Was Electoral College a mistake ?

Just as, inversely, you can spread people across electoral colleges, so can you lockdown on urban hubs and advocate clustering in those hubs, with the result that you can pack people into a political idea's area of influence. The more despicable Euro progs call this massive-scale house-downsizing 'urbanisation', or even, 'urban centralisation'.

>Unless a Republican wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote, then it'll change in a matter of months
Still wouldn't. There's not a state between the coasts that would give up the electoral college and you need to convince 38 states to ratify it. There is no conceivable situation outside of some Reconstruction-Era-style politicking where the Electoral College goes away.

>National Popular Vote Compact
In the event it actually changes an election, it would be challenged and likely struck down as unconstitutional by a non-judicial-activist SCOTUS.

most of the country voted for Trump. look at the map carefully. clearly, most of the nation was in support of trump. popular vote is irrelevant, we use an electoral college instead. you should read up some on how american elections cyles work before bringing up irrelevant nonsense like that.

No it's a failsafe against having one large population center decide the president, hiliary took 20 states trump took 30 that means more people in more states wanted him in.
It makes sense Desu and the only reason why democrats are mad about it now is because they lost

>most of the country voted for Trump
but he lost the popular vote. most of the country didn't vote for trump.

Because they didn't all 30 of those states that voted for him did, completely different than two cities deciding each election

He means by landmass. And possibly by tons of bodyweight.

what are you talking about? look at the map in , clearly a vast majority of the country was in favor of trump. how is the "popular vote" relevant at all? that's now how elections are determined in the united states. why are you bringing it up? you should do some research.

More like, they are mad that they keep losing electores and winning the popular vote. Even Nixon considered that system retarded, but the legislation to change it failed in senate.

>vast majority of the country was in favor of trump
more people voted against him than for him.

counties in chucklefuck corn country with 10,000 people don't mean anything

more people voted against him than for him

the electoral college clearly failed

Even Trump thought it was bad.

To be honest, corn country still gets their 2 senators, and senators can obstruct a president pretty well.

You know whare similar between the senate and the electoral college? Both were designed for equal representation for each state. People in Wyomming might as well not vote with how small their population is and how quickly California could smother those votes and the votes of other states. I'm guessing your not American or atleast didn't pay attention in APUSH

So you're saying that people who live in the middle of nowhere should have their votes count more than people who live in cities. How is that a logical system?

>Even Nixon considered that system retarded, but the legislation to change it failed in senate
Nixon disliked the modern electoral college because it was more difficult to circumvent and secure for any one party whereas the popular vote can very easily be circumvented and/or secured. Nixon very much wanted to secure POTUS for the Republicans as Democrats had done after FDR.

>the electoral college clearly failed
It succeeded. The people in California, a commonly blue state, should not have more say about who represents Nebraska, a low pop red state, as President than Nebraskans. Similarly, the people of Texas, a commonly red state, should not have more say about who represents Vermont, a low pop commonly blue state, as President than Vermontians. The situation between what each state differs so wildly that to obstruct their voice in the Presidential election by moving its control to solely urban population centers would breed even more resentment and sectarian conflict than exists currently. You're basically begging for civil war by effectively stating that the vast majority of states do not deserve a voice.

Because the status quo is like that and people that benefit from the status quo like that.

because we three toothed yokels own the farms that feed you while you shit on us constantly

>why should Ohio and Wisconsin decide the election if nyc and San Fran shouldn't?
Because we're dealing with two completely different sides of the United States.

If it constantly came down to urban cities and their cosmopolitans, you're essentially electing presidents who do not represent what half of the country desires. It'd be an absolute monopoly over power and it will not change.

The Electoral system works because it allows smaller states to compete fairly with larger states, thus allowing for a fairer representation.

It's fair in that the candidate who got perhaps 100k more pop votes (but lost) should have actually bothered to appeal to the rural parts/Rust Belt of the US. Just watch, the DNC will be seriously changing their tune to a more working class every man party instead of the embarrassing shit it is today.

The pop vote is bullshit. If Clinton wanted to win, she should have made effort to appeal to an absolutely disillusioned group of Americans. But she relied on the blue wall to stand firm but never bothered to check the foundations, these foundations were under some serious stress.

It's fair, get over it. Unless you just love the thought of Liberals staying in power for eternity.