Instead of eliminating the Electoral College

[MillennialModerate]

It was a fluke that Trump won WI, PA, and MI
Cory Booker/Steve Bullock 266
v
Trump/Pence 235

Dems will win in 2020

Nominate Cory Booker and I can guarantee Dem turnout will be even lower than 2016 and Trump would win reelection by a larger margin than 2016.

I agree with this 100%. I desperately want Trump out in 2020 and to be honest practically anyone should get more votes than him but the brainwashed cult following he has that will never make any sense to me means that whoever goes up against him will still have  to be decent to win.

Booker is a nice guy and all with some good ideas but he wouldn't win. Would be perceived as too far left.

[°Leprechaun]

Also, support IRV or Approval Voting which would make elections more fair.

[South Dakota Democrat]

It was a fluke that Trump won WI, PA, and MI
Cory Booker/Steve Bullock 266
v
Trump/Pence 235

Dems will win in 2020

Nominate Cory Booker and I can guarantee Dem turnout will be even lower than 2016 and Trump would win reelection by a larger margin than 2016.

I agree with this 100%. I desperately want Trump out in 2020 and to be honest practically anyone should get more votes than him but the brainwashed cult following he has that will never make any sense to me means that whoever goes up against him will still have  to be decent to win.

Booker is a nice guy and all with some good ideas but he wouldn't win. Would be perceived as too far left.

His problem wouldn't be that he's far too left.  It would be the opposite.  Dem turnout wouldn't be as strong because he's too corporatist.

Sorry to bump this thread, but seriously, this MAGA guy from earlier in the thread had to be trolling, right?  Either that or he failed simple math.

[Progressive Pessimist]

There is no choice but to win the Electoral College, OP. You're acting like the Democrats aren't campaigning in Pennsylvania and Florida. It's such a simplistically dumb piece rhetoric.

[South Dakota Democrat]

There is no choice but to win the Electoral College, OP. You're acting like the Democrats aren't campaigning in Pennsylvania and Florida. It's such a simplistically dumb piece rhetoric.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Dems get a massive advantage from the EC, it would be counterproductive to want to eliminate it. And additionally, the Founding Fathers intentionally established the system in order to prevent the 'ignorant' populace from directly electing the President. It does what it meant to do but I do think it can receive some modifications like say a proportional allocation of electoral votes instead of winner-take-all.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Dems get a massive advantage from the EC, it would be counterproductive to want to eliminate it. And additionally, the Founding Fathers intentionally established the system in order to prevent the 'ignorant' populace from directly electing the President. It does what it meant to do but I do think it can receive some modifications like say a proportional allocation of electoral votes instead of winner-take-all.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

Due to the most heavily populated states receiving the most electoral votes - California, New York, etc.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Democrats benefited from the Electoral College in 2004 , 2008 and 2012


Kerry and Obama(Both times) could have lost the popular vote and still have won

[South Dakota Democrat]

Dems get a massive advantage from the EC, it would be counterproductive to want to eliminate it. And additionally, the Founding Fathers intentionally established the system in order to prevent the 'ignorant' populace from directly electing the President. It does what it meant to do but I do think it can receive some modifications like say a proportional allocation of electoral votes instead of winner-take-all.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

Due to the most heavily populated states receiving the most electoral votes - California, New York, etc.

I know math is hard, but the plains states + the south + the mountain west=more electoral votes than NY or CA.  Also, you're just wrong.  You cannot argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they have won the popular vote and lost the EC in 40% of the elections this century.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Dems get a massive advantage from the EC, it would be counterproductive to want to eliminate it. And additionally, the Founding Fathers intentionally established the system in order to prevent the 'ignorant' populace from directly electing the President. It does what it meant to do but I do think it can receive some modifications like say a proportional allocation of electoral votes instead of winner-take-all.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

Due to the most heavily populated states receiving the most electoral votes - California, New York, etc.

I know math is hard, but the plains states + the south + the mountain west=more electoral votes than NY or CA.  Also, you're just wrong.  You cannot argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they have won the popular vote and lost the EC in 40% of the elections this century.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

That's not my point. I'm talking about representation. Maybe it's best to bark up another tree.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Dems get a massive advantage from the EC, it would be counterproductive to want to eliminate it. And additionally, the Founding Fathers intentionally established the system in order to prevent the 'ignorant' populace from directly electing the President. It does what it meant to do but I do think it can receive some modifications like say a proportional allocation of electoral votes instead of winner-take-all.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

Due to the most heavily populated states receiving the most electoral votes - California, New York, etc.

I know math is hard, but the plains states + the south + the mountain west=more electoral votes than NY or CA.  Also, you're just wrong.  You cannot argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they have won the popular vote and lost the EC in 40% of the elections this century.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

That's not my point. I'm talking about representation. Maybe it's best to bark up another tree.

What about representation?

