Electoral college members inundated by harassing phone calls, emails, and death threats - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;51553145]That may be the most tyrannical solution I've seen yet.[/QUOTE] How is it in any way tyrannical to try again, but this time without electing a shithead?

[QUOTE=TestECull;51553273]How is it in any way tyrannical to try again, but this time without electing a shithead?[/QUOTE] Because your solution depends on suspending the rule of law because you don't like the result. The law equally applying to all people is the only thing that protects us against tyranny. Saying that the rule of law only matters when you find the result acceptable is an actually scary precedent to set.

[QUOTE=space1;51551515]Is Democracy the right way to go about things? There's definitely more options than Democracy, Fascism, and Communism, that's for sure.[/QUOTE] Perhaps not, what do you propose? I propose removing the electoral college, or at least take out the physical human members and make the translation from state popular vote -> electoral votes automatic. Then give the electoral votes in proportion to the vote in the state. That way Republicans in California have a voice, and Democrats in Texas have a voice. Also instate a single transferable vote, meaning you rank your candidates by preference. That way you don't have to worry about throwing your vote away by voting third party, and this will remove the spoiler effect that results in always having just two candidates to realistically choose from. Democracy works, America is just bad at it.

the best solution is one that wastes the least votes it'd be nice to be able to vote for candidates in order of preference that way in one fell swoop you'd pretty much make the entire primaries process defunct and introduce a lot more variety to the elections and give marginalised people a bigger say

[QUOTE=Marcolade;51551133]But then you'll have people too afraid/prideful to admit they voted in a shitty person, and will blindly support their candidate anyways. "Oh it's not [I]that[/I] bad!" "Well, he's still better than Hillary!"[/QUOTE] There are some those people, but most people aren't that way. Overall most Presidents only serve one term. Trust me, it would be a lot worse if Trump doesn't serve as President at this point. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office[/url]

[QUOTE=MasterKade;51549601]"lol no" The electoral college doesn't exist because it was too hard to count votes, [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/"]it exists because of the fear of the majority voting for a tyrannical candidate,[/URL] which was much more likely to happen because information wasn't as widely spread hundreds of years ago. As in, it's not outright illegal to change electoral vote, it's supposed to happen.[/QUOTE] ironic how your own source mentions Madison fearing a faction that reaches a majority of the population. couldn't one argue that this faction is the Hillary supporters, considering the popular vote? or is it just because Trump doesn't align with your moral compass, the supporters (and therefore the minority) are such?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51552397]It does until you consider the implications of certain groups deregulating things in order to bolster themselves at the expense of others, which is kinda-sorta the "democracy" we have now in the form of lobbyists and politicians in the pockets of businessmen.[/QUOTE] And, also, it just seems fetishistic of empiricism (scientism another name) which often doesn't work out too well. And you've also got to have some way to sort the charlatans, which means empowering certain people or doing it democratically.