IMO, in the unlikely event the Democratic candidate wins the EC but loses the PV

[Beet]

They should step down and let the Republican candidate be inaugurated. A candidate who wins by the EC only is illegitimate.

[TheSaint250]

That's not the way the system works.  The candidate, regardless of party, who wins the EC is the LEGITIMATE President.  I would like to see a PV-majority electoral system, but we don't have that now, so we should follow the present rules until there is a change.

[McGovernForPrez]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

[Beet]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

[Tekken_Guy]

Yeah, that won't happen. Not with the direction California's been heading.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

Finally, someone who supports the EC besides me.

[McGovernForPrez]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

[SingingAnalyst]

I disagree; the rule is 270 EVs. If we don't like that system we should seek to change it.

[Xing]

So Democrats should concede if they don't like the way in which they win? Look, I hate the EC, but that's a terrible idea which certainly won't convince any EC supporters to think twice.

[Beet]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

There is no region of the country that should be privileged over others. There ought be no categories of Americans that are better than others.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

Finally, someone who supports the EC besides me.

[Beet]

So Democrats should concede if they don't like the way in which they win? Look, I hate the EC, but that's a terrible idea which certainly won't convince any EC supporters to think twice.

Why? It'll almost surely never happen. The EC supporters' excuse is always that the EC loser "accepted the rules beforehand" or some crap like that. We should make clear we are not campaigning to win just the EC, but both the EC and popular vote, and the latter is essential to legitimacy.

[McGovernForPrez]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

Finally, someone who supports the EC besides me.

There should be a club for Dems who support the EC. 2016 pretty much exactly proved the point of why the EC was necessary. Cater to only a select geographic region and you get clobbered. Democrats will now remember to focus on a more geographically appealing message.

[Beet]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

Finally, someone who supports the EC besides me.

There should be a club for Dems who support the EC. 2016 pretty much exactly proved the point of why the EC was necessary. Cater to only a select geographic region and you get clobbered. Democrats will now remember to focus on a more geographically appealing message.

Trump catered to a select geographic region and he won.

[McGovernForPrez]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

There is no region of the country that should be privileged over others. There ought be no categories of Americans that are better than others.

It doesn't have to do with "regions" being better than others. It's about preventing regional candidates from dominating our politics. Dems in 2016 have proven themselves to be an extremely regional party. The vast base of their support comes from urban and coastal areas. Regional candidates are a problem because they don't represent the best interests of a country equally. Had Hillary won, even though I wanted her to win, we would have continued to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. The 2016 election will force Democrats to acknowledge a message that has wider geographical appeal.

[Beet]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

There is no region of the country that should be privileged over others. There ought be no categories of Americans that are better than others.

It doesn't have to do with "regions" being better than others. It's about preventing regional candidates from dominating our politics. Dems in 2016 have proven themselves to be an extremely regional party. The vast base of their support comes from urban and coastal areas. Regional candidates are a problem because they don't represent the best interests of a country equally. Had Hillary won, even though I wanted her to win, we would have continued to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. The 2016 election will force Democrats to acknowledge a message that has wider geographical appeal.

Trump is a regional candidate heading an extremely regional party. He doesn't represent the best interests of the country equally, if at all. And he continues to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. All of these are even more true of Trump than of Hillary. In my own city, which cast some 300,000 votes, Trump got 4% of the vote. Can you name any region of the country with 300,000 people where Hillary got only 4% of the vote? Go ahead, I dare you.

[Figueira]

The problem with this is it gives the Republicans an unfair advantage, because they'll never do this for the Democrats. IMO if this happens there should be a bipartisan effort to eliminate the electoral college.

[McGovernForPrez]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

There is no region of the country that should be privileged over others. There ought be no categories of Americans that are better than others.

It doesn't have to do with "regions" being better than others. It's about preventing regional candidates from dominating our politics. Dems in 2016 have proven themselves to be an extremely regional party. The vast base of their support comes from urban and coastal areas. Regional candidates are a problem because they don't represent the best interests of a country equally. Had Hillary won, even though I wanted her to win, we would have continued to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. The 2016 election will force Democrats to acknowledge a message that has wider geographical appeal.

