So for the fifth time in U.S. history a president has been elected by the unpopular vote, which is to say the electoral college voted against the will of the popular vote (majority of American voters). The first time this happened was in 1824 resulting in the election of a Democratic-Republican, the rest of the unpopular votes all went to Republicans, most recently in 2000 when Bush won the election despite the fact that half a million more Americans actually voted for Gore. In 2016 it happened again, this time by an even wider margin... close to a million more Americans actually voted for Clinton than Trump.

At first glance it seems Trump was right in saying the elections are rigged and there's a pretty strong feeling among the people that it's time to ditch the electoral college. But there was an argument during the Constitutional Convention of 1789 against the popular vote, mostly based on the idea that smaller states would be disadvantaged if that were allowed. Details of the argument can be found in the Federalist Papers No. 39 (James Madison) and No. 68 (Alexander Hamilton).

I personally feel these arguments are outdated. First of all, much of these arguments spring from a context where states had more power and so the equalization between states made more sense. Secondly, representation of the people at the federal level was also stronger and so it made sense to use congressional representation as a basis. But both conditions have changed dramatically. Commerce is increasingly expanding beyond the control of the state, making the state vs state argument less relevant. And as the population continues to grow, federal representation stays at 435 seats... this results in ever decreasing citizen to representative ratios and since population growth is typically higher in regions with already higher populations it's the citizens in those regions that are loosing democratic power the fastest.

For the 2016 election the citizens with the most federal voting power were in Wyoming where it only takes 187,875 voters to equal one electoral vote. The citizens in California, where it takes 677,345 voters to equal on electoral vote, the citizens suffer the least federal voting power. Pair this with the fact that in terms of funding Wyoming takes more from the federal government than it takes while California gives more to the federal government than it takes... Well, the situation becomes even more preposterous.

The American people are already getting tired of political games. Eventually, enough of them are going to figure some of them out, such as the electoral college and it's going to be harder to continue marginalizing the demand for better representation.

In all honesty, I would probably not be the one bringing it up but I guarantee you someone who wanted Trump to win *would* have and I would have responded with the same argument I am making now.

Loki, you won't see me refusing Trump as my president. You won't see me parroting unproven conspiracy theories about how he rigged the election. I accept the results because he won the electoral vote and that's what the current rules are whether I like it or not. So give me some credit. I believe the popular vote is a better representation of the people and that's why I'd like to see the rules change. It's that simple.

I do give you credit for realizing what the current laws are. That's more than I attribute to Obama for his actions on disregarding existing and valid laws such as immigration and others which he chooses to ignore. Until we can figure out a way to keep ghettos and other concentrations of cultural extremism, as well as low information voters who are swayed by extreme media, I guess we're going to have to live with the procedure that has served us well for several hundred years. At least, thanks for being open-minded about views opposing your own. BTW, I believe that cultural changes by themselves have served to render the Electoral College as being more necessary than it was 100 years ago.

monologue... every original post is a monologue because there is only one (mono) person involved in the conversation at that point. But I'm betting you think it has a negative connotation and that's why you made the effort to use it.
very wordy... For a monologue, I didn't think it was all that wordy but I'm already getting the impression that you're not much of a reader.
extreme leftest... is that based on my "extreme" view that every American should get 1 vote? Or is this just the way you respond to anyone you think is opposed to Trump?
I will obviously do or say anything to forward my extreme opinion... well, that's a pretty big assumption, getting a little carried away?
The Obama/Clinton disaster... Okee-dokee.
Straight Left... how clever.

So for the fifth time in U.S. history a president has been elected by the unpopular vote, which is to say the electoral college voted against the will of the popular vote (majority of American voters). The first time this happened was in 1824 resulting in the election of a Democratic-Republican, the rest of the unpopular votes all went to Republicans, most recently in 2000 when Bush won the election despite the fact that half a million more Americans actually voted for Gore. In 2016 it happened again, this time by an even wider margin... close to a million more Americans actually voted for Clinton than Trump.

At first glance it seems Trump was right in saying the elections are rigged and there's a pretty strong feeling among the people that it's time to ditch the electoral college. But there was an argument during the Constitutional Convention of 1789 against the popular vote, mostly based on the idea that smaller states would be disadvantaged if that were allowed. Details of the argument can be found in the Federalist Papers No. 39 (James Madison) and No. 68 (Alexander Hamilton).

I personally feel these arguments are outdated. First of all, much of these arguments spring from a context where states had more power and so the equalization between states made more sense. Secondly, representation of the people at the federal level was also stronger and so it made sense to use congressional representation as a basis. But both conditions have changed dramatically. Commerce is increasingly expanding beyond the control of the state, making the state vs state argument less relevant. And as the population continues to grow, federal representation stays at 435 seats... this results in ever decreasing citizen to representative ratios and since population growth is typically higher in regions with already higher populations it's the citizens in those regions that are loosing democratic power the fastest.

For the 2016 election the citizens with the most federal voting power were in Wyoming where it only takes 187,875 voters to equal one electoral vote. The citizens in California, where it takes 677,345 voters to equal on electoral vote, the citizens suffer the least federal voting power. Pair this with the fact that in terms of funding Wyoming takes more from the federal government than it takes while California gives more to the federal government than it takes... Well, the situation becomes even more preposterous.

The American people are already getting tired of political games. Eventually, enough of them are going to figure some of them out, such as the electoral college and it's going to be harder to continue marginalizing the demand for better representation.