One problem about this arguement is that 1)Subtract California (my state) and Hillary loses the popular vote and 2)Many Californians who might have voted Rep dont bother because they recognize their votes are useless.
This is actually a pretty good example of the flawed nature of the system. If you disenfranchised the most populous state in America, that has 40 million people and leans strongly to the Democrats. It would have NO effect on the ultimate outcome of the election, that is a pretty strong indication there is something wrong with the system.
Additionally I live in California and know plenty of Bernie-ites who either didn’t vote or voted Green, because they knew their vote would have no effect.
That’s not a logical conclusion and I doubt you can support any of your hyperbolic assertions. And if you watch the news during each election cycle you can see much befuddlement.
It’s your opinion that that aspect the system is a demerit. And are you suggesting we live in a pure democracy? If so, can you support why a pure democracy would be superior to what we have now? And furthermore, how would you enact such a thing when each state still has power and is unwilling to give it up to empower California?
I find it somewhat intellectually inconsistent to on one hand denigrate what the founders established due to “slave-fucking” and yet want to keep the majority of what they established. It seems the so-called “slave-fucking” is irrelevant and is only meant to provoke emotional responses. Why not debate the issue strictly on the merits?
Since the states have existed, in some cases, longer than the federal government. I don’t see them nor their political power disappearing in the next couple hundred years. I see a splintering of the nation before that. And I don’t think the Army would let the nation split.
So why not start advocating for a constitutional convention which would let all the wise and morally pure modern people start fresh?
How is something wrong with the system because the largest political party in California on it’s own can’t decide for the nation?
IMO the flaw in the last election wasnt with the system, but with how the candidates were chosen. With the Dems, the party overlords corrupt the process by favoring a candidate and superdelegates. The Reps had too many candidates and that allowed an outlier to win.
If I were King, I would have four regional primaries starting in July…one every two weeks. Rotating per cycle. Have the conventions in September and the election on the first Teusday in November. A shorter cycle would mean people would be more willing to engage before fatigue sets in and the press would have less opportunity to influence races.
The suggestion (by madsircool, but I’ve seen it made other places) is you can’t criticize the electoral college because if you were to completely disenfranchise California, then the Dems would have lost the popular vote. That makes zero sense.
In some hypothetical Democratic electoral system you would expect, if the most populous region of the country also had a large majority of supporters of one party, that disenfranchising that region would have a big outcome on a close election. That is how elections work, regardless of the system used, removing a large heavily partisan section of the electorate would, you expect, change the result. Saying that a system where it WOULDN’T is some how better than one where it WOULD, is nonsensical.
If you were king, we wouldn’t have primaries.
It’s also a democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive.
It’s possible to have a democratic republic, like the US. It’s also possible to have a non-democratic republic, like the USSR. It’s also possible to have a democratic non-republic, like the UK. It’s also possible to have a non-democratic non-republic, like pre-revolutionary France.
lol
objectivity doesn’t exist
it’s literally impossible
So?
Subtract Texas and Hillary’s margin grows. What’s your point?
Comparing the current U.S. situation to South African apartheid is the silliest statement I’ve read on this board.
I mean, it’s not surprising that someone who names themselves after a hero from a paean to slavery doesn’t care about the plight of people of color…
Normally by this point someone would have declared that the House should have thousands of members and cited the Reapportionment Act of 1929 as the source of all evil.
Lol…need em for the media taxes they would raise to fund my harem. 
Sounds good to me.
The OP’s question is kinda naïve. It assumes we are a single unitary country and the states are just administrative boundaries of no more consequence than school district boundaries.
That might in fact be a smarter way to run this part of the North American continent. But the result would not be the USA; it’d be the successor country. Or more likely, countries.
As folks have said, we’ve got an antique version 1.0 system that’s been stretched well past its inherent design limitations. And somehow along the way it acquired two specifically named fixed parties that are now de facto, and largely de jure, permanent features of the system.
This is indeed different than most other modern democracies no matter how we choose to parse that term.
More like system 5.0 after various groups got the vote and the Senate selection process was reformed. Remember, Senators used to be appointed by the state legislatures rather than by direct vote.
Beren, personal cracks at the character of other posters is ill-advised. It is especially so when one has been warned about such posts previously.
This is another warning. Moderate your tone or your stay here at the SDMB will be short.
The Earth is objectively round and not flat.
I was not trying to be unhelpful 
I was just trying to point to some of the complexities involved in answering this question seriously.
I see your point but I’d argue it’s closer to version 1.4 service pack 2. IOW, it’s the original thing with some minimal tweaks, some of which were/are ill advised.
At the core of all of this is the question of whether we’re one nation or 50 or maybe 97. Clearly opinions differ between people and for many people differ depending on the issue.
It’s undeniable that what we have today is a hodgepodge of things that were never designed to work together under the present conditions. But in a political system that overvalues small losses and undervalues large gains we’re stuck in stasis. Meanwhile current demographic trends drive the system farther and farther from the more stable areas of democracy-space where individual’s votes are mostly equally effective and by and large the legislatures at all levels reflect the preferences of their constituencies.
We’re not there today and we’re driving farther from that every day. If you (anyone) thinks the system is under strain today, check back in 50 years.