Maps like this deceive more than they inform.
Note that Clinton has an "island" in nearly every state.  You probably think that doesn't matter. And it doesn't. Just like everything else this map shows us doesn't matter.

It doesnt matter to you because it hurts your case. Federal elections, outside of House Rep, are not (supposed to be) popular votes, they are for the States as distinct entities to elect portions of the Federal government. Making it popular destroys the protections of Federalism and our Republic by giving urban [BLEEP] holes undue electoral influence over smaller states. This [BLEEP] only gets brought up when Democrats lose, and it's tiresome. You might be ok with the people on those islands dictating all of our policy, but the sane among us are not.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Four of you say it "works as designed."
maybe we can ask one of the people who designed it if that's actually the case..
https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madis...-president

Well, strictly speaking, doesn't everything work as designed?   Maybe you mean "works as intended."

Right.  People who say this might mean different things. They might mean it works as the framers intended, which is a false statement,  or they might mean it works predictably, which is a meaningless statement.  all algorithms are predictable.

---

Maps like this deceive more than they inform.
Note that Clinton has an "island" in nearly every state.  You probably think that doesn't matter. And it doesn't. Just like everything else this map shows us doesn't matter.

It doesnt matter to you because it hurts your case. Federal elections, outside of House Rep, are not (supposed to be) popular votes, they are for the States as distinct entities to elect portions of the Federal government. Making it popular destroys the protections of Federalism and our Republic by giving urban [BLEEP] holes undue electoral influence over smaller states. This [BLEEP] only gets brought up when Democrats lose, and it's tiresome. You might be ok with the people on those islands dictating all of our policy, but the sane among us are not.

Where did I say I wanted a popular vote?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Regardless of argument, it can be agreed the electoral college in this last election prevented the federal government from becoming incorrigibly corrupted.

---

Regardless of argument, it can be agreed the electoral college in this last election prevented the federal government from becoming incorrigibly corrupted.

No.  Both candidates were incorrigibly corrupt.
The electoral college could have stopped this if enough electors turned in ballots with the names of actual decent people on them.  It would have gone to the House and hopefully whomever the third candidate was would have won.
The real failure was in the two nominating processes though.
The Democrats decided to make theirs a private coronation and the Republicans allowed Trump to get all 99 of Florida's delegates even though most of the Republicans in Florida had picked a different candidate.
But that's getting off topic.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Regardless of argument, it can be agreed the electoral college in this last election prevented the federal government from becoming incorrigibly corrupted.

You also have to remember that there's more than one way to do a national popular vote.  If they did it with just a single round, plurality wins, like Mexico, Clinton would have won.  If they did it in two rounds, Trump and Clinton are probably the top two candidates and Trump probably wins the second round, because most of the Johnson voters would have chosen him over Clinton.  
However, if we went into it operating under France/Brazil type rules, either Trump or Bernie may have decided to run as an independent from the beginning, and no one knows what might have happened in that case.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Waaaah, my team lost. I think the team with the most yards should win the game. Screw points!

If you think the electoral college should go away, you are a loser who has likely not made anything of their life. It's pretty pure and simple.

---

Well, strictly speaking, doesn't everything work as designed?   Maybe you mean "works as intended."

Right.  People who say this might mean different things. They might mean it works as the framers intended, which is a false statement,  or they might mean it works predictably, which is a meaningless statement.  all algorithms are predictable.

---

It doesnt matter to you because it hurts your case. Federal elections, outside of House Rep, are not (supposed to be) popular votes, they are for the States as distinct entities to elect portions of the Federal government. Making it popular destroys the protections of Federalism and our Republic by giving urban [BLEEP] holes undue electoral influence over smaller states. This [BLEEP] only gets brought up when Democrats lose, and it's tiresome. You might be ok with the people on those islands dictating all of our policy, but the sane among us are not.

Where did I say I wanted a popular vote?

You'll get there eventually, you just meander around for a week before you do.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Waaaah, my team lost. I think the team with the most yards should win the game. Screw points!

If you think the electoral college should go away, you are a loser who has likely not made anything of their life. It's pretty pure and simple.

My team didn't lose. It got taken over by a bloviating, shallow, geriatric narcissist, then it won somehow.

I'm licensed to practice engineering in about half of the states and I've stamped drawings that have actually been built in about ten of them. It's not as much as some, but it's certainly something.

