This is a topical subject because the Electoral college gave the Presidency to Trump, but as of this writing, Clinton has 1.6 million more popular votes and has a shot at 2 million more popular votes by the end of counting.  This is the 5th time this has happened, and every time, this happens, we risk civil war.  1st, to understand the problem, we must understand the history:

Going back to the drafting of the constitution, several suboptimal compromises went into the Constitution.  1 was that when choosing the President, one votes for electors whose numbers are equal to the number of Senators and Representatives.  Small states hoped that this would boost their influence on the election of the President.  It does not:

States soon figured that if all of the electors vote alike, candidates would focus on the state because its electors will all go to 1 candidate.  This race to the bottom leads to 48 of 50 states having all of the electors of their states voting for the plurality winner of the state.  The result is that 30 states are ignored in each election:

¿What do California, the 6 states with 3 electoral votes and the District of Columbia have in common?  ¡They are all FlyOverCountry!:

Basically only states where the republicrat and democan are closer than 45% 55% are worth campaigning.  Beyond those parameters, they are either out-of-reach or in-the-bag.  That means that only 5-10 states are competitive.  Because of polling uncertainty, that is dozen-score in practice.  The other 30 states are irrelevant and can be safely ignored.

Certainly, a 3-electoral-vote state could be a swing state and become part of the battleground, but so can a large state (in 1960, Texas was a swing state).

The Electoral College makes fraud much easier:

Let us suppose that 1 Politician receives 51% Of the popular vote and another politician receives 48% of the popular vote with 1% of the popular votes going to independents and 3rd parties with 200 million presidential ballots cast.  The candidate with 51% carries 27 states and the District of Columbia.  In the Electoral college it is 323 to 215 in favor of the 51%.

The looser notices that in California, it is very close (the winner wins California by only a few hundred votes).  The looser pays 1 thousand registered voters who did not plan to vote 1 thousand dollars to vote for him and confirm the vote by taking a selfy with the completed ballot  ——  ¡this is why BallotSelfies should be illegal, as they are in many places!  The Looser now caries California and wins the Electoral College 270 to 268.

¡The Cheater just used the Electoral College as an huge ForceMultiplier!:

It would take changing 3 million popular votes under that scenario to achieve the same effect without the Electoral College.  ¡That is a 3-thousand-to-1 multiplier!

This brings us to how the Electoral College could lead to civil war:

Let us suppose that it gets out that the cheater cheated, but one does not have enough evidence to disqualify the cheater.  The candidate receiving 51% of the popular vote, carrying 26 states and the District of Columbia  ——  ¡I should have carried 27 states, but the cheater stole California!  ——  and missing a majority  of the Electoral College by only 2 Electoral votes  ——  ¡should have won the Electoral College by 54 votes but the cheater stole California!  ——  refuses to concede.  People start rallying to the banner of their preferred candidate.  The country plunges into a long bloody civil war.

5 times in US-History, the Electoral College chose a President other than the popular vote.  The only thing which saved the country from civil war is that the candidate with the most popular votes took 1 for the team and conceded to the winner of the electoral college.  We have no guarantee that this will happen in the future.

Executive Summary: Dump the Electoral College of the United States of America before it leads to civil war. This is a topical subject because the Electoral college gave the Presidency to Trump, but as of this writing, Clinton has 1.6 million more popular votes and has a shot at 2 million more popular votes by the end of counting. This is the 5th time this has happened, and every time, this happens, we risk civil war. 1st, to understand the problem, we must understand the history: Going back to the drafting of the constitution, several suboptimal compromises went into the Constitution. 1 was that when choosing the President, one votes for electors whose numbers are equal to the number of Senators and Representatives. Small states hoped that this would boost their influence on the election of the President. It does not: States soon figured that if all of the electors vote alike, candidates would focus on the state because its electors will all go to 1 candidate. This race to the bottom leads to 48 of 50 states having all of the electors of their states voting for the plurality winner of the state. The result is that 30 states are ignored in each election: ¿What do California, the 6 states with 3 electoral votes and the District of Columbia have in common? ¡They are all FlyOverCountry!: Basically only states where the republicrat and democan are closer than 45% 55% are worth campaigning. Beyond those parameters, they are either out-of-reach or in-the-bag. That means that only 5-10 states are competitive. Because of polling uncertainty, that is dozen-score in practice. The other 30 states are irrelevant and can be safely ignored. Certainly, a 3-electoral-vote state could be a swing state and become part of the battleground, but so can a large state (in 1960, Texas was a swing state). The Electoral College makes fraud much easier: Let us suppose that 1 Politician receives 51% Of the popular vote and another politician receives 48% of the popular vote with 1% of the popular votes going to independents and 3rd parties with 200 million presidential ballots cast. The candidate with 51% carries 27 states and the District of Columbia. In the Electoral college it is 323 to 215 in favor of the 51%. The looser notices that in California, it is very close (the winner wins California by only a few hundred votes). The looser pays 1 thousand registered voters who did not plan to vote 1 thousand dollars to vote for him and confirm the vote by taking a selfy with the completed ballot —— ¡this is why BallotSelfies should be illegal, as they are in many places! The Looser now caries California and wins the Electoral College 270 to 268. ¡The Cheater just used the Electoral College as an huge ForceMultiplier!: It would take changing 3 million popular votes under that scenario to achieve the same effect without the Electoral College. ¡That is a 3-thousand-to-1 multiplier! This brings us to how the Electoral College could lead to civil war: Let us suppose that it gets out that the cheater cheated, but one does not have enough evidence to disqualify the cheater. The candidate receiving 51% of the popular vote, carrying 26 states and the District of Columbia —— ¡I should have carried 27 states, but the cheater stole California! —— and missing a majority of the Electoral College by only 2 Electoral votes —— ¡should have won the Electoral College by 54 votes but the cheater stole California! —— refuses to concede. People start rallying to the banner of their preferred candidate. The country plunges into a long bloody civil war. 5 times in US-History, the Electoral College chose a President other than the popular vote. The only thing which saved the country from civil war is that the candidate with the most popular votes took 1 for the team and conceded to the winner of the electoral college. We have no guarantee that this will happen in the future.

