Acts20.com

Although Republicans have benefitted in the 2000 and 2016 elections by winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote, the day will likely come some day for the Demo's to have the same result. It begs the question of whether it is right and fair?In a nightmare situation, a candidate could win 50.1 percent of the popular vote in the large states and only get say 30% in the smaller states and still win the electoral college with a very small overall popular vote. Fortunately, to this point, the differences between popular votes between the losing and winning candidate has been fairly small, but the potential exists for a large difference to occur. Do the benefits outweigh the potential negative? We have enough frustration with very small differences. Imagine the chagrin if the electoral winner only had an overall popular vote of maybe 35% compared to 65% popular vote of the losing candidate. Many years ago, I actually did an analysis of the potential disparity and it was truly tremendous. (I probably did this in 2000 and I've forgotten the results). I think I did come up something in the vincity of the 35/65 situation I noted above. Regardless of how most of us feel because of yesterday's result, the potential is there that where we may not feel the same if we were the losers of a future election. The old adage applies, be careful for what you wish for.... I realize the founding fathers purposely created the college to help give strength to the smaller states to somewhat balance the disparity. I don't know how the population dispersion was during our founding, but today, NY, Texas, California, PA, Florida, hold a dramatic percent of electoral votes. Today, the cities almost always vote liberal, thus they have tremendous power in an electoral college system.

I believe it should be amended. As it stands. the States have complete sovereignty over how electors are chosen. It just so happens that all 50 allow for popular vote to choose the electors, but that is not a constitutional requirement. In earlier years State legislatures often chose the electors. But most did not have the winner-take-all system. The electoral votes were divided up between the candidates. Two States, Nebraska and Maine, divide up their electoral votes. Whatever candidate wins a Congressional district wins that district's electoral vote. Had all 50 States adopted that system before the 2012 election, Romney would have won. Personally, I believe we should go to a divided electoral votes system but eliminate the actual college of electors

No!! Absolutely not. We are the UNITED STATES of America. Each state decides how they want to send their delegates for the vote. They don't even have to hold a vote.

No

No, the system is a protection against large states (like CA) stuffing voting box to run up the vote. It is also a protection against voter fraud, and it is a safe guard against an America Caesar taking power based on the popular vote.I agree with Eddie, we are the United STATES.

Something that has been working for almost 150 years needs to be left alone.Otherwise the population centers of America will gain the upper hand by sheer number posturing & the liberals will re-align the districts so that they can stay in power. Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!Email me at: [email protected] planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!

It seems to give an advantage to the more conservative states over the larger-population, more liberal states that tend to vote wrong, so it seems to be a good thing.It kept us from having a Gore presidency in 2000. It kept us from having a Clinton presidency this time. It seems like it is a good thing. Back in the old days, the electoral college would actually get together and strike deals and decide who was president. They kept Jackson out one time that way. Maybe we could go back to that system. If we still had it, they might have selected someone besides Donald Trump, and maybe we could have had someone more conservative. The problem is, the people well wouldn't have accepted it the way things are now

We'd have to do a bit of research, but it just might serve as a counterbalance to gerrymandering

Have to go with Eddie. The only reason to get rid of the EC is if you want to hand each election directly to the democrats. As long as 51% of the country lives in the big cities, and the big cities depend on democrat social entitlements, then you are automatically giving the popular vote to the cities. For the last year and a half I've heard how the EC favors Clinton and we should get rid of it.

Have to go with Eddie. The only reason to get rid of the EC is if you want to hand each election directly to the democrats. As long as 51% of the country lives in the big cities, and the big cities depend on democrat social entitlements, then you are automatically giving the popular vote to the cities. For the last year and a half I've heard how the EC favors Clinton and we should get rid of it.Did you not notice that Trump lead in the popular vote all night until late when the California numbers came through where Hillary lead by about 7 to 3 ? We could even have a system where we just flip a coin & the one who gets the best 3 out of 4 wins being POTUS. No matter what system we have in place God will decide who will become the prez. (Daniel 2:21) Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!Email me at: [email protected] planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!