Popular Vote or Electoral College?
It seems only fair that the person for which the most people vote for should win an election. As we saw with the last election, this didn't happen. Also, it is extremely undemocratic in my opinion that the people of our country are actually voting for electors the people don't even know and those electors can vote, in most states, for whomever they want. This really isn't a matter of over or under-representation of states, this is about evaluating an arcane system borne in elitism and skepticism of the average person during the eighteenth century.
This isn't about less populated areas, it's about what the majority thinks the best president is.
If half the people in NY voted for Trump (made up), then so be it. If 95% voted in a smaller area, then so be it.
I'm probably wrong about all of this...
Definitely electoral college
The electoral college exists so that a single large state cannot dictate the election. People forget that the United States is not a democracy, we are a republic. We are also a collection of states each with their own state constitution and laws.
Neither, or at least not as they are now. The Electoral College must be revised. Electors from many states can vote however they please regardless of a population’s opinions. Popular Vote invokes a tyranny of the majority, which is the reason the Founding Fathers wanted us to make a republic. Populism is inevitable, as is a diversity of opinions. There are many existing electoral systems that are both real and rational. There is no reason that we shouldn’t make some basic revisions.
What revisions could be made that wouldn’t stifle the rural vote?
Representation is in less need of change than the actual voting system. We have what is known as a First-Past-The-Post System, where voters choose a single candidate to represent them, and the first to reach a certain threshold wins. What we need is an Instant Runoff voting system, where an individual ranks candidates in order of most favorable. If their favorite candidate comes in last, the vote goes towards their second choice. This must be implemented in conjunction with Gerrymandering reforms and a removal of the control from the leaders of various political parties. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be better, as there is no reason for these arbitrary systems to remain.
That is a very interesting idea. I’ll look into that! Thanks
Electoral college is the smart answer. Popular vote is the ignorant answer.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57 of them.
There are 62 counties in New York.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approximately 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC. Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of 400 square miles should determine the outcome of a national election.
Wait a tic, I thought trump always said it was easier for the democrat to win the electoral college?
So a vote in a less populated area should be worth less than a vote in a rural area? Peoples voting weight should be based on where they live? That a ridiculous idea. One person should have one vote no matter where they decide to live.
It would literally be a perfect reflection of peoples votes...
The county thing is winner takes all. Most votes takes the whole county.
Also it could get gerrymandered.
You are very right the whole country was gerrymandered