The electoral college should be abolished

If I misunderstood here, I do not think the electoral college is going much better. You see last year or so that candidates traveled to these so-called "battlefields" many times. Do you recommend to sparsely populate any of these areas?

I thought that many of you think that your founder has a reason (I believe it).

Certainly the vote in California (Clinton with + 363580) will not be even less than Michigan (the cards won + 17168). If you divide by election vote ...

Another side is a flaw in the 'winner' system. I think that this should be replaced with "proportional grant representative" system.

Election colleges did not reflect changing demographic data until the two sides split breakpoints almost in isolation - do you think this is a good thing for your country?

Thank you for reading this article ..... Your system ... there is some flaw and I truly believe that we need some things to do. I hug it and do not want to see the fix ... ... outsiders observe all this and may not look wisely

I know that we only need to provide statistics and perform mathematical calculations, so that all of these must have better reasoning.

PS: It is very clear that America helped us in the first direct presidential election in 1996 ... We vote in popularity vote just like many other countries around the world I ... and it was just elected The first woman president of the year! We are still thankful ... ... (but I can not expect that much for the US - I wish you good luck)

As in each election season, especially in a constituency where the candidate won the election but have never won the popular election, there is a talk about whether to abolish the university that participated in the election and replace it with mass voting increasing. At first glance, in order for someone to win, they must earn more than 50% of the popularity vote. I have not insisted that one is fair than the other, but it should be noted that electoral colleges have created a situation where your voting is actually more important than a massive mass vote is. .

From the perspective of presidential election, many people claimed that electoral colleges should be abolished - mainly the Clinton won the public's vote, but the trump that lost most of the election voting. Goa won the public's vote, but it was also related to the 2000 election that lost the right to vote for Bush. Clinton won the popularity vote, but if our election system is based on popularity it is important to consider that each candidate will completely change their campaign strategy. For example, cards would not be able to spend more time on campaigns in big red provinces like Texas and small swing states like New Hampshire.

This chart shows that most of the US agree that the electoral college should be abolished. Republicans tend to have a strong tendency to maintain systems, but in most cases it is tasteless. There are several reasons why electoral colleges are called "inequitable", but three of them are more prominent than other universities. The first reason is that this system gives voting rights to small countries. The Senate is dispatching two voters to each province, so there is no need to protect smaller countries. The government believes that if smaller states do not accept more voters, candidates will concentrate all the time in the most populous states. The government asked candidates to appeal to all 50 states, so this problem should not be a problem. If each state has the same number of voters, each state has the same attraction. Electoral colleges are creating problems to be solved, but on the contrary