You mean the choice of the people of NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Houston, San Francisco, Baltimore & Philadelphia.
Take those votes - for anyone - out of the equation, and who wins? Trump.
Desiring an end to the EC means you want those cities deciding who is President every 4 years.
Makes sense, if you're a Democrat... not so much for anyone else.

 

Arguing something like this based on current demographics and party affiliation is a little silly.

I realize that Breeze brought this up because of the specific Hillary case, but the truth is that the system is illogical regardless of its impact on specific incomes.

Put another way, even if the situation were reversed, Clinton won, and Trump dominated in those cities, the notion of taking the votes of those cities "out of the equation" should be abhorrent. People are people. Those cities have a big popular vote impact because they have a lot of people.

But you are right in that self interest is why this will never get fixed. Who wants to change a system that works to their advantage? But just because it benefits you doesn't mean it makes sense. Pretend you are founding a new nation. You have no idea what the parties will be or how the support for them will split geographically. Now what makes sense in terms of designing a fair system for every voter?

 

Absolutely no other election uses this system, in any country, anywhere on Earth.

 

Maybe for good reason? See Italy on Sunday.
The EC could get modified so that the electors vote as per the popular vote in their districts, not as state blocks.

 

This is a philosophical question. Do states really need to be "protected" still? The paradigm totally has shifted. And I think the Civil War kinda answered that compact of autonomous mini nation-states v. contract question.

Gobs of sour grapes for a lot of folks right now. Obviously. And despite 2000 it is like most were asleep from high school civics class onward. Keeping America Stupid, Ongoing.

 

Not quite sure what that means, but in 1789, the Founding Fathers were truly afraid of a, for example, Napolean type seizing power. My argument is that this is no longer possible, so why the need for an antiquated system with no relevance in the world of 2016.

 

I'm on your side, Breeze. That's what it means.

The FFs were equally as leery of a demagogue (OMG, look who we have) as they were of political parties and the dirty unwashed making their own decisions. There also was the very really factor of making so many concessions to get buy in from the slavers.

 

Gotcha.

 

I guess I see that there is a big disconnect between the rural less urban areas and those in the big city. I guess we can all argue about what is fair and not. In everything else it is all about protecting the minority. Do away with the EC and Fly over states and rural ares won't matter at all.

If the tables were the reverse -- and at first their was talk that Hillary could win the College and not the popular vote. Would she have stepped aside? Would her supporters want her to step aside?? Just sayin.

 

I can't predict what "they" would do. I only can speak to my beliefs. I'm still trying to figure out how a majority of Americans voting one way is somehow anti-American or anti-democratic. Tyranny of the minority.

As I noted above, lotsa sour grapes from folks who, embarrassingly, had no clue about this stuff. But that is the American electorate. Turn the tides, however, and I guarantee you the sour grapes would be as red as they now are blue ... except for Trump, of course, who apparently has harbored disregard for the EC for some time.

BTW, I live in a small agricultural town.