By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aura7541 on 20 May 2018
Edit Thread
Nem said:
Maxosaurus-rex said:

Most votes do not win anywhere . All votes are the same. Everyone was counted. He got the majority of votes that counted. In fact, more electorates defected from Hilary than him. She was an awful unelectable candidate from the start(and that was 2008.not 2016)

 

Also, majority of voters did vote republican. 

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

Just cause you got a phony democracy don't project it to the ones that don't. Your 200 year old system is way past it's expery date. Not everyone failed to modernize.

Just because the electoral college is not a 100% democratic system doesn't mean that it's a bad system. Sure, I would like to have the system changed a bit such as winner of the state automatically receives 2 electoral votes (senators) with the rest divvied up proportionally (representatives). However, the electoral college was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. This is especially true when a large proportion of the population comes from urban areas that tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Voters in rural states such as Montana or the Dakotas have more "impact" in the general election, but it is so that their concerns aren't drowned out from sheer numbers.

And before you retort with "how about the tyranny of the minority!?", it is harder to win the electoral college if you don't get the majority or plurality of the popular vote. Yes, there have been a few presidents who won the electoral college without winning the popular vote, but it is not a common occurrence which would contradict the claim of "tyranny of the minority". And the presidents who won the general election without winning the popular vote did so because they appealed to enough groups of people rather than being over-reliant on one. For instance, Trump won over the working class as well as winning a higher proportion of the black, Hispanic, and Asian vote than Mitt Romney.