And if you log on to an anonymous message board for the NFL's least popular team just to call other users losers, what does that make you?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Waaaah, my team lost. I think the team with the most yards should win the game. Screw points!

If you think the electoral college should go away, you are a loser who has likely not made anything of their life. It's pretty pure and simple.

I'm licensed to practice engineering in about half of the states and I've stamped drawings that have actually been built in about ten of them. It's not as much as some, but it's certainly something.

And if you log on to n anonymous message board for the NFL's least popular team just to call other users losers, what does that make you?

Uh, so you are for abolishing the electoral college. Thanks for finally clearing that up.

Btw, I didn't call you a loser. I called anyone who questions the fabric of our country one.

---

I'm licensed to practice engineering in about half of the states and I've stamped drawings that have actually been built in about ten of them. It's not as much as some, but it's certainly something.

And if you log on to n anonymous message board for the NFL's least popular team just to call other users losers, what does that make you?

Uh, so you are for abolishing the electoral college. Thanks for finally clearing that up.

Btw, I didn't call you a loser. I called anyone who questions the fabric of our country one.

I am for amending the Constitution to give US Congress more ability to specify how the primary elections and nominating process should work.  States are setting their primaries earlier and earlier.  States are giving winner-take-all delegates to candidates who got less than 40% of the vote.  The process is nuts.  It's supposed to make sure only good people get nominated, and it failed spectacularly on both sides in 2016.
I don't really care if the electoral college stays or goes as part of that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Engineer?  Now I'm really disappointed:


1.) You should be able to understand the basic concept of federalism and why the federal government shouldn't tell states how to run their primaries.  

2.) You should be able to diagnose the fact that its our current political and media climate that keeps "good people" from running, much less winning.

3.) You have no excuse for sitting there and typing that one extra CO2 molecule is going to cause a death spiral of negative feedback loops when it's contradicted by the entirety of the historic record (temp rises generally predate CO2 increases.)

4.) You should be able to observe that in the last two election cycles your brand of go along to get along Nice guy "conservatism" was repudiated.

To the original point 

1.)  Donald Trump isn't a Demagogue.  For all the tweeting and bloviation and the like he articulated a clear vision for the future of America based on clear policy points that have been both implemented and affective.  On Trade he advocated retributive tariffs, the trade deficit is shrinking, China has come to the negotiating table and we haven't experienced an inflationary cycle or shortage of produced goods.  On Taxes he pointed out that having the largest corporate tax rate in the world was limiting our global competitiveness, he drastically cut the corporate tax rate, implemented individual tax reform, and the first year under his tax plan saw higher tax revenue than the previous year (IIRC you owe me a sandwich on that one.)  On Regulatory reform he said he would enact a 2 for 1 rule eliminating 2 regulations for every new one proposed and his administrative departments actually exceeded that ratio.  The resulting increase in our global competitiveness has brought companies and industry back to our shore that the BETTERS of our society thought were impossible.  People laughed when he said he could get apple to invest in domestic production, their not laughing now.  He said he would decimate the ISIS Caliphate and we just cleared their last territorial stronghold.  Not to mention the fact he's arguably the most successful private sector person to ever hold the position.  

2.) The electoral College was designed to ensure state and regional sovereignty.  It's not an instrument of Democracy, its an instrument of democratic republicanism.  An extension of the idea that we should choose an executive in the similar fashion that we pass law. To that end it worked exactly as intended.  Right now you have two of the most populous states in the country that are driving themselves off a fiscal cliff as they swerve off the road to uncompetitive business environments.  The EC was designed to limit the ability of someone in Oregon to tell a border state they can't enforce immigration law, someone in New York to implement a failed set of federal policies to make Tennessee just as onerous a business environment as they are, or to have some group of elites out in perpetual 72* temperatures dictate to someone in Miami what they should set their thermostat to or raise the electric bill of someone in Wisconsin during the winter time.  State sovereignty matters, and in a post federalist landscape, it might be all we have left.  

3.) If you want to get on your horse and decide that you want to repeal the 17th amendment and replace it with the indirect election of senators and electors by state legislatures then have at it.  I think you'll find that

a.)  the ratification process is actually a little more challenging than cobbling together 270 electoral votes.  
b.) That the state legislators that openly advocate for abortion during birth to protect the mental health (not making this up.) of the mother...  Think about that.  Mental Health...  are just as sober and judicious as the people who vote for them.  

