The EC can effectively be done away with without a constitutional amendment and people are already working on it and a number of states have signed up.

It's called the National Popular Voter Interstate Compact.

The idea is if you can get enough states to reach 270 to agree to vote for the winner of the popular vote instead of the winner of the state, the electoral college vote becomes moot.

Annie, take a look at the state's that have signed that. The blue states and maybe two swing states, Pa is pending. Why would a red state sign the compact? That is the issue. States, especially red states and small states lose clout and inorder for this non amendable solution you need red states too or it needs to go to a constitutional amendment process that again needs 3/4 majority of states ratifying it and there are more states than not that than lose their special interests and power.

It will not happen regardless of its unpopularity. Right or wrong it is most likely here to stay. Lessen its power with a three tier system allowing for our popular vote for head of state to be heard.

I shudder to think of the type of world we would live in now if everyone in our history had just meekly accepted everything that would be difficult to change or hard to do. Some of the most meaningful and important changes in the history of our great country have been hard-won following long struggles for change. For example, women only gained the right to vote in this country 96 years ago. My grandmother was born into a time when she did not have the right to vote. The fight for women's suffrage was long and difficult. If people had meekly accepted the status quo because they believed people who said things couldn't be changed, then women would still not have the right to vote, slavery would not have been abolished and, actually, the United States of America probably would not currently exist because we probably would never have declared our independence from England. Most things that are worth doing are not easy, but that does not mean they cannot and will not be done.

hMK, I will ask one more time, why would any of the many states that the electorial college helps keep equal to more populated states want to change the system? It can not be changed with out the states that are protected by it ratifying and accepting the change and to change it is not only not in their best interest it would hinder their effectiveness.

Why should special interest groups and minorities accept the change that will lessen their votes either? Why would Midwest states agree to centralizing all governing power to the north east or California cause these are just a few of the ramifications that will happen if it is undone.

Clinton and Gore have no desire to change the system, they speak in favor of it and they both lost to it. They of coarse understand the entire picture better than the average voter too though.

The USA has never been a democratic nation, It is a republic with different states coming together to form a government. If we have no need for the EC we also have no need for the senate. It is not fair for Vermont to have the same number of votes as Texas and California. Our forefathers were very intelligent in forming this long running nation and many want a knee jerk reaction to change it.

Without the EC the only places the presidential candidates would worry about would be the urban areas. Wyoming and basically the whole middle of the country would not matter, only large cities. Many urban voters only worry about themselves and the sound bites they see on TV. This election shows that when some people don't get there way they want to riot and burn things down. The last 2 elections went against the other side yet there was no rioting and burning of private property.

If enough people want something to change, it can and will be changed. It may take a bit of time, but it's possible, just like all the other things I mentioned. It appears that you want to discourage people from thinking it's even possible to change or abolish the EC because you want things to remain the way they are. I, for one, refuse to be discouraged. Lol, we've amended our constitution 27 times (twice in my lifetime). It was MEANT to be changed. The National Vote Interstate Compact isn't even an amendment. Yes, it's definitely possible. There are also other possible ways to reform the EC. Plus, as more of our current crop of younger people reach the age where they can vote, I expect that many things will change....a lot. Change is inevitable.

I am not sure you understand that the issue is that not enough people want it to change. Minority leaders do not, small states and their residents do not, most politicians do not, and certainly the Republican Party does not. These groups plus others make up much more than half our country.

It can not be changed now and has not been changed yet for the exact reason that there are not enough people who on a daily basis and with a greater understanding of how our system really works who wish to change it. I am not saying anything other than there are not enough people to get it constitutionally amended and there are not enough states willing to join the interstate pack which was formed more than ten years ago and only has a handful of states( who have nothing to lose and actually gain power without the EC) thus far.

Yes, with enough it could be changed but the fact is there never has been nor will there ever be enough people to vote for a change because it is not it the majority's best interest to do so.

roarah, I've read what you've written now three times...the exact same thing. I disagree strongly with you, for the reasons I've written. It would probably be best for you to just accept that we disagree. Writing the same thing again and again isn't going to get me to believe it... I'm not the kind of person who believes something just because it is repeated over and over again. I believe in our country, our people and I know that change is inevitable. More change has happened in my lifetime that I would have ever believed possible and I'm only in my 40s. Progress happens.

