palou said:
How can the decision of less equally unqualififed and uninformed people be better than more? Also, political parties really only look at swing states. So yes, 5 counties (states) can decide the election. This would not be the case in a proportional system, as onvincing voters is just as important in all states (going from 40 to 45 or 70 to 75 % is just as good as going from 47% to 52% in a state.) Complaining now shows poor sport, people seemed fine with the voting system before the elections, and lost by rules they knew; like it or not, Trump is legitimate president. Should have complained before knowing the results. This, however, does not change that the electoral system is complete and utter shite, and should be something that people seek to abbolish as fast as possible (democrats or republicans won't bring change; as the system favorizes a stable 2 party system, so in both their interests. In countries with better electoral systems, people have more than 2 choices that are not thrown out votes.) Here is an excellent video series on the subject (which I suggest you to watch in the entirety, but 1st one should suffice for now.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLEcHCTVM79BMISVn4AV5EXSglGDzRgwgG |
Your video just explains why the two party system exists, which is common senes. Has nothign to do with Electoral college.
Anyone who thinks that Electorate system is wrong is not thinking of the bigger picture and thinking simple.
Let's think of something simple that we could probably all relate to. Highschool and extra curicular activites. Lets say there is a arts, balley, football, chess and gardening club that are part of the school activities. They meet once a year to discuss funding for each program. Lets have our 100% democratic way of voting. Okay, so each person in each club gets ONE vote. Problem is, there is 100 football players and only 52 members of all the other clubs combined. Thus the football club gets to unanimously decide every single year what the budget gets put to.
Now with a electoral system (the democratic republic that we have) we give each group a certain value. Say the arts get 1, balley get 2, chess gets 1, gardening 1 and football 4. Now even if 100% of the football club votes 1 way, they don't have mob rule. the other classes if they all vote the same will outnumber the football club.
That is how our electoral college works and how it should work. It gives teh minority a vote. Without the electoral college we woudl rely on Chicago, New York, La, Houston and a couple other HUGE cities to decide what every single other city, coutny, town, ect in teh entire united states would want. Do you really think that a New Yorker is voting for waht is in the best interest for a farmer in Idaho? Do you really think a LA person is going to be putting someone in office that will be looking out for the small town business owner in Kentuky?
Look at teh recent ACA that was brought into Law back in 2010 or something. Many times it took HUGE promises of federal money/subsidies/ect before a state would have its congressment be happy. So can we easily see that the same woudl happen. You would have New York or other get huge subsidies for something and screw over Nebraska. But who cares. Nebraska has no vote. All teh vote is in New York and LA and other big cities. THey would pander 100% to them and make likfe easy for them. Minnesota right now is seeing HUGE, I repeat HUGE increases in premiums for health care. Do you tink they might want a voice in the election? But if we go away with the electoral system MN would be completely ignored. Heck even though it has the twin cities, it is still basically a "fly over state" that means not much when it comes to election time.