(as an aside, no you wouldn't have to repeal the 17th amendment, but contextually a return to an indirect system of selecting electors should mirror the selection of the higher chamber of congress, especially given the roll of its basic composition [even representation for all states] in the foundational calculus of the electoral college.)  

Finally a point about the general state of CONSERVATISM in the modern era.  I think, and have for a long time, that the basic disposition of so many on the modern right is informed by the fact that a long time ago we ceded the realm of higher education.  As a result professionals, businessmen, teachers and leaders in our community that don't hold purely statist values still see the world from a statist viewpoint and thus have an increased tendency towards being timid or apologetic as opposed to being bold in their expression of conservative values.  We have to seem reasonable or accommodating as not to be shunned in political discussion from the time that we can remember.  As such we subconsciously place a greater value on being agreeable than being effective.  So much so, that when we see someone actually stands up with the temerity to say NO we shouldn't rip the baby out of the womb, NO we shouldn't let China Steal our intellectual property, NO we shouldn't tie the hands of our soldiers on the battlefield, NO we shouldn't tax ourselves into serfdom, NO we shouldn't cede our national sovereignty to some Third world Caravan that we are more concerned with how he says things than the fact that he is boldly advancing our own ideology.

---

Engineer?  Now I'm really disappointed:


1.) You should be able to understand the basic concept of federalism and why the federal government shouldn't tell states how to run their primaries.  

2.) You should be able to diagnose the fact that its our current political and media climate that keeps "good people" from running, much less winning.

3.) You have no excuse for sitting there and typing that one extra CO2 molecule is going to cause a death spiral of negative feedback loops when it's contradicted by the entirety of the historic record (temp rises generally predate CO2 increases.)

4.) You should be able to observe that in the last two election cycles your brand of go along to get along Nice guy "conservatism" was repudiated.

To the original point 

1.)  Donald Trump isn't a Demagogue.  For all the tweeting and bloviation and the like he articulated a clear vision for the future of America based on clear policy points that have been both implemented and affective.  On Trade he advocated retributive tariffs, the trade deficit is shrinking, China has come to the negotiating table and we haven't experienced an inflationary cycle or shortage of produced goods.  On Taxes he pointed out that having the largest corporate tax rate in the world was limiting our global competitiveness, he drastically cut the corporate tax rate, implemented individual tax reform, and the first year under his tax plan saw higher tax revenue than the previous year (IIRC you owe me a sandwich on that one.)  On Regulatory reform he said he would enact a 2 for 1 rule eliminating 2 regulations for every new one proposed and his administrative departments actually exceeded that ratio.  The resulting increase in our global competitiveness has brought companies and industry back to our shore that the BETTERS of our society thought were impossible.  People laughed when he said he could get apple to invest in domestic production, their not laughing now.  He said he would decimate the ISIS Caliphate and we just cleared their last territorial stronghold.  Not to mention the fact he's arguably the most successful private sector person to ever hold the position.  

2.) The electoral College was designed to ensure state and regional sovereignty.  It's not an instrument of Democracy, its an instrument of democratic republicanism.  An extension of the idea that we should choose an executive in the similar fashion that we pass law.  To that end it worked exactly as intended.  Right now you have two of the most populous states in the country that are driving themselves off a fiscal cliff as they swerve off the road to uncompetitive business environments.  The EC was designed to limit the ability of someone in Oregon to tell a border state they can't enforce immigration law, someone in New York to implement a failed set of federal policies to make Tennessee just as onerous a business environment as they are, or to have some group of elites out in perpetual 72* temperatures dictate to someone in Miami what they should set their thermostat to or raise the electric bill of someone in Wisconsin during the winter time.  State sovereignty matters, and in a post federalist landscape, it might be all we have left.  

3.) If you want to get on your horse and decide that you want to repeal the 17th amendment and replace it with the indirect election of senators and electors by state legislatures then have at it.  I think you'll find that

a.)  the ratification process is actually a little more challenging than cobbling together 270 electoral votes.  
b.) That the state legislators that openly advocate for abortion during birth to protect the mental health (not making this up.) of the mother...  Think about that.  Mental Health...  are just as sober and judicious as the people who vote for them.  

(as an aside, no you wouldn't have to repeal the 17th amendment, but contextually a return to an indirect system of selecting electors should mirror the selection of the higher chamber of congress, especially given the roll of its basic composition [even representation for all states] in the foundational calculus of the electoral college.)  