Trump is a regional candidate heading an extremely regional party. He doesn't represent the best interests of the country equally, if at all. And he continues to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. All of these are even more true of Trump than of Hillary. In my own city, which cast some 300,000 votes, Trump got 4% of the vote. Can you name any region of the country with 300,000 people where Hillary got only 4% of the vote? Go ahead, I dare you.

Yeah Trump isn't as much of a regional candidate as Hillary was. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymaprb1024.png

From that map, which one would you expect to have more geographically diverse constituents? I'd bet its the one that literally covers the entire country. You can walk coast to coast without stepping foot in a Democratic county.

Your example actually proves my point. Generally if the majority of counties you're winning are by 80+ point margins you're a regional party. Look at the solid south. South Carolina often voted in excess of 96% for the Democratic candidate. Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia often went the same way.

[Beet]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

There is no region of the country that should be privileged over others. There ought be no categories of Americans that are better than others.

It doesn't have to do with "regions" being better than others. It's about preventing regional candidates from dominating our politics. Dems in 2016 have proven themselves to be an extremely regional party. The vast base of their support comes from urban and coastal areas. Regional candidates are a problem because they don't represent the best interests of a country equally. Had Hillary won, even though I wanted her to win, we would have continued to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. The 2016 election will force Democrats to acknowledge a message that has wider geographical appeal.

Trump is a regional candidate heading an extremely regional party. He doesn't represent the best interests of the country equally, if at all. And he continues to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. All of these are even more true of Trump than of Hillary. In my own city, which cast some 300,000 votes, Trump got 4% of the vote. Can you name any region of the country with 300,000 people where Hillary got only 4% of the vote? Go ahead, I dare you.

Yeah Trump isn't as much of a regional candidate as Hillary was. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymaprb1024.png

From that map, which one would you expect to have more geographically diverse constituents? I'd bet its the one that literally covers the entire country. You can walk coast to coast without stepping foot in a Democratic county.

Your example actually proves my point. Generally if the majority of counties you're winning are by 80+ point margins you're a regional party. Look at the solid south. South Carolina often voted in excess of 96% for the Democratic candidate. Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia often went the same way.

By your definition of geographic diversity, being spread out is in itself a virtue. If fifty people who live within one square mile prefer candidate A forty-five to five, and five people who live spread across four other square files prefer candidate B four to one, then candidate B is more geographically diverse, even though candidate A has more supporters by 46 to 9. This is not democracy, this is geocracy, or the rule of Land.

There is no well developed political theory in support of the rule of land. Why should my vote be worth less simply because I choose to live in a more densely populated area? Further, if geographic diversity is what is important, why not practice it in state level elections, as well? I mean, you can get elected Governor of Illinois while completely ignoring downstate, or Governor of New York while completely ignoring upstate. Why not have an electoral college for statewide elections?

Further, even if geographic diversity is right, the Electoral College doesn't protect it. Obama won while winning far fewer counties, and you could walk across the country without entering in Democratic territory then, as well. So even to your stated goal, is not achieved by the Electoral College.

[Kingpoleon]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Everybody's vote counts the same.

[Beet]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Everybody's vote counts the same.

No it doesn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary didn't win the majority of the counties she won by 80+ point margins. There's a difference between saying there are areas of the country where she won by 80+ point margins, and not so for her opponent, and saying most of the counties she won are characterized as such. Further, the solid south was only solid because of Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised voters. If not for Jim Crow, South Carolina would never have been 96%+. But even if we strike Jim Crow as a counterargument to your example, that has nothing to do with geographic diversity, since in some of those 96% Democratic elections, FDR was winning a majority of counties nationwide.

[SWE]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

There is no region of the country that should be privileged over others. There ought be no categories of Americans that are better than others.

It doesn't have to do with "regions" being better than others. It's about preventing regional candidates from dominating our politics. Dems in 2016 have proven themselves to be an extremely regional party. The vast base of their support comes from urban and coastal areas. Regional candidates are a problem because they don't represent the best interests of a country equally. Had Hillary won, even though I wanted her to win, we would have continued to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. The 2016 election will force Democrats to acknowledge a message that has wider geographical appeal.

Trump is a regional candidate heading an extremely regional party. He doesn't represent the best interests of the country equally, if at all. And he continues to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. All of these are even more true of Trump than of Hillary. In my own city, which cast some 300,000 votes, Trump got 4% of the vote. Can you name any region of the country with 300,000 people where Hillary got only 4% of the vote? Go ahead, I dare you.

