4 ms·

Say the majority went up to 55%... We'd still need a lot more than that to change the electoral college. And honestly, having big states control who becomes pr

Say the majority went up to 55%... We'd still need a lot more than that to change the electoral college. And honestly, having big states control who becomes president just because of their population, given how independent states should function, is a cornerstone of the electoral college.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. Something closer to that might be enough. However, I don't think that the electoral college could be changed because the parties responsible for changing it would be decreasing their electorates influence in the government which might be unpopular with said electorate.
- tertius 9y ago
  > A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. That's great and might seem scary to some, but nothing close to that has ever happened.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    From John Q. Adams' 31% win to Clinton's 43% win, it depends on what you call "close."
bluejekyll 9y ago
> having big states control who becomes president just because of their population, given how independent states should function, This used to be true, but as more government control has been ceded to the federal government I don't believe this to be the case. The President is not all powerful either, this should be a fully democratic election. Also, the electoral college was broken when states started alotting their votes in a winner take all manner.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  > This used to be true, but as more government control has been ceded to the federal government I don't believe this to be the case. Maybe this is the problem then? If you have less federal government control, and more state-level control then it wouldn't be as big of a deal if Trump is elected if you're a Californian. Likewise with a democratic candidate. And the current setup actually works pretty well. You should get diminishing returns on popular vote in a republic. Otherwise you have some areas that dominate others instead of a balance. In other words, you don't punish people/states that are not highly populated. It may not have worked out for us this time around, but it's more fair. If you want a different system, then abolish the Republic and the States.
Sacho 9y ago
If Hillary was up to 55%, a feat not reached by Obama, the discrepancy between the college and the popular vote would be huge, at minimum 10%, which would top the already few instances of a president winning without the popular vote.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago

A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. Something closer to that might be enough. However, I don't think that the electoral college could be changed because the parties responsible for changing it would be decreasing their electorates influence in the government which might be unpopular with said electorate.

tertius 9y ago
> A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. That's great and might seem scary to some, but nothing close to that has ever happened.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  From John Q. Adams' 31% win to Clinton's 43% win, it depends on what you call "close."

bluejekyll 9y ago

> having big states control who becomes president just because of their population, given how independent states should function, This used to be true, but as more government control has been ceded to the federal government I don't believe this to be the case. The President is not all powerful either, this should be a fully democratic election. Also, the electoral college was broken when states started alotting their votes in a winner take all manner.

muninn_ 9y ago
> This used to be true, but as more government control has been ceded to the federal government I don't believe this to be the case. Maybe this is the problem then? If you have less federal government control, and more state-level control then it wouldn't be as big of a deal if Trump is elected if you're a Californian. Likewise with a democratic candidate. And the current setup actually works pretty well. You should get diminishing returns on popular vote in a republic. Otherwise you have some areas that dominate others instead of a balance. In other words, you don't punish people/states that are not highly populated. It may not have worked out for us this time around, but it's more fair. If you want a different system, then abolish the Republic and the States.

Sacho 9y ago

If Hillary was up to 55%, a feat not reached by Obama, the discrepancy between the college and the popular vote would be huge, at minimum 10%, which would top the already few instances of a president winning without the popular vote.