Current Events > America's electoral college supporters are comical

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkjedilink posted...

andel posted...

darkjedilink posted...

andel posted...

there is no legitimate case to be made for the electoral college and no one itt has articulated a legitimate reason why it should exist.

If you support pure democracy, you cannot support the Supreme Court overturning ballot measures voted by it.

Ergo, you must have a problem with gay marriage.

that doesnt have anything to do with my post. no surprise trump supporters are unable to grasp even the simplest of concepts

It actually has everything to do with it - the concept of 'tyranny of the majority' is why we have the EC, nd it's why the SC correctly overturned California's ban on gay marriage.

No it's not. The EC was created to prevent dangerous demagogues from winning elections due to mob mentality. Electorates we're supposed to be well educated. You do realize the first presidential election weren't even open to the public, right?
---

Antifar posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Mr. Less Than an Eighth of the Population is The Will Of The People.

While your critique about low turnout is noteworthy, 65 million/330 million is about a fifth, not "less than an eighth."

how do LV models differ from RV models anyway
---

Ok, let's look at prop 8 in America a couple years back. The popular vote went against gay marriage. Thankfully it was overturned. By TC logic, California should have kept gay marriage banned. The fact that people are easy to indoctrinate is an easy argument against a straight up popular vote. The system we have now is better because it prevents tyranny of the majority

Mistere Man posted...

Everyone got to voice their opinion instead of a few states muscling out the others just on population numbers.

No, muscling out would be 100% of Florida's say going to a guy who only got 50% of the vote there. Muscling out is my state giving all their say to the Republican vote when it's a third Democat. It doesn't reflect popular vote, doesn't accurately reflect the interests of the state, and the idea of an informed electoral college choosing the president rather than the ignorant masses doesn't hold water seeing how the EC is typically required to vote for their party's candidate.
---

Serious Cat posted...

Mistere Man posted...

Everyone got to voice their opinion instead of a few states muscling out the others just on population numbers.

No, muscling out would be 100% of Florida's say going to a guy who only got 50% of the vote there. Muscling out is my state giving all their say to the Republican vote when it's a third Democat. It doesn't reflect popular vote, doesn't accurately reflect the interests of the state, and the idea of an informed electoral college choosing the president rather than the ignorant masses doesn't hold water seeing how the EC is typically required to vote for their party's candidate.

Uh looks like 49.1 to her 47.8 even if it is by 1 vote (over 100,000 it seems) he got the majority for your state of those that voted. That is how popular votes work.
---

Mistere Man posted...

Uh looks like 49.1 to her 47.8 even if it is by 1 vote (over 100,000 it seems) he got the majority for your state of those that voted.

I'm comparing the 2000 election there and trying to figure out how we can say that it wouldn't be fair to let California decide the election because their vote alone would make the difference, yet it's suddenly fair for Florida to decide the election on a smaller margin when disregarding their vote in the same way would flip electoral votes in the same way California would have flipped popular votes in 2016.
---

Serious Cat posted...

Mistere Man posted...

Uh looks like 49.1 to her 47.8 even if it is by 1 vote (over 100,000 it seems) he got the majority for your state of those that voted.

I'm comparing the 2000 election there and trying to figure out how we can say that it wouldn't be fair to let California decide the election because their vote alone would make the difference, yet it's suddenly fair for Florida to decide the election on a smaller margin when disregarding their vote in the same way would flip electoral votes in the same way California would have flipped popular votes in 2016.

Oh sorry as I said this isnt my best subject. If all the states added up to that then so be it imo, but I admit Florida was sketchy that year with those ballot scandals if I am remembering correctly. Also there is a difference when 30 of 50 states pick one person but somehow 20 out of 50 is the winner because of 1 out of the 20 had a large number of people.

Damn auto correct why would I mean dancing?!
---

Mistere Man posted...

Serious Cat posted...

Mistere Man posted...

Uh looks like 49.1 to her 47.8 even if it is by 1 vote (over 100,000 it seems) he got the majority for your state of those that voted.

