Show of Hands

How is it not broken if the candidate with millions more votes loses?

Read the Constitution idiot!

It says right there in Article V that we can make amendments and improve our government.

And idiot, we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic. LEARN the difference and go back to school!

Then make an amendment idiot! But do not protest when you don't even know what you are protesting.
But learn to vote first idiot!

Dude what are you even talking about?

We are whatever we want to be, all it takes are some amendments. Gotta love that article V.

Does calling me an idiot make you feel smart? 😂

Good luck idiot!

You just come off as overly emotional, it detracts from the points you want to make.

Not at all. It just clarifies the identity of who I am "conversing" with. You don't even know why we have an EC or it's benefits. You just heard it was the reason HRC didn't win.
HRC didn't win because she was a lousy candidate with a lousy record who has consistently lied to the American people and can't even take responsibility for her own actions. YOU are one if those actions. So we are going to hold you accountable as you don't know what you are protesting against or what it means.

Can you stop calling him "idiot"? I agree with you but it makes conservatives look very childish. Surely you can debate without constantly calling him an "idiot"?

What good is there in assuming my motives? And thank you, Russian

You are correct obviously. I am getting more than annoyed at these whiners who demand that they are right when they don't even know the documents they are complaining about.
I need to go down to the gym and do 100 snap and drop kicks and then hit the heavy bag and I will feel much better.

Some of them do know the documents. It's like the 2nd amendment, they just interpret them different than I do. I get fed up with some of them too but I assume they get fed up with me. I just don't like being called names and don't like to see others doing it.
Maybe do some crunches and hit some punching bags, pretending they are liberal faces of whatever. I'm laid up in bed, I don't have that luxury although I really don't have the need either. As long as people are polite, I debate them (although I get so many notifications I lose track of debates sometimes. Lol. I can't store much in my tiny brain I guess.

I agree

No, the electoral college insures people with large metropolitan areas are not the ones making the decision for the rest of the country. A surfer in CA may have more concern for global warming and pollution, while a farmer in Nebraska has concern for agriculture subsidies. A merchant in New York may have great concern for international trade while a rancher in Montana is concerned about EPA over reach. An unemployed Chicago factory worker may be concerned about crime and jobs while a Native American in North Dakota may be concerned about the pipeline and sacred land.
If you look at the election map, you will see most of the heartland is red. Should the coasts, Chicago, Denver etc, really be the ones that elect the president?

www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

This map shows the great divide between the coasts/borders and the interior.

In a state, districts send representatives to vote in their interests. Hence, in IL, Chicago is heard but so is central and southern IL. There would be no need for a state electoral college. No need for it on a community level because each district of a city has a councilman/board member/supervisor/representative. A very wealthy self employed area of a city will have different concerns than a very poor unemployed part of the city. Hence, the district system works well.
As the people must have a say in who becomes president, the electoral college works. It's currently working like a kind of checks and balances to keep the high population density coasts (and Chicago) from being the only ones who are electing the president.

You are right that the electoral college provides balance between rural and urban America, however I don't see a positive benefit. It gives smaller states more power than they really should have. What seems most important to me is the # of citizens voting for a certain candidate, regardless of where they live.

As a person who lives in the interior, I don't think I want CA and NY picking my leader. The electoral college gives each state 4 electoral votes. More populace states get more votes. They still are represented but this way less populated states are as well.
It works. When the country is so divided, often after vicious campaigns, it appears to not work but in reality, it still works. The rust belt and coal belt got votes. The agriculture centers got votes.
I respectfully disagree with your position.
The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. This is how it works.

I was just sad Trump was the GOP choice and Hillary was the Democrat choice. Both were awful.

The Electoral College ensues a more *even* degree of power for *every* state without dismissing entirely the fact that more densely populated states *should* have a little more say while at the same time making sure less populated states are not effectively silenced.

This current election demonstrates the fairness of the totality of states with the EC:

🔻Clinton won 500 counties, 17% of the NATION, winning only 19 states by popular vote - per state

🔺Trump won 2,600 counties, 83% of the NATION, winning 31 states by popular vote - per state

Looking at the country by 'counties' seems arbitrary to me. What matters most are the (presumably) tax paying voters. The interior of the country doesn't even have radically different needs as far as the federal government is concerned. The commander in chief isn't going to disregard all of rural America just because there aren't a lot of voters there.