Don't forget that each slave counted as 3/5 of a person for population-based assignments of congressional representatives AND for electoral college votes. If you just had a direct election based on people who could actually vote (sorry ladies!), how would the slave states have kept up?

We can't change an all-American tradition like that!

/s

I don't think that ceding presidential elections to whatever is currently in favor in the populations of New York, Los Angeles, and our other 5 largest metropolitan areas is necessarily progress -- it might be or it might not -- which is what would happen if the EC is abolished. It seems to me that there has to be respect paid to and weight given to the viewpoints of other parts of the nation. The EC does award members based on population, so the larger population centers do have more of a say than more rural areas anyway.

Lol, Fori...I suppose I should go buy some corsetts, put on a long skirt, tear up my voter registration card (or let my husband fill my ballots out for me in the future), burn my professional degree and just accept my lot in life vs thinking that everyone's vote should count the same and thinking that this is something that can and will happen in the future. ;)

-Kitties

For what it is worth, the 3/5 th clause/ compromise was added by a Connecticut abolitionist, roger Sherman and supported by Hamilton also anti slavery. Sherman and many other northern anti slavery framers of the constitution insisted on counting the slaves as less than “full persons.” Their reason for this was not to diminish slaves as less than a whole person but rather to" prevent the slave states from getting too many congressman and electoral votes lest they become too powerful and prevent Slavery from ever being abolished." The slave owner founders from southern states were fighting for each slave to be counted as one tax payed person still without their own vote.

It was a horrible thing no debating that.

if we were to elect the president by popular vote rather than electoral vote, california, new york and florida and the small north eastern states would pretty much be electing the president is this what we want? maybe......

Right now it is California, NY, New England( who vote pretty much the way I do) and Florida but with all those states losing population quickly, in ten years it might very well be the Bible Belt, Texas and North Carolina. So remember to be careful what you wish for. ;)

Howmany, You say that each persons vote should be counted equally but seem to have no problem with the Senate in which everyone's vote counts wildly differently. All Texas voters are much less represented than that of other smaller states. Is this not where your out rage ought to be focused. When educated I believe the majority of the states still favor the EC. Remember, we have never been a democratic nation but a republic. Only the states can change the constitution, not individuals. Unless you also want to do away with the constitution.

When I vote to fill an office in the US Senate, my vote counts equally with everyone else's vote in my state. My US Senators represent my state's interests in Washington. The US Senate is not the same as the office of President of the United States. The purpose and function is entirely different. So, no, I do not think it's wrong that my state has two US senators, just like every other state, no matter how large or small.

I hope you are not calling people who want to change the EC uneducated and saying that, if only they understood how it works, they'd be in favor of it. Most people who express an opinion that the EC should be abolished or reformed do actually understand what they are talking about and their opinions do not come about through ignorance, but due to a feeling that each person's vote should count equally when we elect our president. This includes people who live in states which have a disproportionate advantage in the EC.

I have a very good friend who lives in one of those smaller states where they have a disproportionate advantage in the EC. By the way, she lives in a small town that's pretty far from any major city. She's African American and she is a registered democrat. Her state always votes overwhelmingly republican, to the point where she told me that, in this last election, there weren't even any democratic candidates running for any other office except the office of US president. Her votes for a democratic president have never counted at all, in any way. All of her state's EC votes--every single last one of them--always, without fail, go to the republican candidate for president. Every. Single. Time. She wants her vote to count and I think it should. By the way, just as a side note, she's also afraid to tell people in her town that she's a registered democrat and she says she definitely would never tell anyone around there that she voted for Clinton. She feels very intimidated about expressing any of her opinions about politics where she lives (so she doesn't and feels forced to nod and agree with a lot of things, to keep her true opinions a secret). She feels this way even in her church (and she's a very devout Christian). I find this horribly sad. She has very real, very valid, fears about what could happen if she told people what she truly thinks. She says she would certainly be completely shunned, at the very least. I'm sure that's all probably fodder for a different discussion, but it is something that I think must change. It's wrong, so very wrong. We should all feel free to express our opinions without fear of reprisal. Anyway...

