Given the fact that public education is open to all, is the electoral college necessary?

Hmm, so only a opinion no actually plan.

So here is another one, just get rid of the election all together, and let the majority leader in the house be the president. That way no one will cry if they lose and every state has a equal vote..

Your last paragraph seems to indicate a support for literacy tests on voting which is independent of the reasoning behind the electoral system. You can still have a 'mob' vote for a representative which would in turn cast votes in an electoral manner, so the two ideas you're bringing up don't seem to aim for the same end result.

It's a stupid, antiquated system that once again demonstrates how backwards the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. In order for every vote to count, the electoral college needs to be abolished, or states at least need to pass laws requiring electors to vote for the popular vote winner. It's absurd.

I'm sorry but what's the issue here again?

I stated my opinion and that's it. Is that offensive to you?

Then the US would be more of a direct democracy. although still in snail pace when it comes to separation of power.

Are you that dense? Lets say California sees a voter turnout of 51%. 1,000,000 vote Democratic and 959,931 vote Republican. Guess what happens? California's electoral points all go to the Democratic candidate? Is that fair to the 959,931 Republican voters whose voices have been silenced thanks to the arbitrary system placed during the 1780s because slave-owning states wanted to have a voice to fight against abolitionist efforts?

The electoral system is unfair to both voting blocs and discourages voting from either side. That is a fact. Whether it's "constitutional" or not doesn't make it morally right.

This needs to die.. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with slave states, you are talking about the 3/5's ruling.. This was agreed upon all states when they joined in the union.. Many northern states in fact which were NOT known for large amounts of slavery agreed upon this because they felt that their voice would be drowned out, this was a compromise to small states.. There are numerous small population northern states that did not have massive amounts of slavery, that they were still in favor of this..

This is called a COMPROMISE.. Furthermore the pluralistic system is created not because of teh electoral college but the STATES THEM SELVES.. State governments, which are voted in by the populace, have the POWER to decide how their electoral college votes are divided up.. A handful actually do a split vote (Iowa is one of them I believe) based upon the voting.. Most though decided this pluralistic system, including liberal states that bitch hardest about it like California..

I am sorry but what? Your moral self righteousness is nauseating you are crying about one flawed system, and wish to put another flawed system (with its own set of problems) into place because it suites your political agenda.. Don't come to me and act like you have some moral high ground, you don't. Who exactly is being ethical here? With how much you hate how "unfair" the electoral college is, I will be waiting for your large statement on our LEGISLATIVE branch.. You know the branch of government which has far more impact on our country than the electoral college when it comes to policy in which the representation is decided the EXACT SAME way..

So yet again all this is pointless crying not actually looking for a better solution.. SO I state again if people are this bothered with how the electoral college is done, why haven't you gone after our legislative branch representation with the house and senate?? There are states that have a greater impact in our politics with a far smaller population in this branch.. And actually push forward policy that impact the entire nation far more than electoral college has..

Crying? Moral self-righteousness?

Look who's talking lol.

What don't you understand about talking how you want things to change for moral reasons comes off as self righteous?... I rest my case.. You don't have any real solutions, nor do you actually care about finding a real solution in less it suits your political agenda. Thank you for proving my point..

So the solution in taking away the "winner-takes-all" system in states is not a solution but rather suits my political agenda? Yeah, sure thing man. Anything that fits your narrow mind.

I explained to you that the winner takes all is decided by states government which are controlled by the populations of the specific state.. If you got a problem with that, go to each state and campaign for a motion vote by the population to change it.. The states are free to decide however they like to divvy up their electoral votes..

As much as I think the electoral college is archaic, something that belongs in the history books, I realize that it's not going to go away. My opinion is that the states itself should not be a "winner-take-all" system. In other words, a state's electoral points don't all go to one party. This way, this would encourage voting from both sides and states are now much more competitive. What's your opinion? To keep the system because it fits your political dogma?

Whats my political dogma exactly? I am not right wing, I do not like President Trump or the republican establishment.. I am all for changing the electoral college if we can find a better way to do it.. Going to direct democracy is not that way, it creates a whole new set of problems in which is why the electoral college was founded to begin with.. It takes into account population ON TOP OF a set 2 vote electoral count as a compromise.. Meaning large states still get a larger say, but smaller states still have some say.

For someone who espouses wanting real solutions, you bash the Democratic Party because it doesn't fit your self-righteous so-called "progressive" viewpoints,

What does this have anything to do with the electoral college? I was pointing out that you were coming off as self rightous in this argument, as some how your solution was "right".

nevermind that the Democrats are appealing to numerous people depending on the states they represent. Same with Republicans.

Ok and? What part of the word "COMPROMISE" do you not understand? This was a COMPROMISE, not every voice is going to be heard, that is just reality.. I am completely open to actually REAL solutions..

If anything, you come off as some self-righteous asshat that bashes liberals and progressives, thinks Muslims are all terrorists who want to spread Sharia law and, quite honestly, I have never seen you criticize any of the Trump supporters that continue to post false and misleading information. It's always the same with you and, quite honestly, I find it hilarious.

I am sorry but who here is coming off as emotional again? And I thought this was about the electoral college? You can't even stay on topic nor answer my question to what you would do to the legislative branch.. A far more powerful part of our government than the electoral that operates extremely similar in representation. Why are you bringing up Trump? Or Islam? What does this have anything to do with what is being discussed?

I say again what would you do to solve this? And if this is such a huge problem why haven't you talked about the legislative branch? How would you change the representation of the legislative branch?