I'm comparing the 2000 election there and trying to figure out how we can say that it wouldn't be fair to let California decide the election because their vote alone would make the difference, yet it's suddenly fair for Florida to decide the election on a smaller margin when disregarding their vote in the same way would flip electoral votes in the same way California would have flipped popular votes in 2016.

Oh sorry as I said this isnt my best subject. If all the states added up to that then so be it imo, but I admit Florida was sketchy that year with those ballot scandals if I am remembering correctly. Also there is a difference when 30 of 50 states pick one person but somehow 20 out of 50 is the winner because of 1 out of the 20 had a large number of people.

Damn auto correct why would I mean dancing?!

Another issue being that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant to the topic of politics. The PV would be fine and dandy if people would educate themselves on the subject but as it stands, the pv is a terrible system for America. It would allow indoctrination to command elections which is obviously bad. The electoral college isn't perfect but it's the best system for a country like America. I can't think of a single instance when it has failed us.

Of course there are some exceptions, but the will of the eligible voters who didn't vote is they didn't care who won. If they cared enough, they would have voted.
---

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Another issue being that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant to the topic of politics. The PV would be fine and dandy if people would educate themselves on the subject but as it stands, the pv is a terrible system for America. It would allow indoctrination to command elections which is obviously bad.

The electoral college does nothing in its present form to address this perceived flaw in the popular vote. You're still giving power to the "ignorant masses," just different members of them.
---

Antifar posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Another issue being that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant to the topic of politics. The PV would be fine and dandy if people would educate themselves on the subject but as it stands, the pv is a terrible system for America. It would allow indoctrination to command elections which is obviously bad.

The electoral college does nothing in its present form to address this perceived flaw in the popular vote. You're still giving power to the "ignorant masses," just different members of them.

Maybe. I mean I don't know what the perfect system is, maybe proportional electoral votes? But it probably doesn't matter. The country is roughly 50% conservative and 50% liberal. Either way, half the country will always win I guess. Maybe the fact that we have a system that promotes a pendulum is what's best for America.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Darkman124 posted...

well, there is the inter-state compact, which could change that without requiring any change to the system.

Which, whether you like it or not, is fully within the realm of constitutional, as per Article 2.

yep

first time it happens will be benderneat.jpg

It'll be even more interesting if faithless electors emerge.

It'll be hard considering several states have made laws preventing electors from voting against what the state goes.
---

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Mistere Man posted...

Serious Cat posted...

Mistere Man posted...

Uh looks like 49.1 to her 47.8 even if it is by 1 vote (over 100,000 it seems) he got the majority for your state of those that voted.

I'm comparing the 2000 election there and trying to figure out how we can say that it wouldn't be fair to let California decide the election because their vote alone would make the difference, yet it's suddenly fair for Florida to decide the election on a smaller margin when disregarding their vote in the same way would flip electoral votes in the same way California would have flipped popular votes in 2016.

Oh sorry as I said this isnt my best subject. If all the states added up to that then so be it imo, but I admit Florida was sketchy that year with those ballot scandals if I am remembering correctly. Also there is a difference when 30 of 50 states pick one person but somehow 20 out of 50 is the winner because of 1 out of the 20 had a large number of people.

Damn auto correct why would I mean dancing?!

Another issue being that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant to the topic of politics. The PV would be fine and dandy if people would educate themselves on the subject but as it stands, the pv is a terrible system for America. It would allow indoctrination to command elections which is obviously bad. The electoral college isn't perfect but it's the best system for a country like America. I can't think of a single instance when it has failed us.

Please dont take me as an example of the average American as I have memory problems brought on by trauma to the head from my youth that has made learning new things much harder, and remembering things I know more and more difficult.

I am not saying you are I just want to point out that my lack of political knowledge is not normal to average people.
---

Oh, I wasn't exactly using you as an example. It's just a fact that the average American doesn't know a lot about politics. I believe in other countries people are more versed in the subject but not here. People normally can't even get passed the headline when it comes to the news. It's certainly odd to say the least.

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Oh, I wasn't exactly using you as an example. It's just a fact that the average American doesn't know a lot about politics. I believe in other countries people are more versed in the subject but not here. People normally can't even get passed the headline when it comes to the news. It's certainly odd to say the least.