Finally a point about the general state of CONSERVATISM in the modern era.  I think, and have for a long time, that the basic disposition of so many on the modern right is informed by the fact that a long time ago we ceded the realm of higher education.  As a result professionals, businessmen, teachers and leaders in our community that don't hold purely statist values still see the world from a statist viewpoint and thus have an increased tendency towards being timid or apologetic as opposed to being bold in their expression of conservative values.  We have to seem reasonable or accommodating as not to be shunned in political discussion from the time that we can remember.  As such we subconsciously place a greater value on being agreeable than being effective.  So much so, that when we see someone actually stands up with the temerity to say NO we shouldn't rip the baby out of the womb, NO we shouldn't let China Steal our intellectual property, NO we shouldn't tie the hands of our soldiers on the battlefield, NO we shouldn't tax ourselves into serfdom, NO we shouldn't cede our national sovereignty to some Third world Caravan that we are more concerned with how he says things than the fact that he is boldly advancing our own ideology.

I crossed out some stuff above because I thought it was off topic. I might paste that stuff into a separate thread and respond to it there. But I will respond to the on topic part here:

1) Donald Trump's behavior during the campaign makes him a demagogue. I don't say this to pick on him. Literally every president since we have been alive engaged in demagoguery while campaigning. some did good things in the office and some bad but nothing they did while in office changed the fact they were demagogues on the campaign trail. Your litany of things he has done that you like is irrelevant to my point.

2) your description of the fiscal situation in various States is both irrelevant and inaccurate.

3) the process of becoming a senator for a large State also seems to require demagoguery on the campaign trail. I agree that this should be looked at too.

4) there is a time and a place for both an assertive disposition and an accommodating disposition. The founders knew this. If you are assertive all the time, you will get very little done before enough people get sick of you that they remove you from power. If you are accommodating all the time, you could get quite a bit done, but who knows if any of it is the stuff you wanted done. The two of us on this message board don't need to worry too much about that balance in our political discussions. A pundit squawking about politics for 3 hours a day on talk radio also doesn't need to worry too much about it. the people who need to worry about striking this kind of balance or the ones that we elect, the actual politicians.  And too many of our politicians are afraid to do this because they are afraid of some pundit somewhere calling them weak. We as voters, especially in the primary phase, pay too much attention to these pundits that are stuck in the assertive mode.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Engineer?  Now I'm really disappointed:


1.) You should be able to understand the basic concept of federalism and why the federal government shouldn't tell states how to run their primaries.  

2.) You should be able to diagnose the fact that its our current political and media climate that keeps "good people" from running, much less winning.

3.) You have no excuse for sitting there and typing that one extra CO2 molecule is going to cause a death spiral of negative feedback loops when it's contradicted by the entirety of the historic record (temp rises generally predate CO2 increases.)

4.) You should be able to observe that in the last two election cycles your brand of go along to get along Nice guy "conservatism" was repudiated.

To the original point 

1.)  Donald Trump isn't a Demagogue.  For all the tweeting and bloviation and the like he articulated a clear vision for the future of America based on clear policy points that have been both implemented and affective.  On Trade he advocated retributive tariffs, the trade deficit is shrinking, China has come to the negotiating table and we haven't experienced an inflationary cycle or shortage of produced goods.  On Taxes he pointed out that having the largest corporate tax rate in the world was limiting our global competitiveness, he drastically cut the corporate tax rate, implemented individual tax reform, and the first year under his tax plan saw higher tax revenue than the previous year (IIRC you owe me a sandwich on that one.)  On Regulatory reform he said he would enact a 2 for 1 rule eliminating 2 regulations for every new one proposed and his administrative departments actually exceeded that ratio.  The resulting increase in our global competitiveness has brought companies and industry back to our shore that the BETTERS of our society thought were impossible.  People laughed when he said he could get apple to invest in domestic production, their not laughing now.  He said he would decimate the ISIS Caliphate and we just cleared their last territorial stronghold.  Not to mention the fact he's arguably the most successful private sector person to ever hold the position.  

