comment: >
  
  The Senate was populated by appointment until the early 1900s, and it puts small population states way ahead in the constituent power ratio. The Senate is anti-democratic by design.
context: Meanwhile Republican states are changing rules to be more like the electoral college, requiring a majority of counties or districts to pass ballot measures instead of a majority of people. >
  
  It's been a danger since 1824 when John Quincy Adams beat Andrew Jackson despite losing the popular vote.
  And especially recently. A republican president hasn't won the popular vote since 2004. >
  
  And Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, he won in 2004 because of the “rally round the flag effect” of 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghan wars. >
  
  They’ve won it once (2004) since 1988. That’s 7 losses in 8 elections. Yet a Republican has still managed to hold the Oval Office for 12 of those 32 years. >
  
  We don’t elect presidents by popular vote. The sooner democrats stop beating that dead horse and broaden their appeal back to the working class all over the country the better off we will all be. They’d rather play silly diversity games while packing their donors pockets and openly mocking everyone who lives in an area with less than 50,000 people. >
  
  The point of this post is that it's a shame we don't elect by popular vote. 
  And wow, silly diversity games. They get elected by a variety of people, how is that bad? >
  
  They pin their hopes on certain groups to guarantee a win, while ignoring or throwing others under the bus.
  The middle class white worker was the base of the Dem party not that long ago.  Dems stopped campaigning and even blame them for every problem, and are shocked they vote for the other side. >
  
  The Democrats have decreased their focus on the white middle class and have largely diversified. I don't see what's wrong with that. They're not blaming the white middle class for anything. >
  
  It's always been a danger to democracy.
  It was invented to disenfranchise the people.
  So rich assholes have all the power.  Just like all other times in history.  You're either connected or you are fucked. >
  
  Making sure the president has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively: is fascism conceived by the framers of the constitution to fix the problems of other election methods. But actually was meant to disenfranchise modern day democrats. Big. Brain. Moves. >
  
  
  is fascism conceived by the framers of the constitution to fix the problems of other election methods.
  
  Not sure if you meant that as a question, or a statement.
  Either way, good catch. I agree the founders absolutely were fascists.
  I hadn't thought that way before due to the American "education" I received.
  Jews and Blacks suffered at the hands of Nazis and the founding fathers, respectively.  I guess if the Nazis had won WWII after using Jews as slave labor before liquidating them they'd probably see Germany as justified or at least seeing it as a different time, just like we see U.S. history nowadays.  Germany even based their eugenics on pre-existing American programs.
  Then there's the American genocides of indigenous people.  Yup, America is pretty damn fascist. >
  
  I wouldn’t go so far as to say all the founding fathers were fascists, but never forget that the Nazi party learned many of their propaganda tricks from the US, and just tweaked them a bit >
  
  Do away electoral college. Complete shutdown election holiday. Mandatory vote under penalty of law. National election, national popular results. >
  
  Mandatory voting is 100% a violation of freedom of speech >
  
  What if they had a no vote option they could declare in place of a vote to satisfy the mandate.
  You already are not a legal citizen if you do not register your birth, or rather have it done for you or if imitating, you are an illegal alien until you get through the process to become a legal citizen.
  I don't agree with a mandate by law to vote, but I am just saying as a law, an option to file an op out or submit a blank ballot would be necessary and I don't know if that would be enough. >
  
  The electoral college has always been a danger to the people. It wasn't set up for the people. It was set up for the plutocrats. 
  America is a plutocracy and it's weird people are just now looking into that. >
  
  Simple solution (no amendment, majority votes in the house and senate only) is to simply expand the size of the House of Representatives by ~150 to 250 seats.  The math works.  The logic works.  Has the benefit of being the right thing to do. >
  
  The house, which is supposed to represent the populace, has been frozen in size for about a century (Since 1929 to be exact). If we went by the metric the founding fathers intended it would be in the ten thousands.
  Changing that alone would resolve a lot of electoral college nonsense as the college would be around 12,000 votes instead of 500. >
  
  By that logic the Senate has also "become a danger."
  Edit: (/s) because we all know that it is a danger as it is completely undemocratic.
  Makes a complete mockery of one person one vote.