Trump voter in shock as family get deported from Trump's executive orders

[Flagg]

I don't give a fuck about the people in the OP. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Frankly it's instant karma and I wish it happened more often.

[Ralin]

but Trump made the point of Muslim ban and travel bans a key campaign pledge. You can connect the dots, can you not?

Did you miss that none of them were Muslim? They presumably assumed (stupidly) that it wouldn't apply to them. Much like those Coptic Christians who got attacked by anti-Muslim demonstrators in New York when the Coptic Christians were themselves on their way to protest the construction of a Muslim rec center near where the World Trade Center was.

[Elfdart]

We've all acknowledged that he is legally the President of the United States. The only thing being contested is your assertion that is was "democratic". And when we provided examples of why, you moved the goalposts. It's beneath you.

If it was undemocratic he is not legally the president.

The US government has never had anything to do with democracy. The word doesn't appear in the founding documents and hasn't been added since. But every president to take office has done so legally, since the electors and congress have the final say.

However, there's more to being "legitimate" than meeting the legal requirements. That's why presidents who got elected with a minority of the popular vote (John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Dubya, Trump, Hayes) were seen as illegitimate. This is doubly so in cases like Adams, Hayes, Dubya and Trump, where there was a great deal of bullfuckery going on. Were it not for the 9/11 attacks, Joffrey W. Bush would have been turned out in 2004 and flushed down the memory hole.

[K. A. Pital]

but Trump made the point of Muslim ban and travel bans a key campaign pledge. You can connect the dots, can you not?

Did you miss that none of them were Muslim? They presumably assumed (stupidly) that it wouldn't apply to them. Much like those Coptic Christians who got attacked by anti-Muslim demonstrators in New York when the Coptic Christians were themselves on their way to protest the construction of a Muslim rec center near where the World Trade Center was.

I understand, but like I said, it is sheer stupidity, because racism does not really operate based on religion. It operates based on something else (the very talk of a Muslim ban and refugee ban alone is enough to understand that sweeping generalizations will be made, and not to the favor of the refugee/immigrant). Not recent immigrants (I say this because everyone at some point traces back to immigrants, even Trumpo himself), even if they are Muslim, would not be under threat if "racially ok", I think. And otherwise those who aren't Muslim, but come from a nation which is top of the news stories about refugees, have to take extra care.

However, these people were in a vulnerable group and still the person in question voted the way he did. I mean... how stupid must one be? Your relatives come from Syria, and they're coming NOW of all times, and Trump is railing against refugees at every corner? Surely one cannot have good faith in a positive outcome and vote Trump, that would be just too fucking idiotic.

[Ralin]

I understand, but like I said, it is sheer stupidity
...
I mean... how stupid must one be?
...
that would be just too fucking idiotic.

Welcome to America. Yes They Can. They REALLY COULD believe that Trump would get rid of the Muslims and leave their family alone.

I mean hell, plenty of people voted for him because they somehow convinced themselves that Trump is on the side of the working man.

[K. A. Pital]

I understand the workers were fooled (said so earlier in the many Trump threads, it also did not help that Hillary was just openly hostile to the workers), but this is another dimension. You are a vulnerable immigrant minority, there's a guy who says immigrants are dangerous and bad and must go (hell, he railed even against the Mexicans, which are not Syrians, right?) - and you vote for him? That's... not being fooled.

It is being a total, irredeemable fool.

But enough on this. I think we aren't disagreeing that the poor dumbass in question was, in fact, a dumb ass.

[The Romulan Republic]

We've all acknowledged that he is legally the President of the United States. The only thing being contested is your assertion that is was "democratic". And when we provided examples of why, you moved the goalposts. It's beneath you.

If it was undemocratic he is not legally the president.

Now who doesn't understand the US system?

Actually, we both know that you understand it well enough to know how stupid you're being, and that you are being deliberately obtuse at best rather than conceding the point.

Their are, and have been throughout its history, numerous aspects of the US system that are undemocratic, and yet legal. The US claims to be a democracy. It aspires to be a democracy. Many aspects of its system are democratic. But it is not and never has been fully democratic, and it is entirely possible to do something undemocratic in the United States without violating a single law, the EC being perhaps the most obvious example of that.

[K. A. Pital]

Well said (even though I rarely agree with you, TRR). There are also nations with strong legal systems, but they aren't even close to being democratic in a great many aspects.

