[limitless]

Thanks Thunder. The Electoral College will forever boggle my mind.

For anyone out there, I can't blame you for the news you choose to receive. Most people just take what the news caster says as fact, when it's far from truth.

I suggest when you take in news, take it with a grain of salt and if you are interested in fact checking what you heard go to snopes.com and type it in there to find the truth.

It is wasn't for the Electoral College, California, New York and the other more populated States would decide.  It would completely give the smaller States no vote.  I don't think that is what the founding Fathers of this nation wanted.  We have the Senate, where each State has two (2) votes and the House - where the number of votes is determined by population.  The US was based upon a balance of power.  While you or I may not agree with the results, abolishing the Electoral College isn't the answer.

I don't believe that ANY news organization provides the "truth."  They all are swayed is one direction or the other. 

Reading both sides....gives the best opportunity to actually get the "truth" - but, then again it is up to the reader to decide.

JMHO

L

[Thunder]

You know Limitless, I always thought why not give each state the same number of Electoral votes?  (I technically know why) But it seems the big states always have the power to swing elections anyway..so why even have the EC?  If you can get the 5 big ones, you win.

The candidates wouldn't just favor campaigning in the big states.  They'd have to work just as hard for South Dakota as they do Florida.

The Electoral College was created back in 1787...229 years ago.     (I don't even think CA. was a state back then).

Anyway, I don't know the answer, but it's sad that a person can win with more votes but the other person wins the election.
Something needs to change, but no one knows how to go about it.

Possibly a clause stating the if one wins the popular vote and they other wins the EC votes, the Electorates can choice which candidate to vote for.  It's so very rare it happens.

[Roma]

Why go by state? why not each vote have equal weight? Normally I don't vote for President because I find it so unfair. I voted this year for Bernie, knowing my vote wouldn't really count.

Snopes.com has no political agenda. Only gives facts, which I prefer.

[Thunder]

El, I think, eventually, that will happen.  But not in the near future.

It should be one person, one vote. sigh

[elray]

Lol Elegance.  Followed your advise and googleled "is snopes biased"--found a boat load of results profiling the snopes editor team and guess what, well I'll let you find out...let''s just say there's deep irony in your advise.

[Roma]

Oh Elroy, of course  I checked before I suggested it. I've used it for a long time mostly not for any political question and found them to be accurate. I did plug in what you asked me to and of course you are going to have doubters. 

Could it be there are many experiencing cognitive dissonance; can't accept facts?

It's a fact checking site. Truth is Truth. Facts are facts.

Facts with evidence tend not to be biased lol

Urban Legends: Did Snopes Get 'Snoped'?
urbanlegends.about.com  › …  › Internet / Web Hoaxes
Jun 24, 2016 · CLAIM: TruthorFiction.com is less biased more reliable than Snopes. Ironically, TruthorFiction.com has refuted these attacks against Snopes.com and, ...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/internet/a/snopes_exposed.htm

[FaithWalker]

Someone posted this recently on Facebook.  I had no idea that half the U.S.'s population lived in these counties.

https://www.facebook.com/colddeadhands/photos/a.307409332641284.68774.307188559330028/1171609109554631/?type=3&theater

Politics ruined my marriage so I have a hate relationship with politics right now.  So I try not to get involved with political debates but I did find that interesting about the electoral college.

[Roma]

Why we chose delegates is for THEM to cast the majority vote for State. So we actually lose our choice at the state level. How do we know if this Delegate cast the correct vote?  I don't trust anyone to vote for me. I'm a grown up and would love to  vote for myself

I feel who we truly elected for President is the popular vote. Yet the system doesn't see things that way  so I rarely vote for President.

It really wouldn't take that much time to wait for all votes to be counted to find out who actually really won. Especially since the new President won't be in office until January.

If I had the time, I'd start a campaign to irradiate the Electoral College for good. Our individual votes matter!

[OldPilot]

Well without the electoral college this election would be  a mess.

I have heard from your website that 3 million votes would be contested

http://www.snopes.com/three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

Michigan is still not decided and absentee ballots are still being counted.

[stayed]

The electoral college thing is quite interesting.  In Canada we don't vote separately for our Prime Minister.  We have political parties.  They choose the person they want as the leader of their party.  WE the people vote, but we ONLY vote for one person in our own constituency/county.  End of the day, the PARTY with the most delegates becomes the majority, the leader of that party becomes our Prime Minister.  Now, this is where we have issues, because some provinces are much more populated then others.  Like, the United States, the constitution stipulates that each province should have an equal voice, so like you we occasionally end up with the party we did not select, because the number of delegates for each province carries more weight then the popular vote. 

The difference though, this situation is easily corrected by a "vote of non confidence" in the legislature, which has happened on more then one occasion.  Which is pretty good, because we don't get STUCK with a MISTAKE for very long.  The Canadian people have proven themselves to be pretty ruthless and even though our elections have often been selected by low voter turn out, once the vote of no confidence happened and we returned to the POLLS, we  always have had massive turn outs and restored a much more stable government. 

The thing I find confusing about the "electoral vote", why bother to have a separate vote for the President if it is not done by A POPULAR VOTE?  I understand when it comes to your congress and senators but you vote for your president completely SEPARATELY, he/she does not WORK for a single party, he/she works for the people.  It seems odd that every single vote then should be counted for the PERSONAL SELECTION of your President.  I saw this with Gore as well.  Considering how ignorant Republicans usually are, to their Democratic equals, the Democrats have always very GRACIOUSLY conceded to the "electoral" decision.  I have never seen it the other way around, where the Republicans won the popular vote but not the Electoral, so whether they would be as gracious, I have no idea.  Judging by what I am seeing of them, I have my doubts. 

It is odd, but it was the Republicans that were complaining about the Electoral Vote.  Of course, as soon as it benefits them, they no longer criticize the process.  I wish though that you would admit that this is true, because this is the second time the Electoral Vote has taken the Presidency away from the Democrats, in my lifetime, yet it is the Republicans that have constantly complained about it.  Along with the continued talk about rigging, vote fraud and all kinds of stuff.  Now, no complaints.