What do you think the repercussions might be if, in 2020, the Electoral College doesn't vote with the American people, just like in 2016?

Not going to happen because right now Trump’s approval rating with registered voters is about 41 % and that is not going to get him a majority of votes.

Biden is preferred in enough states that would give 297 Electoral College votes and you only need 270 EC votes to win.

The electoral college is a not an independent voting body. Their vote can be mandated by state law, and the Supreme Court has ruled in support of such restrictions. It’s different than a 50 state popular vote, but it does operate under a fixed set of rules, and in accordance to the votes of American citizens.

@Smashley: In 2016, the popular vote was won by Hillary but the EC voted for Trump.

The EC drains many people’s motivation to vote. We need to get rid of the damn thing.

@jca2 – The American system is not based on a national popular vote. In fact, many countries (Canada, UK) also do not have a national popular vote. The fact the EC winner is sometimes different than the winner of the national popular vote is concerning, but not “wrong”. The candidate with the most votes in a state wins that state’s electors. The EC doesn’t have its own say. There are rules, and the rules are understood going into the election

So far it’s been wrong every time.

@Dutchess_lll – In what sense? In modern history, it’s only happened twice that the Electoral College vote was not in line with the national popular vote. It does make a certain sense to use just a national popular vote, but it hasn’t even been an issue until this century.

It will increasingly become an issue, just as the Facts about the Senate become increasingly dubious as California is accorded equal status with Rhode Island

They gave us trump and GW Bush.

GW received 271 electoral votes; one more that what is required, his brother and hanging cads gave us GW Bush

@stanleybmanly – Probably true about the EC becoming more out of synch with democracy, though I respect the concept of the senate as a balance to the house.

@Tropical_Willie Might want to brush up on real history. It was the DEMS that wanted to count hanging and dimpled chads…not the Repubs. The governor, Jeb Bush, had nothing to do with the recounts…that was the AG, Katherine Harris, that had the responsibility for the election results and she did exactly what the law required. In fact, she even went farther that the law required to bend to the demands of the Dems. And they still lost. Just out of curiosity, will the left ever accept an election they don’t win?

Repercussions if Trump wins again? that’s easy. BLM and Antifa will strap on their jackboots and try causing as much hate and discontent as they can.

@Dutchess_lll – Those two are indeed horribly damaging Presidents. However, they legitimately won their elections based on the rules of the game. If the opponents had strategized more to the EC and less the popular vote, they might not have lost.

@stanleybmanly The problem you and all the other fine folks here have with the EC is that you start with the idea that it is out of touch with Democracy. That is an error in itself. We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. The EC is specifically designed so all 50 states get a say in the presidential elections…not just a few large population centers.

We do not need it any more.

@Dutchess_lll I would suggest we need it more now than ever. The population of this country is so lopsided the EC makes more sense than ever.

@seawulf575. the problem with that definition of the “republic” is that it neglects the fundamental precept of the will of the majority. Whether the population chooses or is forced to concentrate in metropolitan areas, the idea that hayseeds and hillbillies deserve an advantage merely for occupying wasteland is ridiculous on its face. Any system devised to unfairly advantage an area specifically because no one wants to live there is worthy of questioning.

I don’t understand the idea that everybody in a state will vote the same way.

“Everybody” is of course exaggeration. But we all recognize the utility in the categorization of red and blue states.

@Dutchess_lll “the idea that everybody in a state will vote the same way.”!

I don’t understand what you are saying do you think everybody, for whatever reason, votes for only one candidate?

@stanleybmanly The problem with your idea of the will of the majority is that it doesn’t apply to a republic, per se. You are treating this as one country with one huge central government. If that was the case, your idea might hold water. But we aren’t one country. We are a group of 50 states, all sovereign with their own governments, their own needs and desires and we have one government that is supposed to be the point were common problems are solved or issues that involve foreign matters are addressed. So to say strictly that the will of the majority should carry the day is a complete error. By that logic, if you could win NYC, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia and a couple others, you should control all that goes on in Iowa, Nebraska, Hawaii, etc. So all the other states become subservient to a few major metropolitan centers. That isn’t how we were designed. We have a House of Representatives that is structured based on the population distribution and the EC follows those numbers as well. So the majority is represented in the EC, but it doesn’t exclude all the states.

We can argue this all day long, but any system of elections that allows results favoring the minority of votes cast is not only deserving of criticism, but flagrantly at odds with the very purpose of the elections themselves.

Here’s a thought for you: Trump won the election fair and square in 2016. The fact that the Dems and Hillary felt they were assured of a win and did nothing to run a good campaign says nothing about Trump. He ran the race to the right finish line.

Exactly He was handed the Presidency DESPITE clearly losing the popular vote. What difference should it make in how skillful a campaign Hillary mounts if she can accrue more votes than the fool and he still winds up President? What’s the point to the election if this is the case?

@stanleybmanly – I get that it’s a bit weird that the popular vote doesn’t have to align with the winner of the EC, but thems are the rules, and the fact that Hillary, who I still think would be a good President, didn’t play better to the predetermined rules, doesn’t mean the system is broken in this particular way. Many countries do something similar; rather than a popular vote, power is given to the winner of the plurality of districts. Basically every parliament does this. Should there be a federal law that forces electors to vote to their states choice? Yes. The popular vote amendment many states have passed is an intriguing solution, but I worry about the power it gives individual states to pull out and collapse the agreement.

I think if it happens again there will be more marching in the streets.

I think if Trump stays in office and royally screws up the country to the point that even Republicans start getting harmed by his actions and start to become afraid of his leadership that there will finally be a chance the EC will be changed significantly in some way or done away with. I’d argue that proportional voting by representatives will most likely be the outcome in many states. Although, I also heard once that this still will not work out to always represent the will of the voters. I guess because of the distracting. I think some states have already switched to the electoral votes matching the national popular vote, but that is different from what I’m saying.

The good thing about having electors is if the populous is bamboozled by propaganda, maybe the representatives who know more about what happens behind closed doors does the right thing and votes against the people. That’s shaky though, it could be used for bad also.

Even if Trump wins I think Democrats are going to win big in Congress in November.

With covid I don’t see how things don’t start to unravel in the country. In October we will likely start to see the stock market dip like almost every October. That will make people nervous. Businesses will continue to close. I don’t see how people don’t get nervous no matter who is president. If Trump stays in office, our national debt will get bigger and bigger. He has already proven he doesn’t give a damn about lowering it. If he does care about the deficit he has proven he doesn’t know how to lower it. He had a booming economy and the debt only got bigger.

Covid took care of our Southern border, so Trump, and especially Q and other groups already messaging about BLM, will focus more and more on minorities in the country who are already here. The question is, will the minorities band together and make change happen. They will be part of changing the EC.

@Tropical_Willie I think @Dutchess_III means that most states the electors give the candidate with the most votes ALL of the electoral votes. It doesn’t represent the people of the state, it represents only the majority winner.