Don't argue with me by saying this is only a theoretical possibility. 7 percent isn't a small percentage, seeing that it's happened four times out of 56 elections. This means a person could have only 20 percent of the popular vote and still win the presidency. Also, there's a chance of faithless electors, people who cast their votes for somebody despite their population voting for someone else. This has happened a whopping 157 times. Should one person have the power to basically overwrite thousands of people like that? Sadly, I don't see a change for this system in the future, and I'm not saying there will ever be one I'm just stating a couple reasons I have as to why we should abolish the electoral college.
The point here is because DNC has lost this time. If DNC won there's no way this topic would bringing up. I just want to say to DNC supporter who still not accepted result : Grow Up! You use any single unreasonable phatetic excuse to not accept the result. What is next you would do? Go ahead do seccession from USA. California, New York State already bankrupt anyway.
The common arguement against the electoral college is that it is not democratic...... Correct. The United States never was a democracy, we are a constitutional representative Republic. The problem with direct democracy is that it is mob rule meaning the minority will always be drowned out. This is the opposite of the position that most liberals tend to hold on a podium
Do not get rid of the electoral college, it is necessary to give smaller states a voice and freedom of their own. You can reform the college based on population and balance but getting rid of it would give high population states too much power to influence the election and create a country based off that one state's will.
The United States of America is not (and was not ever intended to be) a democracy. The true reason that the electoral college exists is to limit the corruption in the system.
" It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable." -- Madison, Federalist 51
The founding fathers spent more time and effort writing the passages that created a whole new electoral system (different from any before) than any other branch of the new government - it was and still is unbelievably important. The United States are not one federally controlled conglomerate but individual states, with individual ideas and desires - a sizable portion of the country should not be able to burden the rest with values that they dont share (or may be unconstitutional). Democratic Socialism is nothing more than slavery (not of the physical but of the ideological sort). The principals of Federalism, state autonomy, and enumerated powers are the underpinning of the republic and to do away with the primary example of this is to damn the whole to failure. Further the electoral college is emblematic of intellectual diversity - it allows each state to diversify how they see fit (California and Texas are vastly different for a good reason) and forcing them to follow the majority (even if the whole of their state disagrees with the motion) is strangling that diversity.