I also have a very good friend who lives in a state that always votes overwhelmingly for the democratic candidate. She lives in a large, highly populated, state which has a disproportionate disadvantage in the EC and she lives in a fairly large city. She is a staunch republican and is not happy that all of her state's EC votes always, without fail, go to the democratic candidate. Her vote for president NEVER counts for anything. She wants her vote to count. She wants it to count equally with everyone else's vote. She thinks this even after her candidate for president just won the election when he lost the popular vote. I agree with her that everyone should have an equal vote.

I'm sure that it's easy for some people to say that it shouldn't be the case that everyone's vote for president should count equally, especially if they are among those whose vote counts for more than that of other people because they live in a state with a disproportionate advantage on the EC AND they vote with the majority of people in their state...

You make it sound like it's not right that people who live in densely populated areas should be able to cast a vote that counts as much as people who live in less densely populated areas? I live in a small town, surrounded by farmland. The nearest large city is almost an hour away from me. I don't think my vote should count more than the vote of someone who lives in a large city when we are electing a state or US senator (or anyone else). So, why should I think my vote should count differently than anyone else's when we are electing our US president? Why should my friends' votes, discussed above, count for nothing when they vote for a US president?

Times have changed since our constitution was written and it was written with the intent that it should be changed, over time, to suit future generations. I think it's time to change this and the majority of people agree and I believe they do understand what they are talking about. I think it's only a matter of time before this changes. Maybe this latest election is just what people needed to have them get serious about doing something and things will change sooner rather than later as a result. Maybe not. But, I do think the change will occur.

Howmany, you keep repeating that the constitution is an antiquated system designed to change and why you feel the EC should be changed but again you offer no solutions on how to change it. The interstate pack you mention, after ten years of trying has not succeeded and a constitutional amendment will not happen due to lack of most states' support either. So, again the problem is not why it should be over turned but how. How to you think it will happen?

A majority of people may not indeed agree with you. This year's election with its usual low voter turn out does not represent our whole population. Furthermore, Hillary only won the popular vote by less than 2 percent and many of her voters do not wish to over turn the system so no this year will not incite the needed 3/4 of the population to agree with you that the electoral college needs to go.

Please do not repeat why you want change and what is wrong about the EC for those are really not pertinent. Please, enlighten me on how you intend to get it abolished.

Democrats have control of 13 state legislatures. They lose one more, they'll be below the threshold to stop a constitutional amendment. Democrats are probably going to lose senate seats in 2018. And we may end the next four to eight years with a 7-2 conservative majority on the courts that could last for decades.

Explain how you get the majority of states to decide to allow California and New York to decide the presidential elections for the whole country and don't get this decision invalidated by a lawsuit.

Roarah, I NEVER said the constitution is an antiquated system, whatever that means. The framers of our constitution were very forward-thinking when they wrote it. THEY designed it to change so that it could meet the needs and desires of future generations! It's not antiquated at all, but it was designed to be changed, on purpose, by some very brilliant people! You might want to read about what they said about why they wanted future generations to have the ability to change how our government works and why they designed the constitution to be a document that could be changed over time. Yes, they actually wanted us to be able to make changes.

I haven't repeated myself. In each of my posts, I have offered different thoughts. Yes, there are commonalities to my comments, but they each offer additional thoughts, feelings and my latest offers the thoughts and feelings of two of my closest friends. I realize you just want me to be quiet because you don't like what I'm saying, but...

I suggest that you do a little reading about the popularity of the EC amongst our citizens, not just now but over the years. At one point, 75 percent of people wanted it abolished.

Lol, just because the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was created 10 years ago and it's not in effect yet because more states need to sign does not mean that more states will not sign in the future. I think they will. It's a document that was written to wait for states to sign up.

