I say the Electoral College needs to remain, and for this reason: it creates a formula through which a majority can be determined from a set of numbers that might not contain one that represents a majority.
"What?," he asks. "I don't even understand what you just said."
That is why his opinion means so little in the discussion. To him, you simply replace "majority" with "most votes," and you end up with the same thing. That is not true, if the "most votes" does not represent a "majority," board minutes cannot be passed. When the standard for electing the most powerful person in the world does not meet the standard for board motions, you create far more problems than you resolve.
My suggestion is to sit back, read, and learn.
The mathematical principles of pro rata and per capita are used in calculating electoral votes.
Pro rata is based upon popular vote. Per capita is based upon statehood. Each state has as many electoral votes as they have federal representatives in Congress, which is two Senators and a varying number of Congressional House members with a minimum of one per state.
That means that the fewest electoral votes a state can have is three. The numbers above that shift from census period to census period, and is based on population, or pro rata.
When they talk about "Wyoming and California," they are really saying "the smallest and the largest." That combination will always result in the greatest differential of numbers. The differences are so insignificant as the states that are compared are closer to the middle, but they are, too, if you compare the largest with the largest or the smallest with the smallest.
That's not my fault. That's the way math works in these cases.
Historically, the result of the election in 2016 was going to be the third time something happened, regardless of the result. Either it would be the third time the person who got the most votes lost the election, or it would be the third time the person who got the most states lost the election. In the end, Hillary joined Grover Cleveland in 1888 and Al Gore in 2000 as candidates who got the most votes and lost. Otherwise, Trump would have joined Richard Nixon in 1960 and Gerald Ford in 1976 as the only candidates to lose elections decided by the Electoral College despite winning the most states. One is as rare as the other.
The Electoral College was sufficient to award Abraham Lincoln the presidency with less than 40% of the vote, because he got the most votes and won the most states.
"So what?," asks my friend again. "You would rather Trump be the president, I suppose."
"Trump was the president," I tell him. "Besides, if there is one person who does not get to say she did not know the rules, it is Hillary."
"I don't care, I'm siding with Hillary," he boasts.
"I can tell that you don't care, sir," I tell him.
I'm going to side with ancient mathematical principles creating a majority from a set of numbers that does not necessarily have a number that represents a majority, the historical accuracy that the system has afforded us, and the fact that flukes like 2016 are as rare as are flukes like 1960 and 1976.