2.) The electoral College was designed to ensure state and regional sovereignty.  It's not an instrument of Democracy, its an instrument of democratic republicanism.  An extension of the idea that we should choose an executive in the similar fashion that we pass law.  To that end it worked exactly as intended.  Right now you have two of the most populous states in the country that are driving themselves off a fiscal cliff as they swerve off the road to uncompetitive business environments.  The EC was designed to limit the ability of someone in Oregon to tell a border state they can't enforce immigration law, someone in New York to implement a failed set of federal policies to make Tennessee just as onerous a business environment as they are, or to have some group of elites out in perpetual 72* temperatures dictate to someone in Miami what they should set their thermostat to or raise the electric bill of someone in Wisconsin during the winter time.  State sovereignty matters, and in a post federalist landscape, it might be all we have left.  

3.) If you want to get on your horse and decide that you want to repeal the 17th amendment and replace it with the indirect election of senators and electors by state legislatures then have at it.  I think you'll find that

a.)  the ratification process is actually a little more challenging than cobbling together 270 electoral votes.  
b.) That the state legislators that openly advocate for abortion during birth to protect the mental health (not making this up.) of the mother...  Think about that.  Mental Health...  are just as sober and judicious as the people who vote for them.  

(as an aside, no you wouldn't have to repeal the 17th amendment, but contextually a return to an indirect system of selecting electors should mirror the selection of the higher chamber of congress, especially given the roll of its basic composition [even representation for all states] in the foundational calculus of the electoral college.)  

Finally a point about the general state of CONSERVATISM in the modern era.  I think, and have for a long time, that the basic disposition of so many on the modern right is informed by the fact that a long time ago we ceded the realm of higher education.  As a result professionals, businessmen, teachers and leaders in our community that don't hold purely statist values still see the world from a statist viewpoint and thus have an increased tendency towards being timid or apologetic as opposed to being bold in their expression of conservative values.  We have to seem reasonable or accommodating as not to be shunned in political discussion from the time that we can remember.  As such we subconsciously place a greater value on being agreeable than being effective.  So much so, that when we see someone actually stands up with the temerity to say NO we shouldn't rip the baby out of the womb, NO we shouldn't let China Steal our intellectual property, NO we shouldn't tie the hands of our soldiers on the battlefield, NO we shouldn't tax ourselves into serfdom, NO we shouldn't cede our national sovereignty to some Third world Caravan that we are more concerned with how he says things than the fact that he is boldly advancing our own ideology.

I crossed out some stuff above because I thought it was off topic. I might paste that stuff into a separate thread and respond to it there. But I will respond to the on topic part here:

1) Donald Trump's behavior during the campaign makes him a demagogue. I don't say this to pick on him. Literally every president since we have been alive engaged in demagoguery while campaigning. some did good things in the office and some bad but nothing they did while in office changed the fact they were demagogues on the campaign trail. Your litany of things he has done that you like is irrelevant to my point.

2) your description of the fiscal situation in various States is both irrelevant and inaccurate.

3) the process of becoming a senator for a large State also seems to require demagoguery on the campaign trail. I agree that this should be looked at too.

4) there is a time and a place for both an assertive disposition and an accommodating disposition. The founders knew this. If you are assertive all the time, you will get very little done before enough people get sick of you that they remove you from power. If you are accommodating all the time, you could get quite a bit done, but who knows if any of it is the stuff you wanted done. The two of us on this message board don't need to worry too much about that balance in our political discussions. A pundit squawking about politics for 3 hours a day on talk radio also doesn't need to worry too much about it. the people who need to worry about striking this kind of balance or the ones that we elect, the actual politicians.  And too many of our politicians are afraid to do this because they are afraid of some pundit somewhere calling them weak. We as voters, especially in the primary phase, pay too much attention to these pundits that are stuck in the assertive mode.

first you said 

I am for amending the Constitution to give US Congress more ability to specify how the primary elections and nominating process should work.  States are setting their primaries earlier and earlier.  States are giving winner-take-all delegates to candidates who got less than 40% of the vote.  The process is nuts.  It's supposed to make sure only good people get nominated, and it failed spectacularly on both sides in 2016.

I don't really care if the electoral college stays or goes as part of that.

How is pointing out that sentiment is antithetical to 10th amendment federalism OFF TOPIC?  Just a question.  

1.) if you are going to use the text book definition of: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument. Then the rational quality of any given candidate or politicians positions does in fact matter in classifying someone as a demagogue.  If you mean to say anyone who makes a general emotional appeal, or makes any statement that isn't right out of the "Harvard debate society" then there has NEVER been a politician to meet that definition so what difference does the EC make.  Moreover, contextually the term is used to describe someone as making a large scale emotional appeal that would, on its merits, fail rational scrutiny. You can't make that assertion when the policies advocated function as intended and provide positive results. 