I wouldnt doubt it. I love learning things especially math, and I find politics interesting as well, but it is hard for me to keep up with all the facts, and history to be able to be effective at it.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

It'll be hard considering several states have made laws preventing electors from voting against what the state goes.

States can't compel a elector - just punish afterwords.

Kerry almost won the election in 2004 even though Bush won the popular vote (and got > 50% of the vote)

I wonder how opinions would change if Kerry won in 2004
---

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Ok, let's look at prop 8 in America a couple years back. The popular vote went against gay marriage. Thankfully it was overturned. By TC logic, California should have kept gay marriage banned. The fact that people are easy to indoctrinate is an easy argument against a straight up popular vote. The system we have now is better because it prevents tyranny of the majority

Not by my logic at all. I'm arguing for presidential election being a popular vote, like every democratic country in the world. Is this so difficult to understand? Only in America will you see people comparing presidential election to gay marriage. Jesus Christ.
---

You should think of something else besides a standard popular vote. You're wasting your time arguing for that.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

You should think of something else besides a standard popular vote. You're wasting your time arguing for that.

I'll determine whether my time is being wasted. I don't mind taking a few minutes of my day to argue this on a message board at all.
---

You're wasting your time because it will never get changed to that.

Maybe there's a voting system that's really good and would be better for everyone, but a standard popular vote is not it.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

You're wasting your time because it will never get changed to that.

Maybe there's a voting system that's really good and would be better for everyone, but a standard popular vote is not it.

I'm not trying to change it. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of being so adamantly opposed to it. But otherwise yeah I agree I'd be wasting my time if I was seriously campaigning for it.
---

But a popular vote isn't good either.

Maybe we could take the Electoral College and make it so that you have to get >50% of the vote to be president, and if not then there more elections until someone gets >50%

It wouldn't change that much but it would be better. It would get more people to vote
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Ok, let's look at prop 8 in America a couple years back. The popular vote went against gay marriage. Thankfully it was overturned. By TC logic, California should have kept gay marriage banned. The fact that people are easy to indoctrinate is an easy argument against a straight up popular vote. The system we have now is better because it prevents tyranny of the majority

Not by my logic at all. I'm arguing for presidential election being a popular vote, like every democratic country in the world. Is this so difficult to understand? Only in America will you see people comparing presidential election to gay marriage. Jesus Christ.

We'll both are literally comparable. You are dictating only certain things be done by PV and others to not be. That's hardly consistent logic. There literally is no reason to be inconsistent here.

The EC is perfectly fine. We are hardly comparable to countries in the EU, so why should we adopt their rules? Until the EC fails us, it's a perfectly fine system to keep.

Mistere Man posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Mistere Man posted...

Serious Cat posted...

Mistere Man posted...

Uh looks like 49.1 to her 47.8 even if it is by 1 vote (over 100,000 it seems) he got the majority for your state of those that voted.

I'm comparing the 2000 election there and trying to figure out how we can say that it wouldn't be fair to let California decide the election because their vote alone would make the difference, yet it's suddenly fair for Florida to decide the election on a smaller margin when disregarding their vote in the same way would flip electoral votes in the same way California would have flipped popular votes in 2016.

Oh sorry as I said this isnt my best subject. If all the states added up to that then so be it imo, but I admit Florida was sketchy that year with those ballot scandals if I am remembering correctly. Also there is a difference when 30 of 50 states pick one person but somehow 20 out of 50 is the winner because of 1 out of the 20 had a large number of people.

Damn auto correct why would I mean dancing?!

Another issue being that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant to the topic of politics. The PV would be fine and dandy if people would educate themselves on the subject but as it stands, the pv is a terrible system for America. It would allow indoctrination to command elections which is obviously bad. The electoral college isn't perfect but it's the best system for a country like America. I can't think of a single instance when it has failed us.

Please dont take me as an example of the average American as I have memory problems brought on by trauma to the head from my youth that has made learning new things much harder, and remembering things I know more and more difficult.

I am not saying you are I just want to point out that my lack of political knowledge is not normal to average people.

