Quote from: curtis on December 08, 2016, 09:50:52 AM
I wasn't slamming the Electoral College. I don't believe that a candidate should be able to win the election by winning NY, CA, IL and one or two other highly populated states. Without the Electoral College, the same candidate would have won, and probably easier, as there would be no mechanism in place to limit the number of candidates. Enough Democrats would have "Felt the Bern" and would have thus weakened Hillary further. I do think the Electoral College needs some tweaking but not elimination. Since the winner compared himself to Secretariat--well he's half right😉--I figured it's fair game in here.
Oh, I misunderstood your previous post. My apologies.
I think the Electoral College is genius. If one looks at the electoral map of counties, it's easy to see that a few huge metro areas would completely dominate presidential elections if the Electoral College did not exist. Not even states, but only Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Seattle, Boston, DC and a few other densely populated urban areas would decide all presidential elections. The Electoral College not only prevents that, but ensures that the state elections are what matters. After all, we are a union of states, not a union of huge metroplexes. Hillary Clinton won over 8.7 million votes in California. Over 2.4 million from Los Angeles County alone. That is where her so-called popular vote lead comes from, but there really is no nationwide popular vote because we don't have a single national election. We have 50 state elections, and the Electoral College ensures a degree of parity among them when we vote for presidential tickets.
