Nate Silver predicted Trump has a 64% chance of winning the Electoral College on Sunday in an update to his latest election forecast, following the results of new poll.
You can’t read. I’m saying the popular vote is how the president SHOULD be decided and I’m asking in what way the electoral college is better. Your only suggestion so far holds about as much weight as an anti-tiger rock (“we’re still a union so it’s a good thing”)
I explained why it’s better. It provides a more equal footing for the states. The popular vote shouldn’t be used as it’s a stupid idea. It’s against the structure of our country. We are a republic. We are not a democracy. The founding fathers hated democracy. They knew we needed rails to keep the system working.
I explained why it’s better. Stability. Not sure why that answers seems to confuse you. It’s the stated reason for the system.
A popular vote would destroy the country within a few elections. No thank you.
“My anti-tiger rock works because I haven’t been attacked by a tiger so it clearly provides stability. If I didn’t have my anti-tiger rock, I would be killed by a tiger within a few years. No thank you.”
You don’t have any reasons why it’s better, I guess. Surprising :)
The burden isn’t on me. You are suggesting a constitutional change. The burden is on you as to why it’s a good idea. You would need an amendment, and 3/4 of the states must agree. That isn’t happening as logical people know why we have the current system in place and why it isn’t changing.
Typical conservative dancing around the point but not addressing it. Sad!
I clearly explained it to you. You seem to think the popular vote is how elections are won. It’s cute but not factually accurate.
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/the-electoral-college-safeguard-stable-elections
You can’t read. I’m saying the popular vote is how the president SHOULD be decided and I’m asking in what way the electoral college is better. Your only suggestion so far holds about as much weight as an anti-tiger rock (“we’re still a union so it’s a good thing”)
I explained why it’s better. It provides a more equal footing for the states. The popular vote shouldn’t be used as it’s a stupid idea. It’s against the structure of our country. We are a republic. We are not a democracy. The founding fathers hated democracy. They knew we needed rails to keep the system working.
Nowhere did you explain why it’s better and now you’re continuing to dance around the point.
Quit the bullshit and answer this concisely:
Why is a system where citizens in a few states to have disproportional power better than one where individuals are equal?
And don’t just vaguely gesture at the country again. Worse systems have lasted way longer so “see? It clearly works!” is not a valid argument.
I explained why it’s better. Stability. Not sure why that answers seems to confuse you. It’s the stated reason for the system. A popular vote would destroy the country within a few elections. No thank you.
“My anti-tiger rock works because I haven’t been attacked by a tiger so it clearly provides stability. If I didn’t have my anti-tiger rock, I would be killed by a tiger within a few years. No thank you.”
You don’t have any reasons why it’s better, I guess. Surprising :)
The burden isn’t on me. You are suggesting a constitutional change. The burden is on you as to why it’s a good idea. You would need an amendment, and 3/4 of the states must agree. That isn’t happening as logical people know why we have the current system in place and why it isn’t changing.
Didn’t answer the question and rambled about something else instead. No wonder you like Trump