U.S. Electoral College

@VeronicaJane metropolitan areas don't vote though.
People vote. And they shouldn't be punished because they choose to live in a particular area. It is the only election where a person's vote has to be validated by a different group.

Just my 2 cents worth. I won't storm the capitol if I don't get my way. :)

@VeronicaJane Nope, the winner is determined by more than 50% of the voters.

States/cities, etc., unless voting on their state's federal representatives) have zero to do with it.

@Ontheroad large metropolitan areas like NYC, LA, Seattle, etc have dense populations, which may often contain significant population of a particular valley. So several large metropolitan areas may have greater democratic voters than some relatively "sparsely" populated states....

The electoral college is an attempt to even that out a bit.

@VeronicaJane I understand what the idea/intent was.

If you read about how the Electoral College came about, it is clear it only came about because the smaller states attending the Constitutional Convention in 1787, said they would reject the entire Constitution (as proposed), if they didn't get their way.

At the time all states were small (population-wise) and the somewhat larger states (never imagining the huge differences that would come to be) gave in.

They gave in and now we have just the opposite. Small states have a vastly disproportionate say in who becomes president.

The intent was a grab for power.

There is no way to make it fair/right for all, but there is a way to make it fair/right for the majority.

@VeronicaJane no, with an election based on a popular vote, everyone's vote is the same value, on citizen, one vote. Read the history of the compromises made to form the union!

@samueltyler2 ...weren't they trying to avoid the "tryanny of the masses"?

@VeronicaJane no that is why the electoral college exists why don’t you and your ilk study American history the democrats want to eliminate the electoral college..
And by the way we are a republic not a democracy…

@VeronicaJane to some extent, that is exactly what the 'intent" was, but in reality, it was to get the then richer, mostly southern and less populated states, willing to financially support a national bank and pay off debts from the revolutionary war. It did prevent the more populous north from inflicting its ideals on the south. The cruel thing that happened, after the civil time at, was that the north never really punished the secessionists, and, in fact, allowed the South the rise again, but by leaving the electoral college, the 2 senators per state, and then the gerrymandering the USA allowed the minority to suppress the majority!

@DDaverde my "ilk"? Just who do you think I am? You haven't drunk the MAGA kool-aid, have you?

BTW - speaking of "ilk" the donald was on a televised news conference suggesting Liz Chaney should be stood in front of a wall and have 9 barrels pointing at her. Really sounds presidential, doesn't it? (and I don't even like Harris...)