The polls were not that far off in 2016. Trump did lose the popular vote by a significant amount, as predicted. He won by navigating the margin of error in a handful of key states to win the Electoral College.

This was why FiveThirtyEight never showed Clinton as having a lock on the election.

The difference in the popular vote was about half a percent, I wouldn't categorize that as significant, others might. Luckily for the middle of the country we are not a democracy we are a representative republic. If the popular vote was the decider no votes in the heartland would mean a thing. The coasts would choose the president every election. Pure democracy is mob rule and the framers knew this and skillfully set up a system whereby the votes count in the less populated areas. If the move to eliminate the electoral college succeeds half the country would be permanently disenfranchised. If you don't like the politics of the people on the coasts too bad.

National polls are pretty meaningless. All the polls in the key swing states that she lost showed her to be leading by four to eight points. Only a few votes in key precincts in key states can decide an election.

National popular vote would very likely kill the two party system.

The coasts ruling argument doesn’t make sense. Candidates spend 85+% of their time in 10 states right now, and sometimes more than 90% of their money. How is this system preferable to a system where one vote in CA is worth what one vote in KS is worth?

We already have a system where 30% of the US population controls the majority of the senate. Therein is the check and balance.

I like that national vote and accept that political leanings may change all over the country, like they have many times. See the Eisenhower electoral map vs the Regan electoral map.

This election hinges on Michigan, PA, Wisconsin, and NC. I guess the thing that is disappointing is that so many states are in the bag. I wish my party could gain some serious footholds to make the other two actually pay attention to the voters instead of their own agenda.

Do you really believe all that? Really? Whatever happened to "one person, one vote"? .Shouldn't every vote carry the same weight?

Do you consider it acceptable that the vote of a citizen living on the coast is worth less than that of a citizen living elsewhere?

Or in other words: You are saying some people's votes carry more weight depending on where they live and that is ok?

Have you considered that the two party system is not necessarily desirable. That having multiple parties which form coalitions, as is the case in most European democracies, can be beneficial and desirable.

I think I can see why the EC was established in the U.S. constitution at the time but I don't think it is still the best system for the country.

I think it is extremely undemocratic and unjust when a candidate who did not win the popular vote wins the Presidency. And that's regardless of which candidate may benefit at any given election.

Oh, and of course th U.S. are a democracy, contrary to what you stated. Just not a direct democracy. Most democratic countries aren't either, by the way.

The representative republican system and the electoral college were established so that the wealthy northeast could not dominate the policy in the rest of the country. It now insures that the wealthy coasts can't dominate the policy in the rest of the country. We have more than two parties but the main two are successful in drowning out the others. As pointed out by Ronaldo, when a candidate speaks to a large majority of the country's values that candidate can win both the coasts and the middle we just haven't been blessed with a candidate like that for quite some time.

Its not a perfect system but it is the one we have.

Every vote carries the same weight within your state. Nationally, that's not the deal the states signed up for when they formed the union.

Their vote counts 100% within in their own state, for their own business. It counts less when they try to impose their will on people in other states who have different values and cultures.

Only when it comes to imposing your will on other people.

Parties are not defined by law or the constitution. You're free to start your own party, and if you can appeal to enough people then you'll be a force to be reckoned with and the big two parties will have to deal with you. Or are you suggesting that some entity should define the nature and number of political parties in the US? The government perhaps should do that? That works well for the CCP, not so well for the USSR or any of their subjects.

Great! You can get it changed, we do have a system for that, you just need enough political momentum to initiate a constitutional convention, and to ultimately prevail with your proposal at that convention.

That's because you have a gross conceptual error as to the nature of this country. We are the "United States of America", we are not and never have been the "United People of America"

That's the facts, Jack, but if you don't like it odds are very good that you can find a state (or one of the virtual city-states) which precisely matches your political preferences, and move there.

We are not a democracy, we are a republic. It's hard to have a true democracy with any political unit larger than a village. For two reasons:

1) The logistics of doing the voting (that might change with information technology).
2) The burden of understanding, negotiating, and voting on the ever-more complex issues which government must address for a large society (larger than say a village). It quickly becomes a full-time job, and one best suited to at least some degree of professionalism.

Because Europe has done so well historically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...icts_in_Europe

LOL.

Yep, given our position in the world for the past hundred years I tend to want to stick with our imperfect system.

The U.S. are both a republic and a democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/