Japan comes to mind. So the US isn't alone in this problem of a strong legal foundation which isn't entirely democratic. No legal base ever is, but in case of the US you could argue about strong deficiencies from the very start.

[Thanas]

We've all acknowledged that he is legally the President of the United States. The only thing being contested is your assertion that is was "democratic". And when we provided examples of why, you moved the goalposts. It's beneath you.

If it was undemocratic he is not legally the president.

Now who doesn't understand the US system?

Actually, we both know that you understand it well enough to know how stupid you're being, and that you are being deliberately obtuse at best rather than conceding the point.

No, the US is a representative democracy. If it is undemocratic now then that is not the way a legitimate election should be concluded.

But it is not and never has been fully democratic, and it is entirely possible to do something undemocratic in the United States without violating a single law, the EC being perhaps the most obvious example of that.

So unless something is 100% democratic it will not be a democracy? So there are no democracies at all.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course no system will ever be perfect. But I would say that "the person/party that gets the most votes should win" is a fairly basic and generally agreed upon criteria, even in representative democracies.

As to your first point: No, its not the way a legitimate election should be concluded. The system is broken. But it is, at present, legal. And undemocratic.

[SolarpunkFan]

I don't give a fuck about the people in the OP. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Frankly it's instant karma and I wish it happened more often.

My thoughts exactly. They voted for him because they were thinking "oh, it doesn't affect me!". Well guess what morons, it did. And now they have to live with that fact. Not that I'm complaining though, voting for a homophobic, anti-scientific borderline neo-Nazi administration just so you could "stiggit to the sand niggers" makes you a steaming pile of shit, period.

[Lord Insanity]

The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a federal republic. People may not like it but in the US land area does matter. Each of the 50 states has equal representation in the senate regardless of size or population. Each of the 50 states has representation proportional to its population in the house of representatives. The electoral college as a method of electing the President is a combination of the two competing schools of thought. (That States should have equal versus proportional representation.) The electoral college allowing a victory opposite the national popular vote is a design feature not a flaw.

Normally a candidate like Trump would have been crushed by this system. The Democrats in their infinite stupidity decided to run a candidate that was competing with Trump for record unfavorability. Trump may be several orders of magnitude worse than Clinton but crap is still crap. Clinton actively insulted the mindless middle, Trump convinced them letting him burn the place down while their standing in it was a good idea. The family in the OP are utterly shocked that their getting burned.

Remember when everyone was laughing at Trump campaigning in Wisconsin because everyone "knew" Clinton was going to win that state anyway. Whoops.

What is the point of this, other than petty gloating?

The point is if people don't stop whining about the electoral college and focus on getting a candidate that can actually compete as the rules are written we'll be stuck with Trump for 8 years.

[Flagg]

The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a federal republic. People may not like it but in the US land area does matter. Each of the 50 states has equal representation in the senate regardless of size or population. Each of the 50 states has representation proportional to its population in the house of representatives. The electoral college as a method of electing the President is a combination of the two competing schools of thought. (That States should have equal versus proportional representation.) The electoral college allowing a victory opposite the national popular vote is a design feature not a flaw.

Normally a candidate like Trump would have been crushed by this system. The Democrats in their infinite stupidity decided to run a candidate that was competing with Trump for record unfavorability. Trump may be several orders of magnitude worse than Clinton but crap is still crap. Clinton actively insulted the mindless middle, Trump convinced them letting him burn the place down while their standing in it was a good idea. The family in the OP are utterly shocked that their getting burned.

Remember when everyone was laughing at Trump campaigning in Wisconsin because everyone "knew" Clinton was going to win that state anyway. Whoops.

What is the point of this, other than petty gloating?

The point is if people don't stop whining about the electoral college and focus on getting a candidate that can actually compete as the rules are written we'll be stuck with Trump for 8 years.

Land area doesn't equal "states". Rhode Island and Alaska get the same number of senators, but in all other aspects population size, not land area makes a state more powerful in Congress and the number of electors they get. That's why every 10 years there is a census. This is fucking 4th grade level shit.

[The Romulan Republic]

The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a federal republic. People may not like it but in the US land area does matter. Each of the 50 states has equal representation in the senate regardless of size or population. Each of the 50 states has representation proportional to its population in the house of representatives. The electoral college as a method of electing the President is a combination of the two competing schools of thought. (That States should have equal versus proportional representation.) The electoral college allowing a victory opposite the national popular vote is a design feature not a flaw.