You keep saying stuff like this in this topic and it just makes me want to snuggle you

But seriously though , I didnt have trauma to my head (that I know of), and I cant follow/understand/recall most third political to save my life either. I do enjoy reading through these topics though, especially when people are being civil
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

But a popular vote isn't good either.

Maybe we could take the Electoral College and make it so that you have to get >50% of the vote to be president, and if not then there more elections until someone gets >50%

It wouldn't change that much but it would be better. It would get more people to vote

Just ditch political parties. Washington warned us this would happen.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/462873-however-political-parties-may-now-and-then-answer-popular-ends

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Ok, let's look at prop 8 in America a couple years back. The popular vote went against gay marriage. Thankfully it was overturned. By TC logic, California should have kept gay marriage banned. The fact that people are easy to indoctrinate is an easy argument against a straight up popular vote. The system we have now is better because it prevents tyranny of the majority

Not by my logic at all. I'm arguing for presidential election being a popular vote, like every democratic country in the world. Is this so difficult to understand? Only in America will you see people comparing presidential election to gay marriage. Jesus Christ.

We'll both are literally comparable. You are dictating only certain things be done by PV and others to not be. That's hardly consistent logic. There literally is no reason to be inconsistent here.

The EC is perfectly fine. We are hardly comparable to countries in the EU, so why should we adopt their rules? Until the EC fails us, it's a perfectly fine system to keep.

What does this have to do with the EU? Are you making the assumption that the EU is the only place that has a popular vote for elections? My friend, as shocking as it may be, the US is quite literally just about the only country with the backwards system of an EC, or anything other than a popular vote. Hell, even pseudo democracies (aka authoritarian governments) like Venezuela use popular vote. Why? Because it's the only system that makes sense in the world.

The EC is quite literally an archaic system that has no place in modern democracies. There is no good argument for it. And every single democracy in the world realizes that. Besides America of course.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

Ok, let's look at prop 8 in America a couple years back. The popular vote went against gay marriage. Thankfully it was overturned. By TC logic, California should have kept gay marriage banned. The fact that people are easy to indoctrinate is an easy argument against a straight up popular vote. The system we have now is better because it prevents tyranny of the majority

Not by my logic at all. I'm arguing for presidential election being a popular vote, like every democratic country in the world. Is this so difficult to understand? Only in America will you see people comparing presidential election to gay marriage. Jesus Christ.

We'll both are literally comparable. You are dictating only certain things be done by PV and others to not be. That's hardly consistent logic. There literally is no reason to be inconsistent here.

The EC is perfectly fine. We are hardly comparable to countries in the EU, so why should we adopt their rules? Until the EC fails us, it's a perfectly fine system to keep.

What does this have to do with the EU? Are you making the assumption that the EU is the only place that has a popular vote for elections? My friend, as shocking as it may be, the US is quite literally just about the only country with the backwards system of an EC, or anything other than a popular vote. Hell, even pseudo democracies (aka authoritarian governments) like Venezuela use popular vote. Why? Because it's the only system that makes sense in the world.

The EC is quite literally an archaic system that has no place in modern democracies. There is no good argument for it. And every single democracy in the world realizes that. Besides America of course.

My point was we are unlike almost every nation in the world as we are united States where all other nations are just a single country. Not sure what's confusing about that. There are plenty good arguments for the ec. Whether or not you accept that is on you. The point is you can't use another countries rules and subject them on another nature and accept the same results.

The only arguments I hear are "I don't want California deciding the fate of the nation" or "what about Wyoming". You have to be kidding yourself if you think those are good arguments.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

The only arguments I hear are "I don't want California deciding the fate of the nation" or "what about Wyoming". You have to be kidding yourself if you think those are good arguments.

All I hear is "I don't want Wyoming deciding the fate of the nation". You have to be kidding yourself if you think THAT is a good argument

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

The only arguments I hear are "I don't want California deciding the fate of the nation" or "what about Wyoming". You have to be kidding yourself if you think those are good arguments.

All I hear is "I don't want Wyoming deciding the fate of the nation". You have to be kidding yourself if you think THAT is a good argument

I want a majority, or at the very least, a plurality of the people deciding the presidency. I also want a more legitimate election. A more legitimate election is obtained through a higher voter turnout. Popular vote elections would have a significantly higher turnouts.

