Why do large city populations vote Democrat? Demographics.

You are absolutely right. All this caterwauling by the Clinton campaign about winning the popular vote ignores the fact that many were votes against Trump, not for her. I'd be embarrassed.

Regarding the EC, it should definitely not be eliminated. Like most other things it was carefully thought out by the Founders and is there for a good reason. We have to keep in mind that they were dealing with a less stable and established framework and these decisions were intended to not only build a solid foundation for themselves but one that would last through centuries of potential, well, "calamity" if I have to choose a word for what's going on now.

For the last several elections, I have seen county maps that show Republicans carry the bulk of the counties.

I'd love to see a rule that said: "Each county shall appoint, in such manner as the freeholders thereof may direct/Each independent city shall appoint, in such manner as the council thereof may direct, a number of Electors..."

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if California had a Gubernatorial Electoral College? Wow, California would go back to being the beautiful, innovative, and freedom-loving state it used to be!

Don't think drinking that water is conducive to great minds thinking alike.
It's been for a long time that ospreys I've seen are the only ones who can catch a decent sized fish out of that stuff.
Can't even cane pole fish for bream without "nibblers" devouring a worm right off the hook.

Without the Electoral College, we would become The United States of New California. Ruled by 6 or 7 highly populated coastal states. Fly over country would be totally disenfranchised. I'm really tired of hearing about the popular vote VS the College. There is no such thing as a perfect system, but ours is the best so far.

First, they who live in large cities are used to having others do things for them that rural folk know they must do themselves. It gets them used to dependency. They call it inter-dependency, but interdependency is still dependency. And leftism is the political philosophy of dependency.

Second, of course we want the Electoral College. In fact, I want to see each State adopt a Gubernatorial Electoral College. Furthermore, I would like to see either (a) the same or similar state-wide Electoral College appoint Presidential Electors, or (b) have States choose two Electors at-large and let each Congressional district choose one Elector each. That's how they do it in Maine--and Maine, significantly, will field a split Electoral College delegation this year.

None of the military and absentee ballots have been counted? Then how were states, especially close ones such as Michigan and New Hampshire, able to certify their election results?

Don't forget the military vote and the absentee ballots have not been counted. Could there be 2 million Trump votes hidden in the stacks? The cities vote democrat because that's the party of entitlements. It's where non-working residents (legal and otherwise) congregate for their support.

Funny , must be the Compass lake water.

In the 16th century, Francis Bacon coined the fundamental axiom with which human beings must deal. His "nature to be commanded must be obeyed" says all one needs to know when dealing with the "non-human" universe.

However, it says nothing about a human beings dealings with each other. To the extent human beings become "removed" or isolated from nature, they are able to do so only to the extent they are dealing with other human beings. This can, to the extent one has no rational philosophy of life consistent with Bacon's axiom - one that applies to human beings, allow for the development of a destructive psycho-epistemological pathology.

I propose a corollary to Bacon's axiom - one that applies when dealing with human beings.

"A man's life, in order to exist in harmony with the lives of others, must be his own."

To the extent a human being no longer must deal exclusively with nature for his survival, recognition and acting in accord with said axiom, must be philosophically understood, and politically instituted.

Absent such a reality, those who deal almost exclusively with others, either in large cities or in pockets of wealth that "insulate" them from nature, they can come to believe almost any absurdity however disguised.

There is little "nature" to thwart, frustrate, or ultimately, punish them with death for failure to "obey."

There are no additional "powers". "Mandate" means broader popular support, which makes it easier politically for a president to pursue his agenda. Winning the election by itself is not what is meant by a "mandate".

Undermining any possible mandate is the political goal of the current agitation of the progressives, who are trying to de-legitimize the election in the eyes of the public. If they can't overturn the election with phony accusations and appeals to the electoral college to vote for Clinton, they want to make it look like Trump has no popular support. They want to embolden more opposition in order to undermine the Trump appointments and legislative agenda in Congress.

On the other side, Trump is trying to manufacture the impression of a mandate he does not have in what was a very close election.