I am forever amazed at the tendency of EC advocates to state obvious things like "the US is not a democracy" or "this is the law" as if it is some profound revelation, or as if it is in any way a meaningful rebuttal to criticisms of the EC. Again, "These are the rules" is not, in and of itself, a defence of an unjust rule.

No shit the US is undemocratic. No shit its designed to be so.

This is our fucking point.

Also, please spare me the "states' rights" bullshit. Giving equal representation to states should never supersede giving equal representation to actual people.

Normally a candidate like Trump would have been crushed by this system. The Democrats in their infinite stupidity decided to run a candidate that was competing with Trump for record unfavorability. Trump may be several orders of magnitude worse than Clinton but crap is still crap. Clinton actively insulted the mindless middle, Trump convinced them letting him burn the place down while their standing in it was a good idea. The family in the OP are utterly shocked that their getting burned.

Clinton would probably have crushed him too, if not for the FBI's criminal interference and voter suppression laws.

The point is if people don't stop whining about the electoral college and focus on getting a candidate that can actually compete as the rules are written we'll be stuck with Trump for 8 years.

So anyone who objects to an unjust system is "whining"?

Again with this idea that because something is done according to the rules, its somehow above reproach.

Fascists must find people like you very, very useful.

And you know, its not either/or. We can pick better candidates and also demand EC reform/abolition. Both are worth doing. And it is certainly in the Democrats' interests to do so, as the EC potentially makes every race an uphill battle for us, due to which states it tends to favour.

Trump's win isn't a one-off fluke. As I've said before, the Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven Presidential elections. Yet they've won only four out of seven. That means that two thirds of all Democratic Presidential defeats in my lifetime can be attributed to the Electoral College overriding the will of the voters. That is a problem.

It is not simply our fault for losing if the system is rigged against us.

Edit: Keep in mind that I am speaking as a Sanders supporter who only grudgingly supported Clinton, as well. I'm not arguing with the need for better Democratic Party candidates. But we need to address the fact that under the current rules, our candidates face an uphill battle because the system is not democratic.

[Flagg]

The United States is most assuredly a Democracy. Republics where people vote for the people that represent them are by definition "Democracies".

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps a more precise way to put it would be that some aspects of the American system are democratic (for example, in the absence of shit like voter suppression/fraud, I would consider Congressional elections to be reasonably democratic), while other fundamental aspects (especially the EC) most assuredly are not. How much of the system has to be democratic for the system as a whole to be considered democratic is something that is more a matter of personal philosophy, not something I think we can give an objective answer to.

I think we're both in agreement that the EC is not democratic, in any case.

[Lord Insanity]

So anyone who objects to an unjust system is "whining"?

Again with this idea that because something is done according to the rules, its somehow above reproach.

Fascists must find people like you very, very useful.

Says the guy that wants to strip out one of the fundamental checks and balances against tyranny of the majority.

And you know, its not either/or. We can pick better candidates and also demand EC reform/abolition. Both are worth doing. And it is certainly in the Democrats' interests to do so, as the EC potentially makes every race an uphill battle for us, due to which states it tends to favour.

Trump's win isn't a one-off fluke. As I've said before, the Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven Presidential elections. Yet they've won only four out of seven. That means that two thirds of all Democratic Presidential defeats in my lifetime can be attributed to the Electoral College overriding the will of the voters. That is a problem.

It is not simply our fault for losing if the system is rigged against us.

Edit: Keep in mind that I am speaking as a Sanders supporter who only grudgingly supported Clinton, as well. I'm not arguing with the need for better Democratic Party candidates. But we need to address the fact that under the current rules, our candidates face an uphill battle because the system is not democratic.

So instead of nominating a candidate that can actually win the large swaths of the country the Democrats are losing we should change the system so they can continue to ignore those people and win anyway? The system isn't rigged they are simply not appealing to voters they need to win.

Right now Democrats are more likely to win the national popular vote despite losing 3 out of every 5 states. What about 50 years from now? 100? Did you even consider changing the system to a simple majority wins (while good for you preferred party now) could be really stupid for your preferred party 20 years from now?

[The Romulan Republic]

Says the guy that wants to strip out one of the fundamental checks and balances against tyranny of the majority.

Their's "tyranny of the majority", and then their's making it so that winning the vote is completely meaningless. Surely their's a reasonable middle ground between those positions?