� > Dump the Electoral College of the United States of America before it leads to civil war. � i dunno if it would ever get that bad, but i agree the U.S. should ditch electing presidents using this funky non-linear function of 51 different subtotals of the popular vote. (the term "Electoral College" does not appear in the U.S. constitution, and i doubt that it does in law, but the term "electors" does appear and maybe "presidential electors" and vice-presidential electors.) �it should be just the aggregate popular vote. BTW, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gets us there without a constitutional amendment. but some things that don't exactly make sense: > > Going back to the drafting of the constitution, several suboptimal compromises went into the Constitution. 1 was that when choosing the President, one votes for electors whose numbers are equal to the number of Senators and Representatives. BTW, the reason the founding fathers did this was really for facilitating the administering of elections by the states (without federal involvement) and to keep any state from swinging an election by padding its own vote. �The states are assigned a number of electors and they get to choose their electors any way their legislature chooses to. �Even when states throw all of their electors to one candidate, that is the limit to how much they can effect the outcome. > Small states hoped that this would boost their influence on the election of the President. It does not: > hey, one of the arguments people are making for ditching the so-called Electoral College **is** that it grants voters in Wyoming and Vermont and D.C. much more weight than voters in California or Texas. �as in this:�https://onsizzle.com/i/electoral-college-math-the-population-of-california-is-38-800-000-the-4175736 �so you have people on your own side that disagree with your claim above. � > States soon figured that if all of the electors vote alike, candidates would focus on the state because its electors will all go to 1 candidate. This race to the bottom leads to 48 of 50 states having all of the electors of their states voting for the plurality winner of the state. The result is that 30 states are ignored in each election: > > �What do California, the 6 states with 3 electoral votes and the District of Columbia have in common? �They are all FlyOverCountry!: > > Basically only states where the republicrat and democan are closer than 45% 55% are worth campaigning. Beyond those parameters, they are either out-of-reach or in-the-bag. That means that only 5-10 states are competitive. Because of polling uncertainty, that is dozen-score in practice. The other 30 states are irrelevant and can be safely ignored. > > Certainly, a 3-electoral-vote state could be a swing state and become part of the battleground, but so can a large state (in 1960, Texas was a swing state). > > The Electoral College makes fraud much easier: well, that's debatable. �say in 2000, if there is an election that ends up decided by one state that came out close, then recounts need only happen in that state. but it *would* make it easier to defraud the election in just a single state, rather than widespread > > Let us suppose that 1 Politician receives 51% Of the popular vote and another politician receives 48% of the popular vote with 1% of the popular votes going to independents and 3rd parties with 200 million presidential ballots cast. The candidate with 51% carries 27 states and the District of Columbia. In the Electoral college it is 323 to 215 in favor of the 51%. > > The looser notices that in California, it is very close (the winner wins California by only a few hundred votes). The looser pays 1 thousand registered voters who did not plan to vote 1 thousand dollars to vote for him and confirm the vote by taking a selfy with the completed ballot —— �this is why BallotSelfies should be illegal, as they are in many places! The Looser now caries California and wins the Electoral College 270 to 268. > > �The Cheater just used the Electoral College as an huge ForceMultiplier!: > > It would take changing 3 million popular votes under that scenario to achieve the same effect without the Electoral College. �That is a 3-thousand-to-1 multiplier! > > This brings us to how the Electoral College could lead to civil war: > you could have the Cheater cheating an election with popular vote, too. �if it comes out close, with the popular vote the recount and re-examination would be nationwide. -- � r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com � "Imagination is more important than knowledge."