Yeah Trump isn't as much of a regional candidate as Hillary was. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymaprb1024.png

From that map, which one would you expect to have more geographically diverse constituents? I'd bet its the one that literally covers the entire country. You can walk coast to coast without stepping foot in a Democratic county.

Your example actually proves my point. Generally if the majority of counties you're winning are by 80+ point margins you're a regional party. Look at the solid south. South Carolina often voted in excess of 96% for the Democratic candidate. Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia often went the same way.

[McGovernForPrez]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

There is no region of the country that should be privileged over others. There ought be no categories of Americans that are better than others.

It doesn't have to do with "regions" being better than others. It's about preventing regional candidates from dominating our politics. Dems in 2016 have proven themselves to be an extremely regional party. The vast base of their support comes from urban and coastal areas. Regional candidates are a problem because they don't represent the best interests of a country equally. Had Hillary won, even though I wanted her to win, we would have continued to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. The 2016 election will force Democrats to acknowledge a message that has wider geographical appeal.

Trump is a regional candidate heading an extremely regional party. He doesn't represent the best interests of the country equally, if at all. And he continues to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. All of these are even more true of Trump than of Hillary. In my own city, which cast some 300,000 votes, Trump got 4% of the vote. Can you name any region of the country with 300,000 people where Hillary got only 4% of the vote? Go ahead, I dare you.

Yeah Trump isn't as much of a regional candidate as Hillary was. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymaprb1024.png

From that map, which one would you expect to have more geographically diverse constituents? I'd bet its the one that literally covers the entire country. You can walk coast to coast without stepping foot in a Democratic county.

Your example actually proves my point. Generally if the majority of counties you're winning are by 80+ point margins you're a regional party. Look at the solid south. South Carolina often voted in excess of 96% for the Democratic candidate. Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia often went the same way.

By your definition of geographic diversity, being spread out is in itself a virtue. If fifty people who live within one square mile prefer candidate A forty-five to five, and five people who live spread across four other square files prefer candidate B four to one, then candidate B is more geographically diverse, even though candidate A has more supporters by 46 to 9. This is not democracy, this is geocracy, or the rule of Land.

There is no well developed political theory in support of the rule of land. Why should my vote be worth less simply because I choose to live in a more densely populated area? Further, if geographic diversity is what is important, why not practice it in state level elections, as well? I mean, you can get elected Governor of Illinois while completely ignoring downstate, or Governor of New York while completely ignoring upstate. Why not have an electoral college for statewide elections?

Further, even if geographic diversity is right, the Electoral College doesn't protect it. Obama won while winning far fewer counties, and you could walk across the country without entering in Democratic territory then, as well. So even to your stated goal, is not achieved by the Electoral College.

I'm not saying geographical diversity is paramount to none but it certainly matters. Tyranny of the majority can be a thing and we need safeguards against it. I actually think there should be a "popular vote award" given to the popular vote winner in order to avoid another Bush v Gore situation, where the issue was less pronounced. 2016 wasn't comparable to 2000. Bush won by 2 electoral votes while barely losing the popular vote, while Hillary lost by 74 electoral votes. In this case the electoral college did it's job by protecting against a regional candidate. There's a balance between too much and too little Democracy. If we wanted to be truly Democratic we would all vote on our every bill that was written. Hell, throw out the Supreme Courts as well because they protect minority interests.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The EC is stupid.

Small states already get over represented in the senate, and rural areas are usually over represented in the House. At least give the majority population regardless of how urban an area they live in or how big their state is their own President.

[McGovernForPrez]

The EC is stupid.

Small states already get overrepresented in the senate, and rural areas are usually over represented in the House. At least give the majority population irregardless of how urban an area they live in or how big their state is their own President.

It isn't about making small states overrepresented, it's about protecting geographical interests. If it were simply about representation levels than it's hard to say since of the 10 smallest states both parties took 5 each. It's not even necessarily about the urban vs rural divide either. If a certain geographical region is continuously ignored then it can lead to all sorts of messy legitimacy problems. I think the Electoral college needs some sort of reform, such as a 3 EV PV award, but I don't think we should so callously jump to national popular vote.