The 2000 election brought bad tastes when Al Gore lost to GW Bush by electoral votes though he had more of the popular vote. The same happened with Clinton in 2016. The college was devised because of the lack of education the high level of illiteracy of the general populous in 1776. But that has changed in the last 240 years. Because of the abundance of information available to the general public, should the President of the United States be elected on popular vote only?
Stating that the EC is archaic is an understatement. Protecting voters rights, non-partisan efforts to prevent Gerrymadering, a return to paper ballots & automatic voter registration would make our democratic process better able to counter foreign meddling. There is no doubt that taking these steps BEFORE an election would have prevented the mango maggot from being declared!
kiramea 40% replied:1
I am curious to why you said no.
There is no reply button to your reply.
My answer No is there to challenge my bias.
If I say yes it wouldn't be an honest answer. It would be largely due to my selfish biased desire for a different outcome.
Anyone that did not complain about the elections when their choice won is exempt from an opinion. Funny how that works huh! The electoral college is just fine when your candidate wins but corrupt when they don't.
One needs to examine their gag reflex when in opposition to something they are annoyed at.
Are you justified in your dissent?
Are you simply accepting false and misleading information out of confirmation bias?
Would you rather believe a lie rather than the truth when it doesn't support your narrative?
These questions are the reason I say no.
It, no matter how frustrating the outcome has to be upheld out of a sense of fairness. When overly saturated cities are able to change the outcome of an election you still have to include those that share a different opinion.
A simple example is one of selfish desire such as Chicago, LA, NY, Portland. Have the desired outcome to support entitlements whereas smaller rural farmers are stifled. People in cities do not consider anything past their own desires. The electoral process works.
our entire political, legal and financial system must be dismantled and rebuilt if any real progress is to be made.
The united states is no longer manageable as a single entity; we work too far from home and we are governed too far from home; we have no right to be sovereign on our land which is all owned by people who have no business owning it, forcing us all to live disposable lifestyles. They pollute everything with unnecessary business and tell us we can't get off the grid.
The first world is a mess, and right now most people are only talking about fixing the mafia by joining its ranks, look what happened to bernie sanders.
I think the Nebraska/Maine solution would be a better sell and be more representative than the current system.