Seriously folks,

[sarisataka]

quit whining about the Electoral College.

The EC did not fall from the sky unnoticed. It's been sitting there in the Constitution since ratification. Four times previously it resulted in a wonky election, most recently 2004. What was done when Democrats took power in 2008 to change or eliminate the EC? Nothing.

The election strategy was not "Let's win the popular vote to show what the people want." It was the road to 270.

Charting a road to 270, Clinton sets out most efficient battleground path

Hillary Clinton doesn't appear all that interested in making scenic stops on her state-to-state quest to become president. The Democratic nominee is instead programming her GPS to take her on the quickest route to collect the 270 Electoral College votes she needs to win the White House.

With three months until Election Day, Clinton's campaign is focused on capturing the battleground states that have decided the most recent presidential elections, not so much on expanding the map.

Clinton's team doesn't rule out an effort at Arizona, a state with a booming population of Latino voters that polls find are loath to support Trump. And Georgia, a bastion of the Deep South, echoes recent population trends in other Southeastern states where Clinton is competing aggressively.

But neither is among the 11 battleground states that Clinton's television advertising plans and her travel schedule point to as her focus. Those states are the perennial top-tier targets Florida and Ohio, plus Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. President Barack Obama carried them all in 2008, and missed out on only North Carolina during his 2012 re-election campaign.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-campaign-road-to-270-20160806-story.html

Leadership was very aware of the EC and specifically geared the campaign to the EC. Eleven states were targeted as key to victory. We lost 4-7 overall and in the three 'key' states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania 0-3. The winning strategy failed. It is disingenuous to complain about the rules after losing when you based your plan on winning by the rules.

Is the EC fair and should it be changed? Debatable and probably. Maybe next time we have the chance to change how the EC works or eliminate it we will act.

[cwydro]

1. K and r. nt

[sarisataka]

2. A little research confirmed my memory...

Constitutionally there is no right of the people to vote for President. That occurs at the state level. A state could pass a law saying their electors will be assigned by the winner of a rock paper scissors tournament held on the steps of the state capitol at high noon on the 4th of July and it would be valid.

Disenfranchisement of the people from electing the President is legal, as long as it equal. Just food for thought...

[jmg257]

3. People forget how much power the States had early on. Called the "United States" for a reason.

Much of the reason/design of the Constitution was to balance the power of states and population centers, all in contrast with that of the new federal govt.

Senators, the "upper house", were also chosen by the states (legislatures), NOT the people.

[sarisataka]

4. It is forgotten that in addition to one person, one vote

(and of course at that time "person" meant white male 99.99% of the time) they also believed in one state, one vote. The system is working as intended.

Luckily they knew that the "Great Experiment" was imperfect and so included a process to make changes.

[BigBadDem]

6. I believe it was even more restrictive than white males

it was limited to white males that were property owners if my memory serves me well.

[NCTraveler]

5. Isn't this what is mostly going on?

"Is the EC fair and should it be changed? Debatable and probably."

Debating that it should probably change? Not whining. Sure, there is a bit of whining. But most are debating it on its merits. Some more thoughtful than others. Doesn't rise to the level of a grandiose call out of who you deem to be whiners.

Has one person said the leadership wasn't aware of the EC?

"Leadership was very aware of the EC and specifically geared the campaign to the EC. Eleven states were targeted as key to victory. We lost 4-7 overall and in the three 'key' states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania 0-3. The winning strategy failed. It is disingenuous to complain about the rules after losing when you based your plan on winning by the rules."

[sarisataka]

8. No, what is going on is

claims of victory because of the popular vote totals. Up to and throughout most of election day it was the Road to 270. Nobody was giving half a hoot about the popular vote. I have no doubts that had the results ended up oppositely we would hear Republicans complaining it is unfair. As I pointed out, they have no issue because of their strength in low population states and the Democratic strategy to focus on only swing state, they essentially get a head start.

This result was a known risk, it happened twelve years ago. Yet it wasn't important enough to address in the last eight years because Democrats believed they had the advantage. Likely any Amendment to change the Presidential election process will take many years to pass, but it will never happen if it isn't started.

[NCTraveler]

11. I haven't seen an argument against this being made.

" Up to and throughout most of election day it was the Road to 270."

That was well known and I haven't seen anyone say otherwise.

"Nobody was giving half a hoot about the popular vote."

Sure they were. Many people were talking about the popular vote. Jest as many were talking about the path to 270.

Everyone here knew and knows the rules of the game. No one is arguing that. It's a debate about the EC. An important debate. Not whining.

[DanTex]

7. It's not "whining". The EC is dumb and undemocratic.

Pointing this out isn't whining.

Is it going to change? Not any time soon. That would require a constitutional amendment, and the GOP, which benefits, would never go for that. So we're stuck with it, and we need to work with what we have.

But there are a lot of other things we're stuck with that aren't good. For example, racism. For the foreseeable future, we're stuck with that too.

Pointing out the bad things we are stuck with isn't whining, it's a good thing to do.

[sarisataka]

9. Why didn't we start an Amendment

after 2008 when we could have at least forced a debate, even if we couldn't guarantee getting it out of Congress to the states?

An open public debate would likely wake up even many Republican voters when they find out their votes for President are actually meaningless.

[DanTex]

10. Probably because it would have gone nowhere, and Obama wanted to get ACA passed.

Priorities. I agree that an open public debate would be good. But the reality is, it's not going to change, so I can't blame the Dems for focusing on things that they were doable.