You know, when a constitutional amendment was first proposed to give women the right to vote, most voting citizens and most states were against it. But, more and more states slowly came around and, in 1920, the constitution was amended and women could vote. Of course, not all the states agreed, but, it happened anyway because enough did agree. The states that refused to ratify the amendment before it was passed have all come around over time. Mississippi was the last state to ratify the amendment and they did this in 1984.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore about your ideas that because something hasn't happened yet or not enough people want it to happen this very minute that it will never happen. This is not how the world works and I think that most people realize that.

Beagles...I disagree with your predictions about what the future holds. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we? ;)

THEY designed it to change so that it could meet the needs and desires of future generations!

I could not possibly disagree more strongly with this statement!!! I'll leave it at that :)

We will have to wait and see... but I was talking about the present and a very real reality, not an uncertain future...

Democrats power is consolidated in a very select number of areas and likely will remain that way due to geographic self sorting. 1/3 of the democrats house seats come from just three states (CA, NY, MA). If you look at the sea of red on the map outside of the major cities, you will see why this will never happen. There may at times be more people who want the electoral college to change, but they are and likely always will be geographically concentrated so you will never get the states that would actually make a difference to sign on to this plan. And if you did, a conservative court (which is a virtual certainty) would be very unlikely to let it stand since the constitution is pretty clear.

Things like women's right to vote, etc. was able to get broad support across the U.S. because it did not require entire states to vote against their own interests! You cannot convince a full entire state to cede control to cities which many of the people within that state consider to be elitist and out of touch. Unless you think the majority of conservative states are going to somehow turn liberal (the demographics is destiny theory, which has been proved wrong virtually every time either party put it forth).

Beagles, I'm not sure how you can strongly disagree with me about the things they actually said and wrote and which can be found in preserved, historical, documents. Also, if they did not want us to have the ability to amend the constitution, they would not have designed, and incorporated into the document, a means for this to happen. Anyway...yeah, I really just can't continue to argue this with you. I think most people know that we were meant to have the ability to make changes to our constitution.

The founders made it VERY difficult to change the constitution for a reason. It is a foundational document of principles not meant to be modified by whim and meant to protect the balance of power among states and to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority (which is exactly what this proposed change to the electoral college rules would undermine)

Lol, beagles, the constitution has been changed 27 times. It's been changed twice so far in my lifetime. I expect it will be changed again in my lifetime. Besides, we don't even need a constitutional amendment to reform the EC. You cannot put a stop to progress and you cannot prevent change. I know some people are threatened by progress and upset by change, but, it still happens. It happens a lot. :)

By the way, in case anyone forgot, there will be a new census in 2020. That may well lead to some changes that some people will not like. States that have increased in population will have more representatives. My state has definitely grown in population. One change that might also occur due to the census results is that my state will probably end up with more electoral votes and it usually votes democratic. Still sure you want to keep the EC as it is?

27 times in 226 years. Just reading about what is involved in the amendment process is enough to bely the idea it is easy to amend the constitution, even without any further research into the founder's intent.

I'm not upset because of change, I am looking forward to the type of change I can get behind with a conservative majority on the court hopefully for a generation to curtail federal power :) I am against harmful change that would undermine the fundamental protections of minority interest and state's rights in our founding document!

Of course, maybe if the democrats do lose that last state house, we can have a constitutional convention... although I am not sure many here would like the outcome of that :)

At any rate, good luck with getting states to vote to give total power to people whose political views they find abhorrent... Won't happen in my lifetime but good luck :)

We'll just have to wait and see, beagles. I see this election as a temporary, and not unexpected, setback to progress. Two steps forward then one step back is often how things work, but we always move forward over time. You see it differently. Yet, history has shown that progress is inevitable. Each generation has ideas and beliefs that shock older generations. As older people pass and younger people reach an age to vote, things continuously move forward.

kitty, god bless your blind hope. And thanks, although I have a background in constitutional history I will take your advice and start reading only what I find in google searches for I have to believe that is where you have found your misguided information on the EC, how it can easily be changed and how many are against it....there is no feasible venue to achieve abolishing the Electorial college.

