I think the founding fathers did good. If we went by a popular vote, all the money would be spent on major cities to get their vote. The smaller states wouldn't matter anymore. It wouldn't be the United States of America. It would be New York and California with some smaller guys. States would eventually fracture off and focus closer and regional Governments, or worse.
Using that math; half the US population lives in 13 states. All they would need to do is concentrate on those 12 states. Either way you look at it, it doesn't matter. Do you live in the U.S.?
@Tierra: Yes. I'm from Portland, Oregon. Our region is politically disenfranchised http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States
That's the status quo you're defending. That's what's happened to our Democracy. Candidates campaign for the swing states and ignore state's like mine because they don't swing. Thy have no reason to campaign in states where they're either hopelessly behind or far ahead. Clinton didn't give a shit about Oregon any more than Trump did. Your logic makes sense if you don't consider that politicians will min max to gain the most benefit. I want to change the logic the strategist use.
Please read the federalist papers and discover the reason why its done the way it is. Ill give you a hint: the founders knew that the cities would "rule over" the rural areas if the popular vote was used. They wanted to prevent the people who didnt live in cities or more populous areas to be able to sweep away those who didnt
Yes, lets just throw out whatever parts of the constitution we don't like. That's a great idea.
You bloody liberals - you're like a team of 2nd graders playing soccer. You don't think about the big picture, you don't think about the long term results of the items on your agenda, you just see the ball in front of you and run after it in a big clump. And you know bloody well that if the popular vote had gone to Trump, but the presidency had gone to Hilary, then you wouldn't be up in arms about trying to change the system.
I agree - just because something isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing. In my opinion, eliminating the electoral college would do both good and harm, and the harm outweighs the good. But I live in California, which gives me a different perspective than you have. So if you want to spend your time and energy on such a small issue, then go for it. You're just like most people - focusing on the stuff that doesn't matter, while ignoring the deeper problems, just like the scum at the top want.
And look, I'm not going to read any of your articles. Every time I read an article that a liberal quotes me, I end up spending a good hour deconstructing it and pointing out the ways in which the article is skewing reality in order to support the liberal agenda, and then the liberal just quotes another article at me. I take the time to think and do the work, and they just regurgitate things that they read. It's not worth it for me to bother anymore.
@ColleenOhara: All the state's have to do is pass a resolution declaring their electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner. If enough states do it the electoral college will be bound to the popular vote.
@ColleenOhara: the national popular vote compact keeps the electoral college and just binds the electors to the national popular vote. If 270 electoral votes pass it then it goes into effect. It won't take 3/4ths that way because it doesn't require a constitutional amendment.