2.) Most dramatically, you skip over the basic fact that your original premise for this thread is wrong.  The Electoral College wasn't created to simply to prevent "Demagogues" from assuming the presidency it was created as an instrument of Federalist Democratic Republicanism to choose an executive in the same way that we pass laws to ensure broad consensus within the paradigm of State Sovereignty, Regional integrity, and mitigating mobocracy.  Contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't created just to ensure you have what you perceive to be a sterile Twitter feed. 


[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]Constitutional republicanism is a form of government that has allowed our country to function in commerce and politics for the last 160 years without regional armed conflict or the threat of secession.  The only time in our history when it became a question was the elimination of the most onerous economic institution in the history of mankind, not just our country.  It's a delicate balance of a strong Federal Government that can advocate for the Union as a whole while preserving state sovereignty and regional integrity.  That's a remarkable feat that the Founders accomplished 250 years ago in 7 pages that the BETTERS of Europe haven't accomplished in 1000.  To boil down the instruments of Democratic republicanism to just finding leaders who "Don't say things I don't like" would be like calling would be like criticizing a 747 for the peanuts. [/font]

3.) You fail to acknowledge the role of societal evolution, social media, media bias, and the current state of the educational system in continuing to foster the hostility in the political environment.  You have this myopic view that somehow if we just wave a magic wand and count delegates differently that somehow we will arrive at this utopia.  

4.) And here it is.  Going back to my point about the affects of higher education, it amazes me how many so called conservatives will try to distance themselves from the last theater of popular culture that actually advocates, or even tolerates the ideology they espouse just to be seen in the eyes of the world as Civil.  But in a way you're right.  There is a time and a place for everything.  The political marketplace demonstrates that McCain, the Godfather of this ideology found the wrong balance, Romney found the wrong balance, and Trump found a balance not seen in the GOP since Dukakis.  

One last story, When General Lemay took over the B29 program, I can only imagine the loud cry from the engineers who designed the plane that this simpleton would have the ignorance and the sheer audacity to take a plane they designed in all their splendor to fly at 30k feet (and miss its targets) and drop it down to 7k feet.

---

I crossed out some stuff above because I thought it was off topic. I might paste that stuff into a separate thread and respond to it there. But I will respond to the on topic part here:

1) Donald Trump's behavior during the campaign makes him a demagogue. I don't say this to pick on him. Literally every president since we have been alive engaged in demagoguery while campaigning. some did good things in the office and some bad but nothing they did while in office changed the fact they were demagogues on the campaign trail. Your litany of things he has done that you like is irrelevant to my point.

2) your description of the fiscal situation in various States is both irrelevant and inaccurate.

3) the process of becoming a senator for a large State also seems to require demagoguery on the campaign trail. I agree that this should be looked at too.

4) there is a time and a place for both an assertive disposition and an accommodating disposition. The founders knew this. If you are assertive all the time, you will get very little done before enough people get sick of you that they remove you from power. If you are accommodating all the time, you could get quite a bit done, but who knows if any of it is the stuff you wanted done. The two of us on this message board don't need to worry too much about that balance in our political discussions. A pundit squawking about politics for 3 hours a day on talk radio also doesn't need to worry too much about it. the people who need to worry about striking this kind of balance or the ones that we elect, the actual politicians.  And too many of our politicians are afraid to do this because they are afraid of some pundit somewhere calling them weak. We as voters, especially in the primary phase, pay too much attention to these pundits that are stuck in the assertive mode.

first you said 

I am for amending the Constitution to give US Congress more ability to specify how the primary elections and nominating process should work.  States are setting their primaries earlier and earlier.  States are giving winner-take-all delegates to candidates who got less than 40% of the vote.  The process is nuts.  It's supposed to make sure only good people get nominated, and it failed spectacularly on both sides in 2016.

I don't really care if the electoral college stays or goes as part of that.

How is pointing out that sentiment is antithetical to 10th amendment federalism OFF TOPIC?  Just a question.  

1.) if you are going to use the text book definition of: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument. Then the rational quality of any given candidate or politicians positions does in fact matter in classifying someone as a demagogue.  If you mean to say anyone who makes a general emotional appeal, or makes any statement that isn't right out of the "Harvard debate society" then there has NEVER been a politician to meet that definition so what difference does the EC make.  Moreover, contextually the term is used to describe someone as making a large scale emotional appeal that would, on its merits, fail rational scrutiny. You can't make that assertion when the policies advocated function as intended and provide positive results. 