Well I for one certainly hope the democrats spend lots of time, energy, and money trying to get the electoral college changed instead of looking at what has gone wrong that has left their party decimated.

Also I think they should keep telling red and purple states how backward they are for trying to stop so-called "progress." That's the way to win hearts and minds!

Kitty, If someone votes for a senator in a state that only elects senators from a certain party that they do not support, does their vote not count. Of course it does, but since they voted on the losing side their candidate does not get to represents that state. In the same way that if someone votes for a democratic candidate for president, her votes counts, but since she is on the losing side of the states choice, her candidate does not get her states vote. Unless of course, her state decides to make their electoral college proportional, instead of winner takes all. It is the states right to chose how they choose their electoral college.

And can you really say the constitution has been changed 27 times in 226 years when the first ten changes had to happen before it was ratified. And changing the way we elect presidents would be one of the biggest changes since it was ratified.

We live in 50-50 Nation, one half "liberal," one half "conservative." That's not going to change in the short run. But we don't have a "conservative" in the White House, either. The hard core conservatives, like Huckabee and Santorum, could not get traction. Then Trump wiped the floor with the rest of the primary contenders, including the establishment group.

He seemed to take special pleasure in humiliating Cruz, the last "true" Bible based conservative standing. And there was barely a whimper on the right.

Trump got away with it.

His peeps voted for a former Democrat with opinions and views that are all over the map, and flip flop by the minute. An adulterous, profane, mean spirited, irreligious, hateful, greedy, prideful sinner extraordinaire. And they had to hold their nose to do it, because they know he's such an a-hole. But they just didn't care.

That's no triumph for the conservative program, that's a Molotov cocktail to the system! The #NeverTrumpers understood this, and tried to set up their own conservative, but they couldn't get any traction either.

The people rejected conservatism, and voted for Trumpism. Or Trump worship. God Emperor Trump. Whatever.

Look, trying to get anything done in an utterly divided nation, especially something as enormous as eliminating the electoral college, is incredibly difficult. But when Trump screws the pooch, and he will, most likely, the see-saw will go the other way. Not that it will help. 50 - 50 Nation.

But the culture has changed. We aren't going back to poodle skirts, segregated neighborhoods, and Mommy in the kitchen. The older hard line conservatives will die off. Apart from some fringe creeps, the younger ones are mostly less doctrinaire. Even the younger evangelicals tend to be more liberal than their parents. Some of them even accept gay marriage!

And speaking of marriage, we have more and more interracial and intercultural marriages. In another generation, the lines between the races will be pretty fuzzy. Hybrid cultures are already emerging. Obama wasn't just the first African-American President, he was the first openly multi-racial President. Kids are mixing in schools, jobs, the military.

Religious tolerance is baked in-- Islam is the fastest growing US religion. Diversity is getting literally encoded into our collective DNA! Despite the nutters violence and hate. So real change is already happening, not in the laws, but on the streets, and in our families, in the very bodies of our children and grandchildren.

I don't like or trust Trump, but was utterly terrified of Hillary. About 75% of the conservatives feel this way. And calling someone a fringe creep because of someone believing in older ideas. How hateful. But most tolerate liberals are highly intolerant of those that do not believe like them.

True, Trump isn't a conservative. However, republicans also have a senate and house majority, a vast majority of statehouse, and a vast majority of governships. Seems like a rejection of progressive big government to me ... and in states that voted for Obama so you can't blame it on racism, etc.

I support progress on social issues as I think many people do and I'm glad progress is being made nationwide in this area.

What I don't support is big government or intolerance of other view points from so-called "liberals." There is nothing liberal about the way opposition is shut down through constant and unjustified cries of racism which ends debate (which existed way before Trump and were applied to millions of people without reason), nothing liberal in the way conservative speakers are barred from college campuses and nothing liberal in the way rural working class voters are mocked by coastal elites.

Sconce, the post is not about right vs left, Hillary vs Donald. It is about the electorial college and how it may or may not work and why it will not be changed because to do so is impossible with out states sacrificing to much of their rights.