In any case, I'd consider the Supreme Court/Federal courts, and the Constitution (and the difficulty of amending it) our primary checks against persecution of the minority by the majority.

So instead of nominating a candidate that can actually win the large swaths of the country the Democrats are losing we should change the system so they can continue to ignore those people and win anyway? The system isn't rigged they are simply not appealing to voters they need to win.

What "instead of"? Did you miss the part where I pointed out its not an either/or choice? Or did you consciously choose to ignore it?

And yes, if the system is designed to give disproportionate value to the votes of smaller, often more white, rural, and conservative states, and it has cost the party with the greater support from the electorate the Presidency twice in the last twenty years, I'd call that rigged.

You say its because we're not appealing to the voters we need. Okay, then tell me why you think that rural white conservatives' votes should matter more? Or that small swing state voters' votes should matter more than the votes of Republicans in blue states, or Democrats in Red states?

Because what you're saying sounds a lot like, to paraphrase George Orwell, "All voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others".

Right now Democrats are more likely to win the national popular vote despite losing 3 out of every 5 states. What about 50 years from now? 100? Did you even consider changing the system to a simple majority wins (while good for you preferred party now) could be really stupid for your preferred party 20 years from now?

Yes, it could hurt us in the long run. I know this may be hard for you to believe, but I am not adopting my current position out of pure self-interest*, or because my desire is perpetual Democratic Party rule. If Trump had won the popular vote, I'd still hate him and want him impeached for his crimes, but I'd have a lot less qualms about considering him a democratically elected President.

All I ask is that we all be able to campaign on a level playing field, according to rules that are fair. Why is that such a terrible thing?

*Actually, getting rid of the EC would potentially reduce the power of my vote considerably, as I am a registered voter in Colorado, a swing state.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Says the guy that wants to strip out one of the fundamental checks and balances against tyranny of the majority.

What protection is it, exactly? Do the electors regular go Full Faithless? No. The only function the EC serves is to make voters in Wyoming more powerful than voters in California, and to completely nullify the votes of the minority party in any given state. As the country gets more urbanized with a cap on its total numbers, the EC is going to more and more fail to reflect the will of the people.

How is going with the will of the people in an election a tyranny of the majority? Protections against that come from things like the Bill of Rights, and the court system. Why should we instead have a tyranny of a minority?

[Simon_Jester]

Right now Democrats are more likely to win the national popular vote despite losing 3 out of every 5 states. What about 50 years from now? 100? Did you even consider changing the system to a simple majority wins (while good for you preferred party now) could be really stupid for your preferred party 20 years from now?

May I simply ask, why should the opinions of people in three tiny states count for more than the opinions of people in two huge ones?

Similarly, why should a state where 60% of the population votes Yellow or whatever automatically result in the Yellow candidate getting all of that state's support?

Do you actually have answers for those specific questions?

[The Romulan Republic]

Says the guy that wants to strip out one of the fundamental checks and balances against tyranny of the majority.

What protection is it, exactly? Do the electors regular go Full Faithless? No. The only function the EC serves is to make voters in Wyoming more powerful than voters in California, and to completely nullify the votes of the minority party in any given state. As the country gets more urbanized with a cap on its total numbers, the EC is going to more and more fail to reflect the will of the people.

How is going with the will of the people in an election a tyranny of the majority? Protections against that come from things like the Bill of Rights, and the court system. Why should we instead have a tyranny of a minority?

And really, "preventing tyranny of the majority" is a hilarious argument to use in defence of a system which, as you said, effectively undermines the value of the vote of every single supporter of a minority party in a given state.

[Scottish Ninja]

May I simply ask, why should the opinions of people in three tiny states count for more than the opinions of people in two huge ones?

I'll go ahead and say that the opinions of people in the huge states counts for plenty - in their own states, where they're free to run the affairs of their state as they wish. But the federal government ultimately represents the power to dictate to states, and to resolve differences between them. It seems, well, fair to me that small states get a handicap in those negotiations.

And just to illustrate the point - if the three tiny states are mostly populated by minorities (and this is very pointedly not the actual case) then I think almost no one on this board would question why they should have increased political power on the federal stage - to better check the ability of the two huge ones to extend racist policies nationwide.

Otherwise, I mislike half-measures; if you really want every person's political voice to be equal nationwide, then abolish states and implement a unitary government, or at least claim that as your goal. I'm skeptical I'd like it better than what we have now, but I think there are plenty of legitimate arguments for it.

