Would I want it? Probably not. What does that have to do with anything though? Why should what I want be more valid than what more people want in the entire country, just because less people decided to live in my state?

You still gave no reason whatsoever why states are somehow more important than voters.

Bill WAS impeached. He just wasn't removed from office forcefully by Congress or by resigning. But he was Absolutely impeached.
LOL. You may not realize this, but the old white house website is archived. Whitehouse.gov is set fresh and brand new for every administration.

They aren't given an advantage. If more people choose to vote for one party then so be it. If allowing someone to be elected by a concentrated mass of voters is unrepresentative, how is electing someone who literally most of the voters voted against somehow more representative?

No it wouldn't. Didn't you understand? The idea of a supermajority is exactly to ensure that most of the nation agrees with the winner. If the population becomes even more concentrated, then you start requiring an even larger supermajority, until the win cannot be achieved without seeking the vote of both rural and metropolitan areas and the result is truly representative of the country's wishes.

And you still seem only capable of seeing voting in blocks. A county doesn't vote. Certainly not in a popular vote. You don't know how many people in those red districts voted blue, or how many people in those blue districts voted red, or how many people in either didn't bother voting because they knew their vote wouldn't count because they were going against the majority of the state. It wouldn't matter if you got 50% plus 1 vote in a state and therefore you get the majority, all that would matter is who each and every person voted for.

Yes it does. Every state has 2 senators and at least one representative, so every state has at least 3 EC votes, just like yours, and therefore not all votes are distributed solely based on population.

If the EC was based on population, each of them should represent about half a million citizens. Famous example I know:

Ohio has about 10million people, so it should have 20 EC votes, but it doesn't, it has 18. Where did those 2 votes go? To states like Rhode Island.

Rhode Island has just over 1million people, so it should have 2 EC votes, but instead it has 4.

Because of this redistribution a vote from a Rhode Islander counts for more than 2 votes from citizens in Ohio. Basically the EC pretends that fewer people live where they do and more people live where they don't. In some cases the disparity isn't so huge, but if you live in a very large or very small state it can make a big difference. According to the EC one Vermonter's vote is worth 3 Texans, and one Wyomingite's vote is worth 4 Californians.

And here seems to be a source of confusion for you: when people say that the EC favours small states over big ones they're not saying that somehow a state like New Hampshire has more votes than a state like New York, they are saying that according to population big states have less votes than they should and smaller states get more, therefore the smaller a state is less votes you will need for each EC vote you get, essentially making sure that not all votes are equal.

Clinto defintely was impeached... and acquitted on all charges.

Hopefully it's historic in the sense that in four years we'll all look back and finally—regardless of political affiliation—realize that "politician" and "savior" don't overlap in the great Venn diagram of life.

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.

Because it leads to states being completely ignored and not being represented by the chosen President that they never have a voice in choosing when their votes are irrelevant to high populated state votes that will always decide the election. Which leads to unhappy people who may or may not accept such results or to states that completely ruin from lack of job opportunities and education systems. A large reason Trump won as rural America was being left behind while urban cities flourished (to a large degree) due to Obama's global policies.

Obviously many people sat around back when America was founded and discussed this issue in depth... far more than us and decided this was the best way to provide a fair system for all states. If only we could ask them there reasoning.

The electoral college is an excellent safe keeper for liberty and freedom.

Also, the U.S. is NOT a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. if you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.

You Do Not Pledge to a Democracy.

The original version:

We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country, one language, one flag!

We need to add this back in. One Language! No more pressing buttons for other languages crap, no more flying mexican flags, cuban flags, or any other craphole nation flags.

As for you "Hillary won more votes losers"

Bill Clinton's never got more than 50 percent of the vote. Vote percentage in his two winning elections; 49% in 1996 and only 43% in 1992. He never won the majority of the popular vote - ever. A higher percentage of Americans voted against Bill than voted against Trump.

Grow Up, Try reading the Constitution instead of burning it.

nvm XD

And that didn't help. :P

Never mind. I'm out of here. :P
I might stick in the occasional stupid joke but I can't deal with all of this other crap.
Two Presidents have been impeached, and both acquitted.

100 years later we are still trying to figure out what Johnson was impeached for. :P Sure, The Teapot Dome Scandal, but good luck figuring it out. :P

Church and State were separated not to keep Christianity out of government, but to prevent government from abolishing Christianity.

Go read the History on the Church of England. Pay attention to the history between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. This country was founded specifically to allow Protestant Christianity. So that no President and no Pope could could oppress Christians.

Freedom of Religion in this country was meant specifically so that Gov. could not force people who practice Christianity into hiding, but so that it could be n the open. It is only the past 50 years that the left has said the separation is meant to oppress Christianity and that crosses must come down. It is why our President places his hand on the Holy Bible when being sworn in, it is why you are placed under oath by swearing upon the Holy Bible. The original pledge makes no mistake that God was a central focus. This was designed to be a country for Christian Freedom.

A couple issues with this argument:

1. From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (according to Wikipedia): Note that this treaty dates back to 1796, so it is far more than 50 years old.

2. The phrase "under God" was a late addition; it only started to appear in 1948 and wasn't made official until 1954. So, the original pledge did not contain the phrase "under God" in it at all, therefore it could not have been a central focus.

(Also, the US Supreme Court has ruled that students have the right not to say the Pledge of Allegiance.)

When you start out of the gate at around 260 nearly confirmed with only 270 needed you do have an advantage in the EC system. There is a small portion of those that are obtainable by Republicans, which has a much harder climb to 270, There are about 10 (give or take) battle states that decide an election.

You can argue semantics all you want... but at the end of the day, they still generally end up with nearly all the points they need to win before the election even begins providing a much easier path to 270. Republicans have to flip states that generally go Democrat, much more than Democrats usually do... not impossible but much harder to do. You can argue that is fair as you said people choose to vote for one party... but that doesn't mean they don't have an advantage in that system.

Sorry I did read part of that wrong. I am trying to multitask. This isn't perfect system either though... but really it doesn't matter. We could argue this all day and it doesn't matter. It's very unlikely for the EC to be changed or replaced without one party controlling nearly everything. Even now with Republicans having the majority they still wouldn't have enough votes to change it, and are unlikely to even want to given the results. Democrats have been losing seats for a while so don't expect this to change anytime soon.

So even it it was a better replacement, it would not matter. Even if by some miracle the roles flip and Dems get all the seats next election, they will be unlikely to change it. As I said, people generally only care when their side loses.

You obviously missed the edit. Every states gets 2 extra from senators, yes... 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. The other points are based proportionally on population size. One state gaining a large amount of population or losing a large amount of population might remove or add a point or two from other states. As the population has shifted and then needs to be made proportional again based on population size. Higher population (when compared to each other state) means more points.

I fail to see how every state having 2 EC points from senators 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. CA and TX still have these 2 EC points from senators, they lose or gain EC points based on number of representatives in turn based in population shifts (these aren't coming from the 2 extra points). I guess you could say amount of points given based on population could be disproportional. If they were to remove these 2 points from every state, I doubt the threshold to win would still be 270.

But I don't pretend to have vast knowledge on this subject... just want your saying to me doesn't make much sense based on what you said.

Probably I freely admit I am not one to get involved in politics or political discussions. I simply get tired of these post that pretend like the US was better off either way... we weren't. Or that Clinton, should have won because of popular vote... sorry that's not how they system works. Both parties knew the rules going in, even if you disagree with that system.

We have had a good amount of bad Presidents in our history, we have always endured and survived... so has the world... Trump will be no different. Hell he may even be a good President. I don't know, but I am willing to find out.

More salt is not very historic.