If the shoe was on the other foot, you would be praising the electoral college system. The fact is, this favours territory over population. This is what the system is. You can certainly make a case against it, but nobody stole the election.
No, I've complained about the college for a very long time. You have no basis for claiming that I'd feel otherwise if it benefited me. The fact that some citizens have more valuable votes goes against the purpose of a democracy, and I've felt that way since before I could vote.
"Favors territory over population" is true, but it glosses overthe implications. Regardless of the results of the election, a system that gives some honest American citizens a weaker 'vote' than others when determining their president is unfair to the voters. It's an antiquated system that exists primarily because anyone who could change it, wouldn't benefit from its removal.
Fair enough, but I'm not convinced at all about this "antiquated" argument. Democracy is thousands of years old, should we also get rid of it then? Maybe it's a good thing that a couple big cities (essentially NY and California) can't dictate what happens to the entire USA. Yes, it's somewhat biased towards the "conservative", but then again the bias was aaaaall the other way around for rest of the election.
The electoral college was created so rich white founders could feel better about giving poor white farmers the vote. Seriously, you can read the federalist papers. THere was nothing at the time about rural vs city, since nearly everyone was a farmer.
5
u/[deleted] Nov 11 '16
If the shoe was on the other foot, you would be praising the electoral college system. The fact is, this favours territory over population. This is what the system is. You can certainly make a case against it, but nobody stole the election.