As to your second question; I myself don't have any specific answer to that question other than that, again, that's how the state decided to do it, which is their right; and it is not necessarily any more or less legitimate than: the state legislature choosing which candidate to support (the historical South Carolina method); electoral votes being awarded proportionally based on each candidate's share of the vote in that state; all electoral votes being awarded to the winner of the national popular vote; electoral votes awarded proportionally based on candidates' share of the national vote; or electoral votes awarded partially on the basis of the statewide vote and partially on the popular vote within each Congressional district (as is done in Nebraska and Maine, and which I kinda like). But it seems that most states have pretty much settled on that method, probably mostly as a means of maximizing their political influence at the federal level. (I mean, ya think?)

[Simon_Jester]

May I simply ask, why should the opinions of people in three tiny states count for more than the opinions of people in two huge ones?

I'll go ahead and say that the opinions of people in the huge states counts for plenty - in their own states, where they're free to run the affairs of their state as they wish. But the federal government ultimately represents the power to dictate to states, and to resolve differences between them. It seems, well, fair to me that small states get a handicap in those negotiations.

See, now, if that were all the federal government was, a body that regulated and governed the states, I could support this.

In other words, if we had a con-federate system of government, I'd agree with you. But we don't.

Maybe that was the idea in 1789, but it hasn't been since at least 1865. And pretty much everyone in modern America wants it that way. Even if we don't agree on what the exact policies of state and federal government should be, we all agree that the federal government is not just the government-over-the-states in some sort of quasi-feudal hierarchy that runs "I am a citizen of State A, which is answerable to the federal government in disputes with States B through Z."

I am not a citizen of State A. I am an American citizen, who happens to be a resident of State A. I have very strong direct obligations to the federal government, and it has very great power to command and control my life. The federal government's relationship with my state, and my state's relationship with me, are not nearly so important to my rights and welfare as the federation government's relationship with me personally.

And in many ways, that relationship has little to do with whether I live in State A or State B. I still pay the same federal income taxes, I still get defended by the same military, I still receive (or stand to lose) a lot of the same federal welfare programs. My rights are still secured by the same federal constitution.

We don't elect a president to represent states. The fifty state legislatures are not the president's constituency. The American people as a whole are. Each of us individually is equally affected by the president's actions and power. And giving some of us reduced (or no) opportunity to influence the outcome of presidential elections, because our opinions don't count, because we live in the wrong state, is grossly unfair.

This is not a confederacy, and the president (like the House of Representatives) does not exist to represent the states. Therefore there is no reason why "thirty states say yes, twenty states say no" should matter to the question "should this man be president?" Not when, say, "55% of the people say no, 45% of the people say yes."

Otherwise, I mislike half-measures; if you really want every person's political voice to be equal nationwide, then abolish states and implement a unitary government, or at least claim that as your goal. I'm skeptical I'd like it better than what we have now, but I think there are plenty of legitimate arguments for it.

There are two reasons that come to mind to oppose this.

One is that there is no realistic way to govern three hundred million people without devolving a lot of authority to the provincial level. The United States actually has at least three layers of nested provincial and local governments below the federal one: state, county, and city. Abolishing states or abolishing their legislatures would be pure folly. All it would do is remove a useful administrative structure.

The other is that there IS a valid need for the interests of the provinces to be represented. The thing is, we HAVE such a body- the Senate. The Senate very much exists to represent the states. Many of the powers specifically given to the Senate are related to this.

Like the power to block spending bills, though not to initiate them. Because there are good reasons why budgeting should be under popular control. But also good reasons why small provinces should have someone in a position to stand in the path of a spending bill that leaves them out in the cold, and say "stop."

I don't have a problem with SOME body within the federal government existing to represent all states equally.

What I disapprove of is having a single, isolated federal office that is held on a winner-take-all basis by a single person, but whose "constituency" is determined by some bastardized version of the three-fifths rule that effectively says that the opinions of people in small states and closely contested states matter more, while the opinions of people in big states and less contested states matter less.

Is the president an elected representative of the states, like the senators are supposed to be? Or is he an elected representative of the people, like members of the House of Representatives is supposed to be?

...

