You can really use The Onion's 'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
for many things on America.

1. I never said it was illegitimate, did i ever use that word? You're out over your skis and it's clear you do not understand my argument so now you're grasping. I was using your definition of tyranny to point out a flaw in your reasoning because you absolutely do not think Trump is illegitimate despite the fact he didn't win a majority, or can you not follow that? "How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?"

Which candidate got more votes than Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996?

So 2 times in one sentence you have to strawman me falsely. This is pretty sad.

You're also cherry picking since those were the two elections with Perot which is an outlier in the past 60 years. Obama got over the 50% mark twice. Bush in 2004 did also. Biden hit 51.

But hey with a popular vote we could things like you have to get 50%+1.

That's not an answer chief, I don't think you understand your own concept here.

Clinton won the popular vote both times

So you want to keep the winner take all after all, otherwise they lose this representation no? Also again, they have an outsized legislative advantage already. Seems pretty unbalanced to me and pretty undemocratic.

Why even say this, it's obviously meaningless? We are talking about amending things. The Constitution has an emendment process no? Or should only white male landowners vote still? What other amendments do you hate? the 19th I imagine lol

Are governor elections unfair to less populous counties inside states? Where's the line to this? Why does it only apply to President and nothing else? Make that difference for me. Also why no examples from other countries? It should be full of them if this is so obviously true.

A definition is not an argument. For such a historian you're not representing things well at all here. , Here I can do it too. From google

Assuming you're such a good libertarian you would look at Trump and see the historical issues and disrespect for our institutions and vote for Clinton, Biden and Harris right? To stop such obvious tyranny? Being you're not a Republican and all right? Surely you would not throw your vote away 3rd party or vote for Trump or stay home!

Of course! My party can't appeal to the majority of the states voters so it must be tyranny!

The electoral college gave us Trump when 3 million people gave the other candidate more votes. Or do you not think this is a form of tyranny right now? Tyrrany is not solely what you believe it to be (my people have to win always)

Various is doing a lot of work for the 18th century. We have mostly English and different types of English. The most diversity was African and native people and women who well, let's just say they weren't really considered in terms of voting now. Do we keep that tradition as well since it was at the founding?

Ok, so what did you mean by diversity?

Why is the person getting the most votes a tyranny? Is it tyranny when your candidate loses for governor? Again you treat this as axiomatic but have failed to quantify it. Examples.

Explain how this happens without the electoral college.

Yes, it's called the Senate and it is actually pretty outsized. Why do they get two? Also if they go to proportional how is that protection maintained?

Easy for you to ignore my greater point there eh? Don't really want to unpack that do you?

1. The US was not nearly as diverse when it was founded so that doesn't apply. Second political ideology is not a protected class and never has been. But this line of argument is telling. Hey guess what, the whites will be fine since that's what you're worried about.

Correct, it sure isn't a fucking reason to keep the electoral college. The US doesn;t have direct democracy, never has and changing *1 election* to popular vote *like every governor, senator, house member, city councilman and fucking dog catcher* isn't changing that. This is fucking cope.

Fucking NO. They pay attention to the 5-10 swing states in any year. Trump literally talks about how he "won the 7 swing states". You are just flat out lying. When has a Republican seriously campaigned for Oregon or a Democrat seriously made a play for Idaho. You're just lying, this is one of the most common complaints about our elections. It's all swing state shit.

No, it's the minority wanting to have a *disproportional* amount of influence. They want more power than they actually deserve. Also there's a reason we have a law based system *with minority protections*. And frankly as Republicans have gleefully stepped on the grave of the VRA I really don't give two shits about protections of minority. Ya'll can get fucked.

It in fact was not described unless you mean "states representation" which, im sorry, doesn't apply to President or i'm not convinvinced. Like I said, you have multiple layers of legislative representation for states. Give me anything else.

I never said it wasn;t in the Constitution or it wasn't law. You brought up some original-ism style argument here. Part of the contract, we have a baked in process to change the contract and have. This isn't an argument, this is a tautology.

If we agree that winner take all state level is not good then the line between our positions is much narrower. What is the functional difference you are defending here other than "always been this way so always should be" which is silly.

Also you can't just say tyranny of the majority, you need to define it. Give me an example or your fear here because elections work on "who gets the most votes win". Are all elections tyranny of the majority.

Yet again and you need to respond to this for once in this in this discussion: We have the Senate and the legislative can overpower the Executive on anything.

If you read the rest of the founders stuff you'd know that it isn't actually 3 "coequal", legislative is by design more powerful than the other two.

I'm sorry but "Tyranny of the majority" is cope for Republicans who can't deal with their ideas not being as popular as they want them to be so instead of changing those ideas they use shit like this.

It's also very telling that Republicans like yourself automatically believe that if liberals get too much power they'll just absolutely fuck over rural voters for... some reason. And the reason you all believe that is because it's exactly what you would do in power and currently are doing. You're cruel so you expect everyone else is too. Well sorry but it ain't true.

And while they're not silent the battery tools are far more tolerable on a weekend morning than the rumble of 2-stroke blowers and trimmers.

Ok, so no answer there. It being the oldest actually cuts against your argument, other nations looked at our system and decided not to use that system.

Not an answer.

Popular vote for President doesn't change that. Again, we have just one election that has to operate this way. The Senate and Congress and all that still operates the same. This is just about President, one office, one person. One vote per citizen.

This is why I feel like the arguments against popular vote are all vibes and Republicans who want to maintain minority rule. Same as why they wont' support eliminating gerrymanders, they only care about power, not principles.

It's easy to eschew popular vote when you don't actually care about democracy after all!

And I would say that it sounds like "checks and balances" but really, what is it checking? What is it balancing? Judicial/Executive/Legislative, they all have areas of the government that they interface with, who does the electoral college balance with? States interests? This is the executive, states have their own legislative both in their states and in Congress.

As you said yourself the EC was a compromise and logistical solve, not a legal one. Also it's form today with winner-take-all is far from how the Founders imagines it in the Federalist, I would imagine Hamilton would not like the system and outcomes it delivers now.

I would have to hear how the peoples interests and states interests are not represented in a nationwide popular vote.

Third parties are suppressed in the USA due to the fact we use First-Past-The-Post voting which is going to naturally lead to just two parties. Right now actual candidates can participate in either party primary, its pretty loose all things considered, there's no "You have to be a Democrat for X years to run in the primary" type rule.

I wholeheartedly support moving to a ranked choice or approval voting or STAR voting system but that's a different fight altogether.

Moving to national popular vote for the President is a good first step even with the two party system.

Because if they don't have minority control it's mob rule! So simple! As long as they always win that's what is fair!

Can you name another country that uses and Electoral College system?

Can you show examples of "mob rule" in other nations that use popular vote systems?

Also is our system now not a sort of reverse mob rule? Explain how not and how popular vote would be so starkly different?