>so you don't believe in one man/woman one vote ?
>
>Either you really don't get this or you are being intentionally obtuse. There was a reason that our founding fathers created the electoral college. Take a look at the voting map for 2016 and it should be fairly obvious to you. The founding fathers wanted "fly over" country to have some say in the how this country is governed. They did not want the high population centers in New York and California (of course in those days, the high population centers were different) to make decisions for the entire country.

Some smileys missing above, as most fly over country was not in existance when electoral college was established. High population center California was added after Texas IIRC ;-))

In another post you mentioned some 20 states deciding the election if popular vote was the method. IMO current way is even worse, as a about dozen swing states decide almost any prez election. You know I am NOT one of those fuming after HRC "won only" popular vote and I am totally with Kevin that the numbers woukd have been different in popular vote if candidates had targeted some states they were certain to loose in electoral vote.

I see the vote as: "less than 30% were willing to make the effort to vote for each one of the 2 main candidates", which is very close to a breakdown in german history - just from numbers alone. The trend since WWII sees declining voter turnout across all western countries. I think more checks and balances should be added (armchair general me ponders a maximum term length of 8 years as is now, but perhaps a term shortening if not a certain % of ELIGIBLE vote is reached, balanced by allowing more than 2 terms if some are shortened...).

I realize stateside is a larger interest in "winning" than over here. But the "winner takes all" modus of current electoral method leads to skewed voter turnout (following up quick googling only since mid-nineties and less% than I expected) which I think is bad in the long run.
Change the rules to make R votes in NY count at least a bit and D votes in Texas as well - perhaps by adding a "winner" bonus to delegate distribution, but make it reflect at least some of the votes cast for the candidate not on first place.

I cannot understand people to pay a couple of grands for a dinner with a candidate when they could invest in a condo in swing state and register some families in voting years there ;-))