2.) Most dramatically, you skip over the basic fact that your original premise for this thread is wrong.  The Electoral College wasn't created to simply to prevent "Demagogues" from assuming the presidency it was created as an instrument of Federalist Democratic Republicanism to choose an executive in the same way that we pass laws to ensure broad consensus within the paradigm of State Sovereignty, Regional integrity, and mitigating mobocracy.  Contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't created just to ensure you have what you perceive to be a sterile Twitter feed. 


[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]Constitutional republicanism is a form of government that has allowed our country to function in commerce and politics for the last 160 years without regional armed conflict or the threat of secession.  The only time in our history when it became a question was the elimination of the most onerous economic institution in the history of mankind, not just our country.  It's a delicate balance of a strong Federal Government that can advocate for the Union as a whole while preserving state sovereignty and regional integrity.  That's a remarkable feat that the Founders accomplished 250 years ago in 7 pages that the BETTERS of Europe haven't accomplished in 1000.  To boil down the instruments of Democratic republicanism to just finding leaders who "Don't say things I don't like" would be like calling would be like criticizing a 747 for the peanuts. [/font]

3.) You fail to acknowledge the role of societal evolution, social media, media bias, and the current state of the educational system in continuing to foster the hostility in the political environment.  You have this myopic view that somehow if we just wave a magic wand and count delegates differently that somehow we will arrive at this utopia.  

4.) And here it is.  Going back to my point about the affects of higher education, it amazes me how many so called conservatives will try to distance themselves from the last theater of popular culture that actually advocates, or even tolerates the ideology they espouse just to be seen in the eyes of the world as Civil.  But in a way you're right.  There is a time and a place for everything.  The political marketplace demonstrates that McCain, the Godfather of this ideology found the wrong balance, Romney found the wrong balance, and Trump found a balance not seen in the GOP since Dukakis.  

One last story, When General Lemay took over the B29 program, I can only imagine the loud cry from the engineers who designed the plane that this simpleton would have the ignorance and the sheer audacity to take a plane they designed in all their splendor to fly at 30k feet (and miss its targets) and drop it down to 7k feet.

Equivocation city, dude. Wow. 
The president is financially bound to adversarial foreign governments, clearly using the presidency to further his financial interest, specifically by collecting emoluments from foreigners. 

these are all possible outcomes that Alexander Hamilton said we would avoid by using an electoral college in Federalist 68.

The demagoguery on Twitter is important to but let's not get lost in the weeds here.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The State of Washington is trying to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot, by requiring candidates to release 5 years of tax returns to appear on the ballot.

Why didn't they just pass a law saying nobody with orange hair can be on the ballot? The tax return thing will just end up burning Dems, who don't even file tax returns.

---

first you said 


How is pointing out that sentiment is antithetical to 10th amendment federalism OFF TOPIC?  Just a question.  

1.) if you are going to use the text book definition of: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument. Then the rational quality of any given candidate or politicians positions does in fact matter in classifying someone as a demagogue.  If you mean to say anyone who makes a general emotional appeal, or makes any statement that isn't right out of the "Harvard debate society" then there has NEVER been a politician to meet that definition so what difference does the EC make.  Moreover, contextually the term is used to describe someone as making a large scale emotional appeal that would, on its merits, fail rational scrutiny. You can't make that assertion when the policies advocated function as intended and provide positive results. 

2.) Most dramatically, you skip over the basic fact that your original premise for this thread is wrong.  The Electoral College wasn't created to simply to prevent "Demagogues" from assuming the presidency it was created as an instrument of Federalist Democratic Republicanism to choose an executive in the same way that we pass laws to ensure broad consensus within the paradigm of State Sovereignty, Regional integrity, and mitigating mobocracy.  Contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't created just to ensure you have what you perceive to be a sterile Twitter feed. 