I can be a supporter of states rights, our electorial process, and still fight for individual rights, be a democrat, and want to see continued progress for social freedoms. Doing away with the EC is actually risky for special interest groups and minorities.

By "fringe creep" I mean white supremacists, KKK, skinheads, the type of scum who burned down the Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church and spray painted Vote Trump on it. They're full of lovely "older ideas" I'm sure, but they really are on the fringe.

Eta. Beagles, don't blame the liberals because your movement got suborned. You made a deal with the Devil, and your "base" walked away from you.

Roarah, I'm not advocating eliminating the electoral college. TL;DR: I'm saying that change is happening, has happened, and the EC is neither here nor there.

Watch watch the video today of windows of cars and businesses being broken in Portland and then let's talk about fringe creeps. There are bad people on both sides, maybe let's not judge entire political parties on the basis of their worst elements

I didn't make a deal with anyone. We've got some great fiscal conservatives in the senate and we're going to reshape the court with conservative judges. With a majority on the court in support of small government, this country will be fine for a long time.

Beagles, your Republican party made a deal with Trump. If you voted with them, you own it with them.

And let's not turn "liberals" into a straw man while ignoring the failures of your own movement. David Duke ran for the Senate this year, that guy's viler than George Wallace, for crying out loud! And not a peep from most Republicans.

If you really want people to respect you, to stop ridiculing you, then vigorously oppose people like Duke, up front and out loud, who have attached themselves to your movement like the leeches they are.

In any case, expressions of your personal preferences are not facts. What we have is an unpredictable con artist as President, one judicial appointment, a country that's one half blue, and really p.o.'ed. That's not a triumph for conservatism, that's a recipe for turmoil.

Let's not forget support of running kkk members is not exclusive, sadly, to either party! Bill Clinton supported and justified Robert Byrd as did many other members of the Democratic Party.... Racism is alive and well in both parties I am afraid.

^ Sure, that's why I mentioned George Wallace. But when you get people spray painting "make America white again" with a swastika, it's more than an image problem, it's a disease.

That's not conservatism, that's Trumpism. If the conservatives let this garbage take over the party of Lincoln, they will go down in flames. They need to stop this, pronto.

I think many did try initially to stop trump, Romney and Ryan were both very vocal in their disgust. He was so unstoppable even his own stupidity could not hinder his mass appeal. I can not fathom how he won the nomination let alone the presidency but I know it was not to be blamed on the EC ;)

I am a libertarian, not a republican :) And I was a vocal opponent of Trump... however, he was the only vehicle to stop Hillary.

And, IMO, better a con-artist who will be held accountable by the press, who has promised to appoint conservative judges (and the republican senate will hold him to that, they rejected Myers under Bush) and who has a chance of doing something good than a corrupt and tired politician who had 0 chance of doing something good.

Conservatives have one judicial appointment right now, which will put the court back to a 5-4 court. Perhaps conservatives will have up to four, for a 7-2 court. Trump promised multiple times to choose from the Heritage foundation list, which I support. And conservatives / republicans have the majority of statehouses, majority of senate seats, majority of governships, and a good prospect of improving the republican senate majority in 2018. I don't think the republicans much care if liberals are p.o.'ed or if the liberals ridicule them, just as I am quite sure the democrats didn't care when the conservatives were mad at the democrat sweep of 2008 (Remember "I Won.").

I know the conservative majorities are not likely to last at this level forever (although they may last a long time if the democrats don't wise up) but the impact on the court, even if for some reason Trump only appoints one conservative, is likely to last for a very long time and to curtail the damage progressives can do. This isn't opinion. It's a realistic assessment of the future and is the reason this election was so important to both sides.

But when you get people spray painting "make America white again" with a swastika, it's more than an image problem, it's a disease.

What about when you get people painting Die White People. Is that also a problem or a disease which the left needs to address?

This rioting (and I'm not talking about the peaceful protests, I am talking about rioters) and the doubling down on identity politics is only going to serve to reaffirm the opinion of Trump voters that the right decision was made.

