No it doesn't. Your mixing this up. It's based on state populations. states with higher populations get more points in EC (to represent the amount of voters based on representatives plus 2 senators). CA gets the most at 55, which always goes democrat. The democrats start out at almost 270 (points needed to win) because they nearly always get the high populated areas (places with big cities). This makes it really hard for a Republican to win.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States[/url])

Just to nark you.

I've heard this said before and it's just bullshit. It completely overlooks the fact that most of your elections are barely 1 million votes apart, sometimes even less than that, so it'd be impossible to be decided by a single state alone, not to mention it's stuck with the EC mentality of an entire state voting for a single party, instead of each vote within that state counting. It also forgets all those times that the republicans did win the popular vote, including Reagan, Bush sr. and even Bush jr during his reelection.

The EC is just ridiculous. You don't want to have an unrepresentative system where a few people alone dictate how the country will be run, okay, but the solution isn't an even more unrepresentative system. Especially when there are simpler, more logical, and representative solutions available, like requiring a super majority of 55% or 60% to win the election, depending on how concentrated the population is, in order to make every vote equal and count towards the outcome while ensuring the support of the small states is needed to win.

Yes it does. The EC has 538 votes, but they are not distributed solely based on population. Every state has 3 votes to start with, which means that states with very small populations that should have less votes get more, and these votes are taken away from the big states like California and Texas. So it does give disproportional representation in favor of the smaller states.

Trolls like to flock to whatever will stir up the most crap. Trump won, and it seems like most people in here are upset about it, so it's quite inevitable they're going to come in here and say "Yay! Trump won! Suck it, liberals!" Or similarly if Hillary won and most people were upset about it, saying that the conservatives need to fight back.
Chances are that if Hillary won and most people in here would upset about it, they'd be going around saying "Yay! Hillary won! How's it feel NOW, conservitards?" Or similarly if Trump won and most people were happy about it, saying that a bunch of degenerates are in control.

Bradley and Infinite9 are probably the exception to that given the fact that they've had a very right-leaning opinion long before this election started.

I'm sure we're going to see a lot of regular members be losing their minds over this on both sides, though. Politics always draws out the nastiest depths of people, as I can already see by reading...basically 30% of the posts in this thread. As Pheace already noted, it's never about actual policies, it always breaks down to "us vs them", sadly enough.

You two guys back together again?

This is worse than a soap opera, one week you're banning him, the next crawling up his backside.

BTW, he told me he wants to get back with you.

deleted

Nobody said it can't happen or that is hasn't happen. It's just not very likely to happen. Take this election in which Trump was leading the PV until CA in which she ended up with nearly 3 million more votes. Highly populated areas are largely liberal, and with cities out growing combined rural populations this will only get worse.

Democrats are still given an advantage in the EC, so it's not exactly like it's an even 50/50 odds.

It's really not... we should never end up in situation where 90% of the counties in America vote red and blue ends up winning with 10% of the counties in America due to highly populated areas (these are estimated, I don't know the exact figures but Trump won most of the counties in this election). Which is what would have happen in the current election following that system. Most of the land mass voted red.

Erm, not sure what you are talking about exactly. Are you talking about the extra 2 from senators? Every state gets them... this does not take away from CA or TX. You can't argue something disproportional when all of them get the same thing, that is the exact opposite. If every state didn't get them, that would mean they would probably lower the overall win threshold from 270 making it exactly the same anyway. My state gets 3 for example, exactly what what we are suppose to get based on number of representatives and senators. My state based on population has 1 representative. We also have 2 senators (like every state). Add those up and that is 3 votes in the EC.

Saying that rural America is favored in the EC is laughable, and is mainly stated by those not from the US. But what do I know, I only live here.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/allocation.html

watch what happens to this young man when mind control grabs hold of him: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kesFh-w6fs0

makes my bum hurt just thinking about it, i feel sorry for the kid.

is that the guy you were mentioning carrion.flowers?

terrible thing mind control is, it needs to be abolished completely.
of course it will never happen when people start lining up to pee on the president for welfare.

hell, I'd pee on him for free.

remember Sam Kinison talking about the "pee trough" in vegas?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoIA0MqxxmU
you know Trump owns a casino there right?

wonder who he was talking about..

Thank god I don't remember you. :P

I think it historic in the sense that no matter who would have won... America lost either way in one form or another.

people don't realize exactly WHAT the electoral college actually is.

if they did they would know they are not free, they are slaves, to Satan, lord of liars, thieves, murderers and hypocrites.

it's Esau that's being protected, and his children.

Esau followed in the ways of Cain, who worshiped Samael, the angel of death (Satan), the lord of darkness.

Esau invented the scales, this is his symbol.
Cain slew Abel, and his symbol is a sword.
and the lord of darkness is represented with a blindfold.

times change?
HAH!
S.O.S.D.D.

It's not about making a ones vote count less. It's about making sure one state with a very high population can't sway an election one way or another making it so that the votes of every other state aren't represented . It's about making it so that each state is fairly represented in the election (each with there own issues that may be represented by a particular party or candidate far more than another). Obviously someone living in rural America (which is most of America as far as land mass goes) is going to be facing much different obstacles than someone in a urban area (such as education or jobs).

If you lived in a rural state, and have nothing in common with CA... would you want CA to decide your President every single election knowing your vote isn't really going to matter in the grand scheme of things? Or a select few large populated states like CA, TX, NY.

They make up for that in the EC by giving more highly populated states more EC points (so your vote still very much counts)... and then using a winner take all system.

Does anyone remember the trick for posting links with no rep?