Did you read my whole post? Why should the vote of someone in Wyoming or Vermont matter three times more than someone living in Texas or California? Furthermore, while the EC does greatly amplify the voting power of voters in low-population states, it doesn't make them politically relevant. As I mentioned, only three of the 25 least-populated states get any attention from presidential candidates in the general election, and that's because they're the only ones that are competitive. The only thing the EC succeeds in doing is distorting the rightful outcome of an election, which should always be based on the principle of "one person, one vote." It should be about individual citizens, not polygons on a map. The president uniquely represents the whole of the American people, and should do so equally.

I didn't say the distribution was correct, especially that 2 plus X proportion should go away. And you have glossed or not realized the difference when there's no winner takes all anymore: suddenly all states become battleground states, as there's no safe seat anymore. All those third parties which couldn't hope for anything? They now not only have a shot, they need to be taken into account and coalitions need to be formed with them to get enough votes together, resulting in more nuanced and less black-and-white laws and rulings.

As I mentioned, none of those countries have executive presidents. They have parliamentary systems where the president is a ceremonial officer. The U.S. is the only nation with a full or semi-presidential system that elects its president indirectly.

Well, they are not always called president. Maybe try other titles, like prime minister, for instance. Presidents indeed tend to be more of a ceremonial office, hence why more and more they don't even get elected by the people anymore, but appointed.

I would say that I could maybe, maybe deal with the EC being a thing if WTA were abolished. And I don't mean moving to the Nebraska-Maine Rule where the statewide vote winner gets two votes, with the rest determined by who wins the most votes in each congressional district, because that's still exceedingly unrepresentative as well because of geographical flukes in how population is distributed, plus it would be susceptible to gerrymandering. EC votes should be awarded proportionally, so if a candidate gets x% of the state's popular vote then it should get approximately x% of its electoral votes. That would mean that Hillary Clinton would have gotten 15-16 of Texas' 36 EC votes while Trump would have gotten 17 of California's 55 EC votes.

I would still also insist that electoral votes be allocated proportionally by population among the states as well, instead of each state getting two electors with the remaining 438 being allocated by population. Of course, at this point you might as well ditch the whole system and go with a popular vote.

@italic: That's how it goes mostly outside of the US, though they might use a highest-average or largest remainder calculation method to calculate the seats for each party. I certainly wouldn't have advocated for EC and against WTA without a proportional representation of the votes.

Speaking of Gerrymandering, that should also get abolished while we're at it. What good can come from constantly redrawing the lines, after all? That's almost literally moving the goalposts.

Did you read my whole post? Why should the vote of someone in Wyoming or Vermont matter three times more than someone living in Texas or California? Furthermore, while the EC does greatly amplify the voting power of voters in low-population states, it doesn't make them politically relevant. As I mentioned, only three of the 25 least-populated states get any attention from presidential candidates in the general election, and that's because they're the only ones that are competitive. The only thing the EC succeeds in doing is distorting the rightful outcome of an election, which should always be based on the principle of "one person, one vote." It should be about individual citizens, not polygons on a map. The president uniquely represents the whole of the American people, and should do so equally.

As I mentioned, none of those countries have executive presidents. They have parliamentary systems where the president is a ceremonial officer. The U.S. is the only nation with a full or semi-presidential system that elects its president indirectly.

I would say that I could maybe, maybe deal with the EC being a thing if WTA were abolished. And I don't mean moving to the Nebraska-Maine Rule where the statewide vote winner gets two votes, with the rest determined by who wins the most votes in each congressional district, because that's still exceedingly unrepresentative as well because of geographical flukes in how population is distributed, plus it would be susceptible to gerrymandering. EC votes should be awarded proportionally, so if a candidate gets x% of the state's popular vote then it should get approximately x% of its electoral votes. That would mean that Hillary Clinton would have gotten 15-16 of Texas' 36 EC votes while Trump would have gotten 17 of California's 55 EC votes.

I would still also insist that electoral votes be allocated proportionally by population among the states as well, instead of each state getting two electors with the remaining 438 being allocated by population. Of course, at this point you might as well ditch the whole system and go with a popular vote.

Well based on your, 'showing people who they are' logic, If you don't dislike Trump, then are you condoning the things he's said and done, like the things stated above? Talking about woman like that, cheating on his wives, conning and swindling people, etc?

These things don't necessarily make him a bad leader as you mentioned, so does it make him a bad unlikable person, or do you find that acceptable and attractive? If his immorality doesn't make you mad or upset, I don't know why you would bring them up as points against him, if you're really being honest in your rebuttals.

Again, good luck with that. 

I like how your whole argument against the electoral college is that if red states don't have an advantage, then red states are going to basically throw a tantrum.  

A few problems:

-There aren't very many super red or blue states that would be leaping all over secession.  Most states are purple.  

-The US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population.

-Just because people have guns, doesn't mean they are going to be using them. 

-You're ignoring how other countries would react.  How do you think Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, Japan, etc would react?  Whose side do you think they'd be on, even if every part of your hypothetical happened?  

-Blue states tend to fund red states.  If the states were to separate, the red states would be in major trouble.  Blue states would start doing better economically.  

Lol, I like you Azuren.  Nothing warms my heart when I see someone go to great lengths to find something to be prejudice to someone else.  First it's a username, next you will be seeking my nationality, sex, gender, marital status who knows what else. To use your phrase, Good luck with that.

*picks a name that is literally the description of underhanded and conniving political tendencies*

*attempts to conflate a chosen name with marginalized characteristics while also making a pass at being on the moral high ground*

The difference between me pointing out your chosen name having a meaning that implies no good faith in political discussion and you assuming I would attack you based on a marginalized characteristic is that my point had a factual basis in reality while yours is just desperately reaching for a solid argument to stand on. And the persecution of marginalized communities isn't your cudgel to wield in debate whenever it is convenient, but I wouldn't really expect much less than a person who think "Machiavellian" is a suitable name to go under for political discussion.

There really isn't a difference.  I mean you can make all the excuses you want and call it a difference but that is pretty much what it is.  You chose something that has no meaning in a discussion and then tried to use it as some lofty reason to dismiss an opinion.  You have no clue about the username but you made an assumption on just that.  Now you are trying to parade that opinion as if it's based on anything but the bias you wanted to use in the first place.  Since the username is what I use for all forums I am registered to, why would you believe I made this username for political post.  I have had this username probably longer then you have been on this earth but it is fun to see you try to defend this bias nature of yours.

Having your vote count more would equate to having an advantage.  

That's conjecture.  

I have no idea what you're responding to.  Never said anything about "giving all of their military weaponry to Washington".

If red states didn't use them, they'd be at a massive disadvantage.  

The problem is, red states don't have this giant food advantage that you think they do.   

California alone makes 11% of the US food production.  Other likely blue states like Minnesota and Illinois make up another 10%.  Those 3 states make up more food production than the top 3 red states.  Red states all together do have an advantage, but it's not as big as you think.  

And this is all ignoring that a huge portion of food gets imported from other countries.  In fact most fruit gets imported from other countries. Which set of states do you think they'd trade with? 

If you add in import, the red state's food advantage disappears.  

And again, this doesn't matter.   Most states are purple.  

Even Texas:

What do you think the 40% of Democratic voters would do?  

It just isn't possible for a red vs blue state conflict, because red and blue states don't exactly exist.