I'd actually be reasonably content with a system that used the Electoral College, but apportioned the votes evenly among all states by population, rather than randomly giving every state a +2 bonus. If we took the simplest possible approach (subtract two electoral votes from every state and reduce the Electoral College to 438 votes)... Hm. It looks, doing a fairly superficial analysis, like Trump would still have won the election, by a slightly narrower margin (244-187, with seven votes presumably 'going wild' as historically).

I wouldn't be happy with that outcome, obviously, but I wouldn't be so inclined to complain about the system that produced the outcome. It might still raise questions about fairness. Since even under this system, hundreds of thousands of extra Democratic voters in, say, New York and California wouldn't contribute a thing to the electoral college outcome, while a few tens of thousands of extra Republican voters in Pennsylvania flip the state and give Trump a 36 point margin of advantage- as opposed to 40 in real life.

But there wouldn't be this completely arbitrary stacking in favor of whichever party appeals to the people who live in low-population states the most. It would simply be a matter that broad appeal and being able to win 51% majorities in many places is better than narrow appeal and having 70% majorities in few places. Which isn't so bad, because it actually IS about who has broad appeal then, as opposed to being about who most successfully sells their campaign to the 'special' voters whose votes are 'more equal than others.'

It would be neutral even if the outcome didn't seem fair all the time.








As to your second question; I myself don't have any specific answer to that question other than that, again, that's how the state decided to do it, which is their right; and it is not necessarily any more or less legitimate than: the state legislature choosing which candidate to support (the historical South Carolina method); electoral votes being awarded proportionally based on each candidate's share of the vote in that state; all electoral votes being awarded to the winner of the national popular vote; electoral votes awarded proportionally based on candidates' share of the national vote; or electoral votes awarded partially on the basis of the statewide vote and partially on the popular vote within each Congressional district (as is done in Nebraska and Maine, and which I kinda like). But it seems that most states have pretty much settled on that method, probably mostly as a means of maximizing their political influence at the federal level. (I mean, ya think?)[/quote]

[Simon_Jester]

GHETTO EDIT: Here's the second half of my post.

...

Another system I could feel more comfortable with would be if there were 438 'popular' votes apportioned purely based on the national popular vote, and then 100 'state' votes apportioned by state. That would at least be honest, we'd recognize that there were two fundamentally separate constituencies at work here. It would effectively be a nationwide version of what Maine and Nebraska do, except with a single Electoral College delegation representing the people of the nation, instead of one for each state.

Rounding down in all cases, this would give 210 popular electoral votes to Clinton, 201 to Trump... and 14 votes to Johnson, 4 to Stein, and 2 to McMullin. Some votes went to what Wikipedia only lists as "others," which explains where the last seven votes go, combined with the rounding-down.

Factoring in the state votes (presumably going to the person who won the popular vote in each state), and... and Trump wins by a much narrower margin, 261-250, with a number of votes going to various minor candidates. Under something like the current American system, nobody has a clear majority in the Electoral College (which in this case would be 266 votes). That would result in the election going to the House, which would have been a fascinating outcome. Or you could have an outcome where the minor candidates have the option of endorsing one of the two big players, which would have been very odd in this election.

I mean seriously, a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump with Johnson and Stein in a position to play kingmaker... I don't even know what to make of that. But that's a fairly accurate reflection of what the popular vote in this election actually did, because all the Johnson voters and Stein voters could have easily swung the election by switching to one or the other of the major candidates.

I think that, while it might still produce the same undesired outcome, this system, too, would be less toxic for American politics as a whole. It would also force the major parties to take minor parties much, MUCH more seriously, which would be advantageous.

As to your second question; I myself don't have any specific answer to that question other than that, again, that's how the state decided to do it, which is their right; and it is not necessarily any more or less legitimate than: the state legislature choosing which candidate to support (the historical South Carolina method); electoral votes being awarded proportionally based on each candidate's share of the vote in that state; all electoral votes being awarded to the winner of the national popular vote; electoral votes awarded proportionally based on candidates' share of the national vote; or electoral votes awarded partially on the basis of the statewide vote and partially on the popular vote within each Congressional district (as is done in Nebraska and Maine, and which I kinda like). But it seems that most states have pretty much settled on that method, probably mostly as a means of maximizing their political influence at the federal level. (I mean, ya think?)

I agree that this is what has happened.

Part of my objection is that I don't think the states really should have the right to make internal decisions about how to apportion electoral votes. Because, again, the president represents the American people, not the state legislatures.