Scone, Why do you mention George Wallace. He was a Democratic Governor. There was no looting, rioting in the streets, windows being broken, traffic being stopped, and motorist being beaten when the republican presidential candidate lost. But let a spoiled young democrat voter lose and they do all these things. The laws should not apply to them because, well, I guess because they are democrats.

^ The EC is an innocent bystander. There's a wiki page called "list of United States Presidential elections by popular vote margin" which I can't seem to link. It shows that the last few popular vote totals for Dems and GOP have been fairly close.

But we haven't had an election where almost everybody voted the same way since the Founding Fathers. Apparently we like to quarrel with each other, sometimes violently. Such is the price of democracy.

Gary, I guess you would have really hated the Revolution. A lot of young guys wearing femmy clothing and wigs, looting, rioting, windows being broken! Sorry if that upsets you, but democracy can get ugly when people are p.o'ed. It would have been the same if Hillary had won. That's how divided we are.

Beagles, you're essentially authoritarian, not libertarian. Go take the Political Compass test, it's fun. And yes, racism of any kind is bad. But nobody put a gun to Trump's head and made him say all that garbage, which triggered this.

With all your fabulously powerful judges, senators, governors, etc. you could not stop one man. One old guy.

You say you have all the power, so make him back down. That will help.

And with that I'm offline.

Beagles, as a heritage fan I am surprised at your dislike of both the clintons and Obamacare. Many of Bill clinton's economic policies were in accordance to Heritage advice and if I am not mistaken both Romneycare and later the affordable health care act are modeled on a 1989 heritage paper.

The political compass test was fun. I'm a left libertarian, apparently.

Scone, no it wouldn't have been. Where was the looting in 2008 and 2012. It did not happen. And it is different when people take up arms for a war. Most people did not have glass windows in 1776. The people rioting now are just a bunch of thugs looking for a reason to tear things up. They run like rats when people start firing back.

And what about that great Democrat George Wallace. You brought him up as a racist but apparently forgot that he was part of the Democrats past, not Republicans. Revisionist history, blame all racism on one party when both have had their fair share.

Yea, I am definitely not an authoritarian. But thanks. I do know the difference between political philosophies, I went to law school and follow politics pretty closely :) I also just took the political compass test and I'm a right leaning libertarian, as I expected :)

I want no government at all except the minimum necessary to ensure safety, protect private property rights, and protect free markets. I prefer conservatives in power to democrats because I want to STOP the expansion of government. I don't like Trump, I just want him to do as he promised and appoint judges that will interpret the constitution in its original form, take a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause to limit federal programs, and respect all amendments including and especially the 10th amendment.

I like the Heritage list of judges. I don't endorse everything they do :) I don't want the government involved in healthcare in any way. I dislike Hillary more than Bill, at least this incarnation of her (I don't think she actually has an honest bone in her body or believes any of the progressive stuff she spewed this election). I think she thinks she is above the law, and her entire family is basically a perfect illustration of how government power corrupts.

Beagles would your perfect system have any welfare system or Medicare and social security in place to help those truly unable to work or to help children affected by their parents choices? What about schools for the less fortunate or child protective services?

I'm commenting on this EC thread because I'm pretty passionate about American political thought. I'm hearing a lot about abolishing the EC from my democratic friends (I'm a dem too) but I dont know if they've thought it all through. I studied PS in school and took a class on voting behavior as well as many on the Constitution. Abolishing the EC wouldn't suddenly make your vote count more, because voting is part statistics and demographics, and part the art of persuasion, and part economics. Huge blocks of voters DO shift due to all of those factors. George Wallace started as a dem and finished his run as a republican and later kind of evened out as did the whole South. The New Deal, loved by us libs was forged in an alliance between working class northerners and poor white southerners. Then demographics changed, the civil right movement hit, and the Great Society was brought to us by a coalition of working class people of many races. Then the Republicans discovered race and religious politics and the South flipped into a reliable voting block that put them in the presidency several times, and now that and exploiting white people's insecurities about their economic station, has propelled the republcan party into quite a national powerhouse, if you look at where the democrats stand. We don't have the broad coalition needed to govern the whole country. All that is reflected by the EC, love it or hate it.