I'm not suggesting for a literacy test, and I know that wasn't the primary purpose of the electoral college. Although those that oppose it should take it into consideration. There is a correlation between ignorance and violence after all, and mobs tend to be violence when their demands aren't met.

It's a fucking opinion.

It's not like anyone else offered any of their opinions other than, "lol the electoral college is great because Trump won MAGA!" or "the electoral college sucks because Trump won with the minority vote." If I came out as if I was "right" it's because I have to explain it numerous times that it's an "opinion." Do I think it's a great idea? Yeah sure thing, I don't know. I'm not a big fan of, say, California's 55 electoral points going to Clinton because California decided to count the majority vote. Did the minority vote count? Nope. And that is a problem. Same with other states throughout the union. It gives a false perception of the state and discourages voting but also makes it less competitive, depending on the state. That's my opinion.

It's like asking what you think about Transformers, you think it sucks, and then me responding, "oh why don't you go to Hollywood and slap Michael Bay around so he stops making Transformers movies." The logic makes no sense and I don't know what you want exactly from me, which is why I find your whole post to be incredibly random and out of nowhere.

What is your solution? Or your opinion regarding the electoral college? Do you have one? I know you said you wanted to change it but what is a realistic solution in your opinion?

It already exists in the form of the electoral college as states go fully Republican or Democrat regardless of how close the vote goes in those states.

It's enjoyable when people who defend the electoral college argue that it's all about state's rights or it's to avoid mob rule when the electoral college already does that and the fact that a, in our history, five presidents have been elected with the minority vote.

While this may not seem like a huge issue, those five presidents have been unpopular from the election to the end of their presidency.

"It already exists in the form of the electoral college..."

I'm assuming by 'it' you mean 'mob rule' here.

No, it doesn't.

The electoral college is the opposite of mob rule, that was the point behind it. The electoral college has it's problems, but it's the system we got and it works. Nothing is going to be perfect, alright. We will not at some point reach this pinnacle of voting perfection, ever... because we're human, and anything we make will inherently be flawed. The only reason most people are bitching about the electoral college now is because Hillary lost. If she won, the Republicans would be doing the same damned thing. We don't need to get rid of it, we just need to learn how to be less sore losers and accept who won, and hope (and work for) our candidate winning next time. It's called a republic, it's how it works. Your 'team' doesn't always win. Do a better job campaigning, or more preferably, pick less horrible candidates that people actually want to vote for.

And who gets to decide who/what is ignorant? You? Someone else in power?

I understand completely what we're saying but if you're scared of an ignorant mob voting someone into power then look no further than the US, we just did that. But in this case, the ignorant mob was given the weightier voting option BECAUSE of the electoral system. The greatest indicator separating Trump vs Hillary voters was education.

If the system was set up to prevent these situations then it clearly isn't working as intended.

So if California's electoral points go to the Democratic candidate, did the Republican vote count? No.

That's mob rule.

Also, not everything is about Clinton vs Trump, nor has it ever been. The electoral college has always been problematic and heavily flawed as it discourages voting.

No idea why you think that. Particular not when you consider some of the key states vote tally and how small a margin Trump won with.

If anything that encourage voting.

No it does not encourage voting. One of the reasons people say their vote doesn't count. Anyone interested in a democracy shouldn't be a fan of the electoral college. It's also the reason we can't get any new parties off the ground. It was instituted when not everyone had the right to vote. It's time is over.

Clearly you are speaking out of a misunderstanding, so let me try again

How big a margin did Trump win with in the key states? total tally was around 70.000 votes in 3 key states meaning that each individual's vote counts, if the democrats had gotten of their fat butts and had gone to the voting booths , they could have won.

Also it´s united STATES of America , not America the single California nation.

Clearly you are speaking out of a misunderstanding, so let me try again

How big a margin did Trump win with in the key states? total tally was around 70.000 votes in 3 key states meaning that each individual's vote counts, if the democrats had gotten of their fat butts and had gone to the voting booths , they could have won.

Also it´s united STATES of America , not America the single California nation.

Oh for fucks sake I'm tired of that argument. It's just shows no understanding of the reason Congress was set up as it is. To give votes to states. There is no need to skew the vote for president.

Then why do you support a skewing in favor of 1-2 states? the whole argument you have is just ignorant when you won´t even acknowledge that the only reason why Clinton got the popular vote was because of 1 single state. _Without that state counting 49 states Clinton lost by a million.

Well said, I agree with what you said 100%.

That is what the congress is for. Let the president be voted in by popular vote. No need to skew everything in the democracy.

And while I am at it, it is extremely likely the electoral college increases voter apathy. I know several americans who couldnt be arsed going to the polls, because ultimately they would be counted in anyways, either for a candidate they dont like or one they do like.

So if California's electoral points go to the Democratic candidate, did the Republican vote count? No.

That's mob rule.

Also, not everything is about Clinton vs Trump, nor has it ever been. The electoral college has always been problematic and heavily flawed as it discourages voting.

We may have had a mod rule reaction but it's temporary. House gets 2 year term, senate loses 1/3 seats every 2 years, and another possible president in 4 years. Kinda makes it harder to keep that mob rule.

Who gets to decide who these rules? The framers and anti-federalists did. They feared tyranny. Blame the British for creating that culture.

Reform the electoral college so that it's no longer a "winner take all" system. (ex: instead of New York going fully blue, X goes to Democrats and Y goes to Republicans).

Also, make voting mandatory and have days designated just for voting. We have the lowest voter turnout, especially in state and local elections. As a result, the representatives that are suppose to represent us, don't. By increasing turnout, candidates have a reason to be more competitive and it's no longer about campaigning in certain states or districts.

That's my two cents.