Stupid, antiquated system that needs to go.

It favors the Democrats.

The popular vote would be a huge mess this year with how close it is. It would be like 2000 Florida but everywhere.

Also, the popular vote can be misleading. If the goal was to get the most votes the campaigns would not be focusing on getting votes from certain important states.

I'd get rid of it too but the two elections where the President didn't get the most votes may not have changed if we didn't have it.

What?

There's been two elections just in this generation that have gone against the popular vote.

So if you are against the electoral college you are for those small concentrated blue spots on today's map ruling the entire country?

So if you are against the electoral college you are for those small concentrated blue spots on today's map ruling the entire country?

So if you are against the electoral college you are for those small concentrated blue spots on today's map ruling the entire country?

One man, one vote.

Like RR said, one man, one vote. What's more democratic than that?

I think they will always get IL, NY, and CA. They pretty much have a guaranteed 104 votes.

What?

The right will always get Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, South Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming, Lousiana, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kentucky.

They have a guaranteed 170 votes.

You can do better than this.

Like RR said, one man, one vote. What's more democratic than that?

I don't know? Our constitution is pretty fair and hard to change. I think the present system works to be representative of all. What is next put all the senators in CA, TX and NY rather than two per state?

Yes, Spaulding, your argument makes no sense. No offense. Those states have more electoral votes because they have higher populations. Did you think they were assigned randomly?

Yes, Spaulding, your argument makes no sense. No offense. Those states have more electoral votes because they have higher populations. Did you think they were assigned randomly?

The only big one there is TX, then NC & TN. NC, TN, and any of the smaller states could go to the Dems at any time as they aren't really won by wide margins. PA, AZ, MI, WI, should all go democratic. The questionable ones OH and FL are the wild cards but if the Democrats put up a half decent person they'd win it most of the time.

I don't believe they are as guaranteed their 170 as the Democrats are guaranteed their 104.

One man, one vote.

I don't know? Our constitution is pretty fair and hard to change. I think the present system works to be representative of all. What is next put all the senators in CA, TX and NY rather than two per state?

The only big one there is TX, then NC & TN. NC, TN, and any of the smaller states could go to the Dems at any time as they aren't really won by wide margins. PA, AZ, MI, WI, should all go democratic. The questionable ones OH and FL are the wild cards but if the Democrats put up a half decent person they'd win it most of the time.

I don't believe they are as guaranteed their 170 as the Democrats are guaranteed their 104.

Yes, Spaulding, your argument makes no sense. No offense. Those states have more electoral votes because they have higher populations. Did you think they were assigned randomly?

Bill carried quite a few of those states however.

Georgia(clinton), Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana(clinton), Idaho, South Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas(clinton *2), Wyoming, Lousiana(clinton *2), Tennessee(clinton *2), Oklahoma, Kentucky (clinton *2)

You can add a few more auto Dem states with Washington(12),Oregan(7),MN(10), Mass(11),RI(4), CT(7), NJ(14), DE(3) MD(10), DC(3) and VA (13) You have to go back to Reagan before any of those states flip.

Shame on her for losing WI(10) , MI(16), and PA(20). First time those flipped since Reagan.