So through a popular vote we have:

A) a more legitimate election that better represents the people's will

B) an election that actually listens to the people's will

What does the EC have?

One of the lowest voter turnouts in democratic countries and lesser popular candidates becoming presidency? Hey hut at least we haven't forgotten about Montana...or something.
---

without the electoral college the votes of small states would be dominated by the votes of large states, which was a major concern when the constitution was being hammered out

the dnc dominance would also force voters to choose between voting for corporatist socialism and marxist socialism at the national level, which are both awful choices if i'd say so myself, and the country would likely descend into civil war or at least regional conflict
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

The only arguments I hear are "I don't want California deciding the fate of the nation" or "what about Wyoming". You have to be kidding yourself if you think those are good arguments.

All I hear is "I don't want Wyoming deciding the fate of the nation". You have to be kidding yourself if you think THAT is a good argument

I want a majority, or at the very least, a plurality of the people deciding the presidency. I also want a more legitimate election. A more legitimate election is obtained through a higher voter turnout. Popular vote elections would have a significantly higher turnouts.

So through a popular vote we have:

A) a more legitimate election that better represents the people's will

B) an election that actually listens to the people's will

What does the EC have?

One of the lowest voter turnouts in democratic countries and lesser popular candidates becoming presidency? Hey hut at least we haven't forgotten about Montana...or something.

It also better represents America as a whole instead of, as so many people have tried to explain to you, focusing on just a couple cities. If Hillary wasn't smart enough to focus on campaigning in the rust belt(which her advisers told her to campaign more there) in eight years of opportunity to do so then she is clearly too incompetent to be president. The EC weeds out demogauges and incompetence. There was no flaw in the EC, the flaw was in the person the DNC ran. Don't be mad at the EC for that.

You've already been told it stops demogauges. You've already been told it forces people that run to consider the country as a whole. You don't like the EC? That is perfectly fine, I've certainly never called it perfect but it IS far and above the PV. But don't sit and act like the EC doesn't have pros to go along with the cons.

TheMikh posted...

without the electoral college the votes of small states would be dominated by the votes of large states, which was a major concern when the constitution was being hammered out

the dnc dominance would also force voters to choose between voting for corporatist socialism and marxist socialism at the national level, which are both awful choices if i'd say so myself, and the country would likely descend into civil war or at least regional conflict

We already have smaller states being grossly overrepresented in Congress. Also when the EC was established, it was more proportional according to population. It was not meant to give smaller states a disproportionate allotment of electorates. That was not its purpose at all. So I'm not sure why people use this terrible excuse so much.
---

TheMikh posted...

the dnc dominance would also force voters to choose between voting for corporatist socialism and marxist socialism at the national level, which are both awful choices if i'd say so myself, and the country would likely descend into civil war or at least regional conflict

The parties can do whatever the hell they want to submit a candidate. The flaw here, is that there's only two of them that actually matter.
This could, actually, be corrected by libertarians infiltrating the Democrat party as well.

Democrat Libertarianism would essentially be Scandinavia, which has been quite successful so far. Hell, I'd vote for a scandinavian democrat, and I'm mostly a randian asshole.

The EC weeds out incompetence? Really? Given the current occupant of the Oval Office?
---

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

The only arguments I hear are "I don't want California deciding the fate of the nation" or "what about Wyoming". You have to be kidding yourself if you think those are good arguments.

All I hear is "I don't want Wyoming deciding the fate of the nation". You have to be kidding yourself if you think THAT is a good argument

I want a majority, or at the very least, a plurality of the people deciding the presidency. I also want a more legitimate election. A more legitimate election is obtained through a higher voter turnout. Popular vote elections would have a significantly higher turnouts.

So through a popular vote we have:

A) a more legitimate election that better represents the people's will

B) an election that actually listens to the people's will

What does the EC have?

One of the lowest voter turnouts in democratic countries and lesser popular candidates becoming presidency? Hey hut at least we haven't forgotten about Montana...or something.

