Yes We Need The Electoral College

Starting 2017 by sliding back into the dark hole of politics. Someone just shoot me. Ok, not literally I want to live. Figured I should jump on this topic while it's still hot, though. The electoral college is openly disputed, mostly it's the liberals that are so butthurt over Hilary's loss that they're trying to find anything they can to delegitimize Trump's presidency. Ok first, he's your president get over it. Two, you are wrong about the electoral college. I keep hearing it said that it jeopardizes our democracy (which technically we are a republic, slightly different than a democracy. Same tree different branch).That is false. You're preferred popular vote is what jeopardizes founding principles of our nation. Although you liberals probably only want it because Hilary won the popular vote. If it was flipped I'm pretty sure you all would be going, "Woo! Yeah electoral college!" Anyway, the electoral college gives every state a say in the election. Not just a select few, which is what happens when you go by popular vote.

The electoral college was approved in 1787. This gave the less populated states a fair say in the elections without being drowned out by the bigger more populated stated. If we went by popular vote the more populated states would be overpowering the less populated states. Which goes exactly against our founding principles. The Founding Fathers did not want the power in the hands of a few. They wanted everyone to have a say in the building of this nation, in the leadership of this nation.

Let me create a scenario for you. We have two candidates A and B. Ten states want Candidate A, but the other forty want Candidate B. Now this theoretical nation, that's much like the US, uses popular vote to select their president. The ten states that want Candidate A have more population than the other forty that want Candidate B combined. So Candidate A become president because he had the most individual votes. See a problem there? If you don't let me explain. The problem is that FORTY other states wanted Candidate B to be president, but they were out muscled by the ten. Popular vote, though, the "entire" nation wanted Candidate A right? No, only ten states wanted that candidate. Forty wanted someone else. Forty out of fifty states compared to ten out of fifty states.Think about that for a second, forty states compared to ten. But those forty had their voice silenced by the bigger states. The power to pick is only in the hands of those few states not in the hands of all the states, which is not democracy

Now, same scenario but with the electoral college. Each state is given an amount of electoral votes based on the population. Candidate B becomes president now. Why? Because those forty states had a voice in the election because of the electoral college. They were no longer overpowered by the ten. They were given a fair chance to vote in the candidate they wanted. Could Candidate A still become president? Yes, but he would have to win a few more states than those original ten. This is a true democracy, because the power to pick is in everyone's hands.

For our actual election, Trump won 3,064 counties where Hilary won 57. Yet Hilary won the popular vote. How? She won the most populated counties in the US. Take out just New York City and Los Angeles and Trump wins the popular vote. By popular vote its those 57 counties picking our president. 57 out of 3,141. The rest of the counties wanted Trump, but you want to silence voices of 3,064 countries for what? Well over three-quarters of our nation didn't want Hilary, but that doesn't matter to you because of popular vote. The choice of over three-quarters of a nation thrown in the trash because 57 counties out populated them. It doesn't make any sense to do that.