and south really skewed the electoral college vote. Trump won all of them"...

 

Trump took states that Obama took, so...

If that were true there would be no electoral college.

 

If you're referring to just popular vote (which is what was being discussed), 1 vote= 1 vote...doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, the electoral college works differently.

I'm in favor of the electoral college. I think that without it the concerns of many of the smaller states would fall upon deaf ears of politicians.

 

I would compare it to class football championships. If Kentucky only had one champion many great teams from smaller schools would go unrecognized each year. Football in this state most years would come down to whether Trinity could beat St. X or vice versa.

 

We shouldn't put in place a system where the wants and needs of one state would take precident over another part of the country simply due to a huge disparity in population.

Hillary - like her husband - did not win a majority of the popular vote. She is and will stay under 50%. So 'the majority' of voters did not vote for her.

BTW, big Kahuna California was down around 2M voters this year compared to 2012. Both majors were down big so it was not a shift and it was that one turned them out and one did not.

 

Question is - did people not really care or are people really bugging out of Cali in a big way?

The EC was included in the original Constitution and adjusted by the 14th Amendment in 1803. Clearly the Founding Fathers understood the need.

 

Eliminating the EC would require another amendment to the Constitution. Passage by both houses of Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

 

That will not happen.

The EC was included in the original Constitution and adjusted by the 14th Amendment in 1803. Clearly the Founding Fathers understood the need.

 

Eliminating the EC would require another amendment to the Constitution. Passage by both houses of Congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

 

That will not happen.

 

I agree. No way that enough small states would support doing away with it. If they do might as well just eliminate most states and just have California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas. Nothing else would matter.

So our largest population centers should not recieve the most focus... Makes perfect sense.

 

In the 21st century the EC is disenfranchisement of voters on both sides.

If you're referring to just popular vote (which is what was being discussed), 1 vote= 1 vote...doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, the electoral college works differently.

 

Then we do we need Fraction Magic?