LADIES AND GENTLEMEN......lay your money down,guess the outcome

No, they don't. Look at England. They don't directly elect the Prime Minister. They elect the party members who vote in the Prime Minister who is elected by members of the Parliament.

Same with other Parliamentary systems. K, you really need to actually do your research and not accept the daily DNC talking points.

In nations like Germany and Israel, you can get minor parties that wield huge influence much more than their actual voting numbers because one of the major parties needs a few more votes to reach a majority in Parliament.

And look at France, the conservative party won the election, but an alliance of left wing parties banded together to keep Macron in power.

So K, please retire that old Democrat lie that majority vote rules. It doesn't.

Tell me exactly how the electoral college represents ALL the people. Convince me that the vote of a person in Montana is equal to the vote of a Californian.

Then, list a democratic country that also uses a system similar to the EC, rather than popular vote.

koobookie wrote: Tell me exactly how the electoral college represents ALL the people. Convince me that the vote of a person in Montana is equal to the vote of a Californian.

Then, list a democratic country that also uses a system similar to the EC, rather than popular vote.

The United Kingdom.
You have 30 parliamentary seats. The Labor Party can win 10 of those seats 90 to 10% so that 3 million votes go to the Labor Party candidate for those districts. The other 20 seats they lose 47-53% and 3 million Labor votes in those districts don't count.

So the Labor Party can win the popular vote and still not win the House of Commons and the Prime Minister will be a conservative.

All parliamentary systems run this way.

You should study more foreign politics before you trash America's Electoral College.

Notice I provide well reasoned answers to your questions and you refuse to answer mine or falsely accuse me of being a part of MAGA and also calling me a Trump supporter.

You falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth while you tar me with a broad brush. You don't know my sources.

That's not even close to the electoral college. Try again, Fred.

koobookie wrote: That's not even close to the electoral college. Try again, Fred.

Yes it is. States appoint electors after their popular vote is counted.

The parliamentary districts appoint their electors after their popular votes are counted. Those electors vote in the Prime Minister. This is exactly like the US electoral college.
But in Britain the electors go onto to become parliamentarians.

There is actually a provision in our constitution where if the electoral vote is 269-269, the House of Representatives chooses the President. Each state gets one vote. IIRC, John Quincy Adams won this way.

koobookie wrote: Convince me that the vote of a person in Montana is equal to the vote of a Californian.

.

Anyone who can say that is either too ignorant too stupid or too Pathologically partisan to have a conversation with.

Blazer Bob wrote:

koobookie wrote: Convince me that the vote of a person in Montana is equal to the vote of a Californian.

.

Anyone who can say that is either too ignorant too stupid or too Pathologically partisan to have a conversation with.

She keeps using bumper sticker quotes when you can tell she doesn't really understand the history of what she is discussing. Makes her look uneducated.

You're right, Fred, there are other countries that have systems that are similar, but not identical, to the EC. My apologies.

In terms of a vote in Wyoming being more valuable than one in California, consider this.

My real objection to the electoral college is the way it allocates absurdly disproportionate weight to voters in small states. An elector in Wyoming represents around 150,000 voters, whereas a California elector represents the votes of some 500,000 residents. That makes their votes over 3 times more powerful than ours. Please explain how that makes any sense.

If California really feels they aren't bring properly represented, they can split into ten different states. West Virginia was allowed to split off from Virginia.

Then they would have 18 more senators and more electoral votes. Some parts of rural California and San Diego might even get Republican senators.

Stop whining and start doing something about it!

FredHayek wrote: If California really feels they aren't bring properly represented, they can split into ten different states. West Virginia was allowed to split off from Virginia.

Then they would have 18 more senators and more electoral votes. Some parts of rural California and San Diego might even get Republican senators.

Stop whining and start doing something about it!

You mean, like this?

www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

Why a National Popular Vote for President Is Needed
The shortcomings of the current system stem from “winner-take-all” laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state.

Because of these state winner-take-all laws, five of our 46 Presidents have come into office without winning the most popular votes nationwide. In 2004, if 59,393 voters in Ohio had changed their minds, President Bush would have lost, despite leading nationally by over 3 million votes.

Under the current system, a small number of votes in a small number of states regularly decides the Presidency. All-or-nothing payoffs fuel doubt, controversy over real or imagined irregularities, hair-splitting post-election litigation, and unrest. In 2020, if 21,461 voters had changed their minds, Joe Biden would have been defeated, despite leading by over 7 million votes nationally. Each of these 21,461 voters (5,229 in Arizona, 5,890 in Georgia, and 10,342 in Wisconsin) was 329 times more important than the 7 million voters elsewhere. That is, every vote is not equal under the current system.

Presidential candidates only pay attention to voters in closely divided battleground states. In 2020, almost all (96%) of the general-election campaign events were concentrated in 12 states where the candidates were within 46%–54%. In 2024, 80% of Americans will be ignored because they do not live in closely divided states. The politically irrelevant spectator states include almost all of the small states, rural states, agricultural states, Southern states, Western states, and Northeastern states.