Dang! I just wrote about lap dogs under another of your posts. Only my dogs were "slavering." Weird!
That's over in Russia Hacking by the way.

The reason voters vote liberal or conservative is a moot point. Neither party represents a fundamental commitment to individual rights.

As for the electoral college, most other countries function without it. How? The important component of other nations' system of counting votes includes the concept of proportional representation. The parliamentary system is capable of representing a diversity of views by virtue of the fact that parties are rewarded seats in the legislature in proportion to the percentage of the popular vote which that party receives.

In the United States, we have a winner-takes-all system of representation. Thus, "third party" candidates are far and few between. This can be an advantage or disadvantage. The advantage is that no radical third party is supposed to be able to take control of the political system. Of course, that makes sense only when your party is in power. The disadvantage is that diversity of views are not possible. The parties tend to oppose each other in fundamentals but compromise on solutions. Thus, little "gets done" and a bull in the China shop gets elected by a more or less cynical populace.

If the Electoral College only protects the nation when the party you voted for succeeds in getting elected, then you believe more in your party and less in the Constitution. Whether this fact is good or bad, I leave to comment.

Two hags both Soros skanks. It is a type of civil war being fought. Mob rule encouraged by Oblamo funded by Soros, shielded under the guise of Racism or white privilege or what ever sham works for the salivating lap dogs.

Please explain what additional powers a President gains by winning by a wide, rather than a narrow, margin.

Large city populations have no choice but to rely heavily on government services, so the idea of government control seems normal to them. Progressives, who are of a totalitarian mind, take advantage of that ingrained feeling of a heavy government presence as "normal," and wage a propaganda war. The Democrat message is that the Republicans are the enemy that is going to take away all of those vital services, creating an atmosphere of terror and panic. That's why you're seeing so many liberal meltdowns, because they genuinely fear for their lives, due to the exaggerated sense of danger they've been fed.

Big city dwellers are in a sense slaves, however independent they may think they are. Large segments of their community feel compelled not only to act a certain accepted way, but to think in a way that doesn't get a hostile response from others around them. A conservative thinker in a liberal community receives a very hostile response from those in their vicinity, because the conservative is viewed as a threatening presence.

Small communities experience less government presence, primarily because government services are more limited. The feeling of dire distress from others that have different views is less as well, because even liberals in this setting are more independent, without the rat warren claustrophobic setting of the big city.

The lesson I get from this is that rather than force more people into the rat warrens in the name of efficiency (Agenda 21), we should work to better distribute the American population. Reliance on telecommuting for non-physical labor, distributed transportation, power, and entertainment conserves wealth and energy, as well as reducing stress on the population.

The Michigan recount gives great insight in Detroit 37% of precincts had vote fraud one box listed 306 ballots when actually counted only 50. With that much fraud did she win popular vote or just better with cheaters

It's only Republican losers who are supposed to shut up and sit down.
Just ask winners like $hillary and Jill Stein.

It's the City itself that makes people liberal, dependent, socialist, disempowered and therefore demoncrapic.

Seriously...think about it. How much sovereignty does one have in a city, how much can you rely upon yourself besides working, feeding yourself and paying your rent. Other than those things, you have no responsibility, your not allowed to fix anything when it breaks, you rely on the land lord, you have to rely on the government for all basic needs...your a hostage at the mercy of your captor...The city and it's government is your keeper.

The days when the city behind the castle walls was your protection from the world are looooong gone...we should abandon them. The city is now your foe. They should become only a place to visit but not a place to live.

That is not what a "mandate" means. The distinction is between winning by a narrow margin versus a wide margin, not winning versus losing.

Every election year we ask the same question, with the same answers, and same conclusion: Electoral college balances mob rule. No we should not abolish it. This year, we have celebrities and pouting politicians asking electorates to join the mob rule. What we need to get rid of is the insidious Political Royalty that has developed in America. We need to return to a government by the people and for the people.

1) Air pollution dulls the mind. 2) Nay

"I agree, Trump did not win a mandate."

He has the only mandate that matters, and the only one he needs; he won the election.

1) Because there is a high proportion of wealthy limousine liberals and moochers in big cities.
2) No.