[Senator-elect Spark]

Dems get a massive advantage from the EC, it would be counterproductive to want to eliminate it. And additionally, the Founding Fathers intentionally established the system in order to prevent the 'ignorant' populace from directly electing the President. It does what it meant to do but I do think it can receive some modifications like say a proportional allocation of electoral votes instead of winner-take-all.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

Due to the most heavily populated states receiving the most electoral votes - California, New York, etc.

I know math is hard, but the plains states + the south + the mountain west=more electoral votes than NY or CA.  Also, you're just wrong.  You cannot argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they have won the popular vote and lost the EC in 40% of the elections this century.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

That's not my point. I'm talking about representation. Maybe it's best to bark up another tree.

What about representation?

Not going to explain. If you are interested in political debate, I suggest you go there that's not where I'm headed.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Dems get a massive advantage from the EC, it would be counterproductive to want to eliminate it. And additionally, the Founding Fathers intentionally established the system in order to prevent the 'ignorant' populace from directly electing the President. It does what it meant to do but I do think it can receive some modifications like say a proportional allocation of electoral votes instead of winner-take-all.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

Due to the most heavily populated states receiving the most electoral votes - California, New York, etc.

I know math is hard, but the plains states + the south + the mountain west=more electoral votes than NY or CA.  Also, you're just wrong.  You cannot argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they have won the popular vote and lost the EC in 40% of the elections this century.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

That's not my point. I'm talking about representation. Maybe it's best to bark up another tree.

What about representation?

Not going to explain. If you are interested in political debate, I suggest you go there that's not where I'm headed.

So you're just going to throw out a buzz word and not explain it?  Whatever.  Your argument is not able to be justified.  The Dems absolutely, 100% do not have a massive advantage in the EC.  Just not defensible.

[Beet]

Trump has admitted the EC is unfair himself. But since those are the rules, that is how he played, so to blame him is beside the point.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Trump has admitted the EC is unfair himself. But since those are the rules, that is how he played, so to blame him is beside the point.

My argument is not that his election is illegitimate because he lost the PV.  I'm merely disputing the absurd notion that Dems have an advantage in the EC. 

[Senator-elect Spark]

Dems get a massive advantage from the EC, it would be counterproductive to want to eliminate it. And additionally, the Founding Fathers intentionally established the system in order to prevent the 'ignorant' populace from directly electing the President. It does what it meant to do but I do think it can receive some modifications like say a proportional allocation of electoral votes instead of winner-take-all.

If the EC massively advantages the Democrats, why have they won the popular vote but not the electoral college twice this century? (40% of the elections this century)  Your point is just massively, massively incorrect.

Due to the most heavily populated states receiving the most electoral votes - California, New York, etc.

I know math is hard, but the plains states + the south + the mountain west=more electoral votes than NY or CA.  Also, you're just wrong.  You cannot argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they have won the popular vote and lost the EC in 40% of the elections this century.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

That's not my point. I'm talking about representation. Maybe it's best to bark up another tree.

What about representation?

Not going to explain. If you are interested in political debate, I suggest you go there that's not where I'm headed.

So you're just going to throw out a buzz word and not explain it?  Whatever.  Your argument is not able to be justified.  The Dems absolutely, 100% do not have a massive advantage in the EC.  Just not defensible.

It is justifiable, however, if you want to debate this isn't the place to do it. I see you're a new user so create a thread there and I will debate you if you wish.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Trump has admitted the EC is unfair himself. But since those are the rules, that is how he played, so to blame him is beside the point.

Furthermore, like most things, Trump contradicted himself later and said the EC is awesome.

[Jersey Jimmy]

Democrats benefited from the Electoral College in 2004 , 2008 and 2012


Kerry and Obama(Both times) could have lost the popular vote and still have won

To be honest, Kerry beating a man who lost the popular vote  while losing the popular vote would've been the most hilarious thing ever.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Democrats benefited from the Electoral College in 2004 , 2008 and 2012


Kerry and Obama(Both times) could have lost the popular vote and still have won

Who has the advantage in the EC definitely fluctuates, my point wasn't that Republicans have always had an advantage.  It's just that, in today's political environment, it's a hard sell to argue that the Dems have an EC advantage when they won the popular vote by 2 points but lost the EC fairly clearly, 306 to 232, in the last election.

[Use Your Illusion]

With the advent of VA suddenly surging into one of the most solid Democrat states in the union, Democrats have well over 200 electoral votes tied up into HI, west coast, the Northeast, IL and MN alone. And that's not counting that at a presidential level NV, NM and CO are leaning Democrat to begin with AND the idea that Trump won PA, WI and MI on a fluke.

The only thing left that's keeping the Republicans in business anymore is that they can count on OH and FL as the margin of victory they need to win the EC and even that may not be enough for them anymore. If I could ever figure out how to post the map I could put it in a picture