Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
We will have to agree to disagree on the definition of a landslide.
As for the Electoral College, I think it is outdated and no longer needed. I also think it encourages disenfranchisement and corruption. Just look at the numbers. While Trump did lose the popular vote, it was still pretty close especially considering that he didn't bother campaigning in places like California or New York and Hillary didn't really campaign in places like Texas. Conservatives complain saying that we shouldn't allow the "idiots on the coasts" to run things. But should those "idiots" have to live the way someone living in a small town in Kansas decides? While I agree that someone in Kansas shouldn't have to live how someone in Los Angeles tells them to, the reverse is also true.
If it were a popular election, both candidates would have to campaign in all states to get all votes. One candidate could win every vote in California, Texas, New York, and Florida (the four most populous states) and still lose badly if the other candidate did well in other states.
|
Not really the major population centers would elect the President which involves a half dozen or so cities and I personally would not like that nor would almost all of the other people from about 45 or so states in the Union.