The requirement to win across many states is not the same thing as winning by a narrow margin. Winning by a narrow margin doesn't get more electoral votes and winning more states can be done with or without narrow or wide margins.

These are two ways of saying the exact same thing.

It doesn't favor winning states by a narrow margin either. The winning candidate, regardless of different margins, is required to win a broad distribution of states.

The Electoral College does not favor rural regions by its nature. The Electoral College favors the candidate who wins states by a narrow margin, which may or may not be the urban candidate. In the last election it benefitted the candidate with more rural support, but it could easily benefit the urban candidate next time.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/18/4-w...

Interesting article and pretty scary regarding how those fools in Washington came awful close to changing to mob rule, and not that long ago.

Mob rule by voting does not "work" and has no moral foundation. It is collectivism.

freedomforall, thank you for taking the time to put up this informative post. I've seen some of these quotes from time to time, but not all and certainly not all at once and not always with attribution. Much appreciated!

1-Ask them.
2-Yes. It's called democracy and works in France-runoff if nobody gets over 50% on first ballot. One Voter One Vote One Value.I'd probably vote for Trump in a runoff with Clinton.

Our two parties are evolving into the Tory and Labor parties of GB. Both are socialist. If Trump fails the destruction of the US will be eminent.

Tbird7553, you left out question 3. I'll lead into it by suggesting you look at a red/blue county map of NY. Now the question: If the hard working conservative Trump supporting farmers, who are often held in contempt by the city liberals, decided to stop feeding the city elite Clinton supporters by going Galt, would the city elites change their tune?

Trump lost the popular vote significantly. A majority, let alone a large majority, did not vote for him at all, and fewer liked his promises -- whatever they were in the stream of contradictions. Some who voted for him opposed Clinton. Both of them had record high negative ratings in the polls.

Hillary basically won California and thus the popular vote. Do we want Calif., land of the screwy nuts, to call all the shots, just because the are populated by people who are on the dole? Better to keep the Electoral College and let the working men and women in the other states have a say. As to the large city question, the poor and those looking for assistance always have flocked to big cities, looking for that rainbow, they stay, they get on welfare, and they vote. Also, rich live in those big cities, they feel guilt for their excess money and multiple homes, so they vote liberal.

Same ole be ruled by a king or rule yourself...in Israel and in America we were taught that we could rule ourselves...but the demoncrapic voters ruined it for the rest of us. Now we are ruled by creatures that can't even rule themselves.

Still scratchin my head over that one...

1. The "Herd" Mentality

#2. No...our Founding Fathers were far wiser than any of our current leaders.

People need to be continuously reminded. We do not have a democracy we have a constitutional republic (as long as we can keep it). A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Our Constitution and mechanisms like the electoral college guard against the tyranny of the majority.

I think the country is going socialist, so we got probably the last president who is not really pushing us towards socialism.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Dependency is the hallmark of a democratic voter

Actually, eventually, I think the internet is going to do a lot of that in the way of education. But, yes, abolishing MANY societal functions taken over by bureaucrats is a worthy goal as is teaching people how taxation is actually THEFT. The money we are forced to give NEVER goes for the benefit of children even though they ALWAYS advertise that this brand-new tax you must vote for is "for the children!". LOL

True enough. Though the only remedy I see for "public education" is to abolish it. Abolish it, repeal the school taxes, and watch as a new variety of private school, one not meant to be "exclusive," fills the void.

Nope, they apparently do not. This is where the California Gubernatorial Electoral College would help by allowing people who actually know something about the evils of dependency might get into political offices and be able to do something about the abysmal public education in this state.

College towns of moderate size may also vote Democrat. In Michigan, the county I formerly lived in, Kalamazoo county, is a college town and one of the few counties in west Michigan that went blue.

Their long-term self-interest, yes. In that it is never in their interest to stay dependent upon anyone. But they don't know that, do they?

Large city populations contain a large population of those living on the government teats. They will always vote for the free stuff and are what I call the FSA Free Stuff Army. Out here in rural America is where those who actually carry their own weight live. You can also use a magnifying glass and see that small towns and villages that have government resource offices also lean toward the democrats. In my county here in NY we went strong for Trump but in the nearest town it was just the opposite with lots of section 8 housing, low end apartment complexes and the county welfare office.

No actual powers really, just an understanding that a large majority liked his promises and hope that he'll keep them. Also, Congress would be expected to accept that a large majority wants him to succeed in implementing his promises and should work with him or face the wrath of their constituents that supported him. And the media should understand that they risk alienating his constituency if they continually attack him and his attempts to implement his promised policies. But I agree, Trump has no mandate.

I agree. It would be to the benefit of the state and its people to do something like that. Especially since the rank and file liberal ALWAYS votes against their self-interest.