So long as the system as we know it exists, of course, the best I can hope for is that states will use that power responsibly. Nebraska and Maine's system is promising and interesting, for example. As are the states that support the interstate compact to back a popular vote winner.

But as a fundamental principle, it should not be up to the state governments to decide how federal elections are carried out.

[Lord Insanity]

Regarding the electoral college, the real problem here is Public Law 62-5 that went into effect in 1913. It fixes the maximum number of representatives in the House at 435.

In Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution we find, "...The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative..."

Realistically speaking the House of Representatives should be at least an order of magnitude larger than it is with a proportional increase in electoral votes across the board. This more than anything else is what is "rigging the system."

How is going with the will of the people in an election a tyranny of the majority? Protections against that come from things like the Bill of Rights, and the court system. Why should we instead have a tyranny of a minority?

May I simply ask, why should the opinions of people in three tiny states count for more than the opinions of people in two huge ones?

Similarly, why should a state where 60% of the population votes Yellow or whatever automatically result in the Yellow candidate getting all of that state's support?

Do you actually have answers for those specific questions?

All of this ties together really.
First off when I use the term state or states (lowercase) I am refering to the people in those States. (Capitalized)

For illustrative purposes lets use hypothetical states A, B, C, D, and E.

A and B have a population of 5 million. 2 Senate seats plus 5 House seats give each 7 electoral votes.

C, D, and E have a population of 3 million. 2 Senate seats plus 3 House seats gives each 5 electoral votes.

A = 5mpv (5 million popular vote) 7 ev (7 electoral votes)
C = 3mpv (3 million popular vote) 5 ev (5 electoral votes)

A + B = 10mpv 14ev vs C + D + E = 9mpv 15ev
A + C = 8mpv 12ev vs B + D + E = 11mpv 17ev
A + D = 8mpv 12ev vs B + C + E = 11mpv 17ev
A + E = 8mpv 12ev vs B + C + D = 11mpv 17ev
B + C = 8mpv 12ev vs A + D + E = 11mpv 17ev
B + D = 8mpv 12ev vs A + C + E = 11mpv 17ev
B + E = 8mpv 12ev vs A + C + D = 11mpv 17ev
C + D = 6mpv 10ev vs A + B + E = 13mpv 19ev
C + E = 6mpv 10ev vs A + B + D = 13mpv 19ev
D + E = 6mpv 10ev vs A + B + C = 13mpv 19ev

Of the 10 possible combinations of 2 vs 3 states only one leads to a lower popular vote total having a higher electoral vote total.

The reason for this is it forces candidates to actually care about the smaller states. If a candidate could win the election just on A + B they would never bother with C, D, and E. The ability to win despite losing the popular vote is what gives the smaller states a chance to not be dominated by the larger ones. It is still only a 10% chance in this perfect idealized hypothetical.

In real life the nubers are messier but the concept is still the same. Ideally all states would be battleground states. That many states are considered a "lock" for one party and only a few states are actually "in the game" is entirely the fault of the parties themselves. Any state that is a "lock" for one party is because the other party is utterly failing at addressing the concerns of that state. Its not the systems fault that is happening. There is a suggested tweak that would significanly help this propblem.

Here is an article from MIT about the work of physicist Alan Natapoff published in 2004. In it Natapoff suggested the following improvement to the system.

Natapoff's suggested tweak: keep the state-based determination of electoral votes, but change the way they're apportioned. Give the winner in each state the total number of popular votes actually cast in the state that day, plus one-quarter of the number of votes cast in the average state, to replace the two senatorial electoral votes per state awarded under our present system.

In Natapoff's proposed system, a voter also could choose to cast a blank ballot, which would not be counted for the winner. "This would let the supporters of the underdog punish a leading candidate who is hostile to them," he said.

A registered voter casting a blank ballot in an election is analagous to a poker player with weak cards folding in a game, according to Natapoff's scheme. He believes that just as a poker player may choose to fold rather than enrich the winner's pot, a voter should be able to cast a blank ballot rather than enrich (i.e., help elect) a candidate she dislikes.

Natapoff also insisted that determining a state's electoral votes by the number of votes actually cast would encourage eligible voters to come out on election day, because every vote cast would make a difference in the national count. Under the current system, states are assigned electoral votes based on population, not by the number of actual voters. And voters can't change that on election day.

I fully agree with this change and it address most of the concerns people have with the system in its current form.