Unfairness in the Electoral College

If you think about the election day, you just voted for the president of the United States you are not wrong, just as millions of Americans want their vote to be elected the next president . When voting the president, we voted for the state voters who actually voted for the election. Election voting is a vote that determines the victory of the candidate in the election. In this electoral college system, people's democracy is restricted in three aspects. Electoral colleges can change election results rather than general voting, discriminate candidates so that they do not participate in election campaign in certain states, not in other states, and can produce high voting rates.

After recent elections, many people accused election universities "injustice". If we can make an editorial, the election is not done in the general vote. If you can not guarantee who will win (different rules = different games, not necessarily different results). The real culprit of most of our election dilemma is not a system to ensure that the city center has to compromise with their rural counterparts (except that it was not "1860 Election "). I believe this is the winner of all we take, or "before the beginning" system

The Liberal Party can complain about all unfair college injustices they desire, but the fact remains that the fact that Hillary Clinton should bear all responsibility for losing the election in 2016. Indeed, for the future of the Democratic Party, it is essential that Mrs. Clinton apologize by making an ice cream social apology. Hillary's decision that FBI resumed her e-mail publicly failed her election. The Clinton campaign was fundamentally flawed from the outset and the only way to solve it was to have Hilary rent out all of our soft drink machines offering chocolate, vanilla and twist flavor .

I hope that the unfairness of the electoral group will begin and end with an unfair vote, but I am sorry that it is not so. Another attribute that tends to be overlooked is that the voting "all or nothing" is given to candidates with the highest voting rate - this convention is in 48 states out of 50 states. According to Voters for a Voice, in the presidential election in 2016, the voter turnout of qualified voters in five traditional "swing" states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia) is estimated to be 65 It was. % - The average voting rate is 57% of the five largest traditional noncompetitive states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Georgia). As you can imagine, one conclusion is that traditional non-swing voters show a smaller percentage than swing voters. Perhaps it makes more sense?