http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-hillary-clinton-editorials-debates/93609562/ A national popular vote would bring its own set of problems. With Hillary Clinton more than 300,000 votes ahead of President-elect Donald Trump in the popular vote count as of Thursday, calls have already begun to ditch the Electoral College system enshrined in the Constitution for choosing presidents. If Clinton’s lead holds, she would be the second contender in modern times — joining fellow Democrat Al Gore in 2000 — to win the popular vote but lose the White House by failing to amass the 270 electoral votes needed to capture it. Filmmaker and progressive activist Michael Moore colorfully summed up Democratic feelings about Trump's victory: "The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th century idea called the Electoral College." But those clamoring to dump the system cobbled together by the nation’s Founders — which gives each state as many electoral votes as it has members of Congress — should be careful what they wish for. Adopting a national popular vote would trade one set of problems for another. Electoral College opponents argue that the system pushes candidates to ignore states that Republicans or Democrats consider sure things and focus on a dozen battleground states during the campaigns. But Tuesday's election showed that the Electoral College map is more fluid than many people believed. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, considered reliably Democratic, swung Republican. If the national popular vote were the ultimate decider, candidates would gravitate toward the voter-rich big cities and their suburbs and ignore everyone else. If candidates felt obliged to blanket the entire country with visits and advertising, it would set off a scramble for even more campaign money, leaving candidates more beholden to special interests. A popular vote contest involving multiple candidates could produce a winner with, say, only 35% of the vote, provoking an outcry to create a runoff process involving the top two vote-getters. And if the U.S. popular vote were so close that a nationwide recount were needed, the process could turn into a nightmare dwarfing the Florida fiasco of 2000. For those seeking change, there are two avenues: Amend the Constitution, which is extraordinarily difficult, or do an end run around the Constitution, which a group called National Popular Vote has been trying. The group seeks to pass state laws mandating that the states' electoral votes be cast for whoever wins the U.S. popular vote. Ten states and Washington, D.C., representing 165 electoral votes, have signed on, and it has been most popular in states with Democrat-controlled legislatures. The compact would take effect when it's ratified by states representing at least 270 electoral votes. This scheme sounds clever, but dig down and you find problems. Imagine for a moment what would happen when New Yorkers, reliably Democratic in presidential elections, learned that their legislature was casting all its electoral votes for a Republican candidate because he or she won the popular vote. Uproar is too modest a word. The current system is far from ideal, and one idea worth considering is to shift away from winner-take-all in each state to a proportional allocation of electors based on statewide vote totals. But any change to a system that has generally served the nation well for more than two centuries should be both bipartisan and carefully considered. Democrats are the wounded party now, but going into this election they thought they had a "blue firewall" of states that gave them a big Electoral College advantage. The way to win is to run better campaigns and better candidates under the existing rules, not try to change the rules after a painful loss. USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.
The Presidential election should be completely separate from anything else, no gun control or weed decisions on the same ballot. I'd be more likely to accept the popular vote then. Still don't like it.
Switching to popular could really backfire for the Democrats. Oregon is a PERFECT example of this. A lot of Republicans don't even bother voting in Oregon because they figure their vote will be downed out, and they're right, but if we switched entirely to a popular vote, every single vote would count.
There are good arguments for both, imo. So then why bother? Its the system we have, its worked till now, everyone already knows the rules, and the only people who want to change it are the losers and that's only right after they lost. This idea belongs up there were succeeding from the union, its just sour grapes.
'till now? Gore lost w/the Popular vote too, back in what 2000? Millennials have their mind blown when I tell them of this though. LOL-- too young to remember. They think this is 'rigged!'; ironic.
And for me, this is what it boils down to. We are a collection of states. The United States of America. The President needs to be a representative of all of the states and all of the regions of this massive country. Simply because someone in Portland or LA or NY doesn't understand the plight of someone in Wisconsin or Ohio or Kansas, doesn't mean that those people don't have a legitimate opinion and should be valued. If we went straight off population, the urban centers would control the White House and a large portion of the country would feel unrepresented. And when you start having large swaths of the country feeling unrepresented, that's when you see things escalate to war.
Minorities must get representation? When it's convenient for them, Republicans talk like Democrats. So how about giving Washington, D.C. the vote, and some voting Congressmen? Indian reservations should get some electoral votes. Also hippies. Just following your logic. You weren't just blindly, legalistically, randomly following words in the Constitution, right? You're following the noble moral principle that every group should be represented, right?
Sorry, I'd respond to you, but you're a gimmick account and I have never been able to take your posts seriously.
What's the definition of gimmick account? Someone you don't find on your college campus? Walk off campus sometime and experience real people.
I guess what I don't understand about this argument is that the electoral college is based off of each states population. What's the real difference between California getting 55 electoral votes compared to Montana's 3, or California getting 38.8m votes compared to Montana's 1.08m votes. I don't think Montana would feel any less represented than it does already. This seems the most rational of any option to me.
I assume that you've seen this: https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19 Boy, Trump was really off base in thinking that the process might be rigged.
Unsupported conclusion. The writer fails to analyze whether the nation was better off after the 4 times the Electoral College denied the voters the president they wanted. It's the most irrational. All it does is round off big numbers. Instead of counting 1,234,567 votes for Smith and 2,345,678 for Jones, it gives 10 electoral votes to Smith and 20 to Jones.
If California split its electors, Trump would have gotten 20, Clinton 35. Something like that. Trump won the majority of electors in the states he won, plus he'd gain from Clinton's states (NY). His electoral victory would still be victory. California is already getting a lot of influence (55/538) in the electoral college. You would nullify Montana's voters. Why would candidates bother to go there? A popular vote contest involving multiple candidates could produce a winner with, say, only 35% of the vote, provoking an outcry to create a runoff process involving the top two vote-getters. And if the U.S. popular vote were so close that a nationwide recount were needed, the process could turn into a nightmare dwarfing the Florida fiasco of 2000.
That's fine. This is about him winning. I just think the current way the electoral college is set up is stupid. 20 to 35 makes much more sense. Their vote would be no more nullified than it is now. How much do candidates bother with Montana now?
3 electoral votes. If you want to win, you count the votes and go get them. This election was thought to be close before election day. Close enough that there were over 10,000 political ads shown in Montana this election.