It also better represents America as a whole instead of, as so many people have tried to explain to you, focusing on just a couple cities. If Hillary wasn't smart enough to focus on campaigning in the rust belt(which her advisers told her to campaign more there) in eight years of opportunity to do so then she is clearly too incompetent to be president. The EC weeds out demogauges and incompetence. There was no flaw in the EC, the flaw was in the person the DNC ran. Don't be mad at the EC for that.

You've already been told it stops demogauges. You've already been told it forces people that run to consider the country as a whole. You don't like the EC? That is perfectly fine, I've certainly never called it perfect but it IS far and above the PV. But don't sit and act like the EC doesn't have pros to go along with the cons.

Except it didn't stop a demagauge, Trump. I, in fact, was the first person to mention that was its original intent. If you were actually paying attention you'd have known that first mentioned the demagauge purpose. And please tell me how much campaigning is done in rural Montana? Campaigning still focuses on a few cities. It just so happens to focus on the cities of swing states. So campaigning is still exclusive to a select group of cities. What was the pro again?
---

jumi posted...

The EC weeds out incompetence? Really? Given the current occupant of the Oval Office?

Yeah, I keep hearing how incompetent Trump's administration is and yet all I see is just another average president and nobody explaining just how much worse their life is despite the better economy, lower unemployment and a tax plan that is saving thousands to families. And that's all ignoring him stopping a war that lasted over half a century between two countries.

ChainedRedone posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

The only arguments I hear are "I don't want California deciding the fate of the nation" or "what about Wyoming". You have to be kidding yourself if you think those are good arguments.

All I hear is "I don't want Wyoming deciding the fate of the nation". You have to be kidding yourself if you think THAT is a good argument

I want a majority, or at the very least, a plurality of the people deciding the presidency. I also want a more legitimate election. A more legitimate election is obtained through a higher voter turnout. Popular vote elections would have a significantly higher turnouts.

So through a popular vote we have:

A) a more legitimate election that better represents the people's will

B) an election that actually listens to the people's will

What does the EC have?

One of the lowest voter turnouts in democratic countries and lesser popular candidates becoming presidency? Hey hut at least we haven't forgotten about Montana...or something.

It also better represents America as a whole instead of, as so many people have tried to explain to you, focusing on just a couple cities. If Hillary wasn't smart enough to focus on campaigning in the rust belt(which her advisers told her to campaign more there) in eight years of opportunity to do so then she is clearly too incompetent to be president. The EC weeds out demogauges and incompetence. There was no flaw in the EC, the flaw was in the person the DNC ran. Don't be mad at the EC for that.

You've already been told it stops demogauges. You've already been told it forces people that run to consider the country as a whole. You don't like the EC? That is perfectly fine, I've certainly never called it perfect but it IS far and above the PV. But don't sit and act like the EC doesn't have pros to go along with the cons.

Except it didn't stop a demagauge, Trump. I, in fact, was the first person to mention that was its original intent. If you were actually paying attention you'd have known that first mentioned the demagauge purpose. And please tell me how much campaigning is done in rural Montana? Campaigning still focuses on a few cities. It just so happens to focus on the cities of swing states. So campaigning is still exclusive to a select group of cities. What was the pro again?

Just because you are ignoring facts don't make them go away. Anyways, I'm done with you. You clearly aren't well read on the topic so it's not worth my time

Trump didn't stop that goddamn war any more than I did.
---

jumi posted...

Trump didn't stop that goddamn war any more than I did.

The South Korean leader is on record disagreeing with you

Trump obviously wants to be the second coming of Reagan.
At best, he's a Teddy Roosevelt jr., but with evading military service.

Y2J_os_HBK_Blue posted...

It also better represents America as a whole instead of, as so many people have tried to explain to you, focusing on just a couple cities. If Hillary wasn't smart enough to focus on campaigning in the rust belt(which her advisers told her to campaign more there) in eight years of opportunity to do so then she is clearly too incompetent to be president. The EC weeds out demogauges and incompetence. There was no flaw in the EC, the flaw was in the person the DNC ran. Don't be mad at the EC for that.

It is possible both for Hillary Clinton to be a shitty politician whose campaign was an exercise in futility and for the electoral college to be a bad way of electing a president.
---