[font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]Constitutional republicanism is a form of government that has allowed our country to function in commerce and politics for the last 160 years without regional armed conflict or the threat of secession.  The only time in our history when it became a question was the elimination of the most onerous economic institution in the history of mankind, not just our country.  It's a delicate balance of a strong Federal Government that can advocate for the Union as a whole while preserving state sovereignty and regional integrity.  That's a remarkable feat that the Founders accomplished 250 years ago in 7 pages that the BETTERS of Europe haven't accomplished in 1000.  To boil down the instruments of Democratic republicanism to just finding leaders who "Don't say things I don't like" would be like calling would be like criticizing a 747 for the peanuts. [/font]

3.) You fail to acknowledge the role of societal evolution, social media, media bias, and the current state of the educational system in continuing to foster the hostility in the political environment.  You have this myopic view that somehow if we just wave a magic wand and count delegates differently that somehow we will arrive at this utopia.  

4.) And here it is.  Going back to my point about the affects of higher education, it amazes me how many so called conservatives will try to distance themselves from the last theater of popular culture that actually advocates, or even tolerates the ideology they espouse just to be seen in the eyes of the world as Civil.  But in a way you're right.  There is a time and a place for everything.  The political marketplace demonstrates that McCain, the Godfather of this ideology found the wrong balance, Romney found the wrong balance, and Trump found a balance not seen in the GOP since Dukakis.  

One last story, When General Lemay took over the B29 program, I can only imagine the loud cry from the engineers who designed the plane that this simpleton would have the ignorance and the sheer audacity to take a plane they designed in all their splendor to fly at 30k feet (and miss its targets) and drop it down to 7k feet.

Equivocation city, dude. Wow. 
The president is financially bound to adversarial foreign governments, clearly using the presidency to further his financial interest, specifically by collecting emoluments from foreigners. 

these are all possible outcomes that Alexander Hamilton said we would avoid by using an electoral college in Federalist 68.

The demagoguery on Twitter is important to but let's not get lost in the weeds here.

Oh wait...  This about the stupid Martin Sheen Video....  I should have known!!!

---

Equivocation city, dude. Wow. 
The president is financially bound to adversarial foreign governments, clearly using the presidency to further his financial interest, specifically by collecting emoluments from foreigners. 

these are all possible outcomes that Alexander Hamilton said we would avoid by using an electoral college in Federalist 68.

The demagoguery on Twitter is important to but let's not get lost in the weeds here.

Oh wait...  This about the stupid Martin Sheen Video....  I should have known!!!

You didn't think it was coincidence, did you?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Maps like this deceive more than they inform.
Note that Clinton has an "island" in nearly every state.  You probably think that doesn't matter. And it doesn't. Just like everything else this map shows us doesn't matter.

 This [BLEEP] only gets brought up when Democrats lose, and it's tiresome. 

As a matter of fact.... only twice has the electoral college and the "popular vote" not matched.
One of Bush's wins and Trump.

Although the crying didn't last nearly as long after the Bush victory.
I imagine it's gaining traction now that the left sees 2020 as a much larger challenge to win than they thought before.

Probably cause they've been banking on some sort of collusion/impeachment....
which won't happen.

And now their candidates are a bunch of terrible choices either out of touch with middle america or out of touch with reality in general.

I love it.
No way the Electoral College is abolished... not before Trump wins again anyway.
They also want to move the goal posts at the Supreme Court.... which is even more laughable.

2020 can't get here quick enough

---

Four of you say it "works as designed."
maybe we can ask one of the people who designed it if that's actually the case..
https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madis...-president

The speeches that article referenced talked about appointing the President by voting--not the legislative branch. The conversation was about how he was against Congress appointing the President. Madison simply talking about alternatives, but ultimately returning to his original stance, doesn't mean he was against it or that it didn't work.

---

---

 

Where did I say I wanted a popular vote?

Are you for a popular vote?

---

Four of you say it "works as designed."
maybe we can ask one of the people who designed it if that's actually the case..
https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madis...-president

The speeches that article referenced talked about appointing the President by voting--not the legislative branch. The conversation was about how he was against Congress appointing the President. Madison simply talking about alternatives, but ultimately returning to his original stance, doesn't mean he was against it or that it didn't work.

Today we have two jurisdictions (Maine and Nebraska) that apportion their electoral votes by districts, and 49 jurisdictions ( assthe thatother 50 states plus DC) assign them as winner-take-all. 
From beginning to end, Madison thought that winner-take-all was disastrous. And it is. when a few States adopted it, suddenly all of the states felt compelled to join them. 
Towards the end of his life, Madison also wanted the electors to vote twice, so that some whose first choice candidate did not get much support would have an opportunity to vote for a stronger candidate.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.