So yeah, think you might be happy if the NE and CA where most people live got to rule the country. Maybe today. But watch this scenario--we get into a war with Iran (you heard it here), the economy tanks even more, and the Republicans play the fear and hate card into an even larger win in the next election. All your EC energy just got totally wasted. Less than a million votes in a few areas of the country means you've got a lot of work to do if you are going to conince the majority of people in the US that you represent their interests. And calling them dumb ducks isn't going to work, I don't care what they called you or worse. That's not what motivates people to vote.

And if we abolish the EC, then you'll see even less attempt made to accommodate any type of minority ideas coming from the hinterlands, so yeah, the ones you hate, AND the ones you love. And believe me, not everyone loves my far out ideas, I get that! America is not liberal or conservative demographically, and everyone knows that, it is middle of the road. It can swing either way, and controlling the swing is the art of winning elections in the US. So I'm not going to get all excited because our nation's popular vote swung ever so slightly away from a demogogue because I know next time this country might sway even farther towards him if we don't make a more convincing case.

Abolishing the EC aint' gonna happen and it is wasting time arguing something that might not make much difference anyway. I'm going to spend my time figuring out how to turn the US economy around and make it work for a larger section of the population. The reason I am so skeptical that it will under DT is (see same old same old thread), I saw the economy TANK under the last marginally competent son of a rich man who was in office. Obama was the classiest and most policy astute President in my lifetime, but he was also quite unsuccessful IMHO in turning out policies that benefitted the working class, due to republicans blocking it, and that should have been pointed out more strongly to the working class, not how DT gets to grope pretty women. I think that behavior is disgusting, but it's not my problem the way paying for health care insurance is. I think DT's working class supporters have been sold a line of goods by a flim flam man, but I could be wrong when the republicans open up the coffers again and start the pork flowing to their constituents, (that's what's going to happen my conservative friends, lots and lots of deficit spending, and I base this on what I lived through during Reagan and Bush).

DT took a page out of the New Deal and put a xenophobic spin on it and rode it into national power. Me, being an actual New Dealer, think it is time we took it back. If we get all bogged down on race and religion we are not going to beat them at that nasty, nasty game, (not that I don't care deeply about those issues, but if they are all you have it's not going to bring the national coalition that you need). Cubbies won the penant by bringing THEIR game to Cleveland, and my party needs to bring OUR game, which is about helping the many achieve SOME parity with the few, back to the national stage. That's why I voted in the primary for an old guy with nothing to lose.

Another interesting thought about the current agitation to abolish the electoral college:

And if your beef is with the Electoral College because Trump won the election while losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, consider this.

Democrats would be the last group to champion the end of the Electoral College. Of the top three states in Electoral College votes: California (55), Texas, (38), and New York (29), two of the three are safe states for the Democrats. This gives Democratic presidential candidates a baked-in-the-cake 84-to-38 Electoral College vote advantage to start.

And the next biggest prize with 29 more Electoral College votes is Florida, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 300,000 registered voters, yet still manage to lose. Assuming a competent Florida Democratic party sometime in the future, eliminating the Electoral College means the Democrats would be tossing away a potential 103-to-38 head start in every election.

It’s Republicans who ought to be arguing for an end of the Electoral College, not the Democrats, even though the last two Republican presidents were the beneficiaries of this indirect form of democracy.

From:

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/cerabino-protesting-president-trump-not-now-and-no/ns75G/

Good 1, writersblock. This stood out for me - somewhat reflects my own thoughts:

"There’s a pre-existing name for people who believe what Donald Trump has told them. They’re called “plaintiffs.”

Some of them are the people who plunked down $35,000 for Trump University, believing in Trump when he said, “I can turn anyone into a successful real estate investor, including you.”

Last week, 60 million Americans group-enrolled in the national version of Trump University. They’re the people who bought his “I alone can fix it” sales pitch, putting blind trust in a 70-year-old salesman who has never held consistent political views or spent a day of his life in public or military service."

Only problem w/ that analogy is that he probably will not be overseeing much of the work to come; it will likely fall to the stellar roster of his appointees.