[rsynnott]

> An overwhelming majority of American voters support the election system that resulted in Trump winning.

Eh? No they don't. See http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e...

For the last 50 years it has been divided with a majority favouring reform. It's just not something that most people care about _much_ (except in the immediate aftermath of an election where it has a grossly obvious effect), so it never attains the sense of urgency and permanency that might actually lead to a constitutional change.

[magduf]

You're quibbling. If people really cared about this issue, they'd be demanding change. If they really cared, they would have demanded change after Gore lost in 2000, and again in 2016 when Trump won. But they don't. The ones on the losing side complain "he wasn't elected by a majority! He shouldn't pursue his agenda!" while the ones on the winning side counter with "your side lost! get over it! This is the system we all use!"

Have you seen any groundswell of movement to try to change any of the election laws? Of course not. We've seen people pushing for new gun laws (in the wakes of shootings), we've seen people pushing for marijuana legalization or decriminalization or rescheduling, we've seen people pushing for gay marriage (and winning), we've seen people pushing for higher minimum wage laws, but we have NOT seen any real push for electoral reform.

Our gun laws have seen various changes (at all levels) over the decades, MJ was only banned in the 1930s IIRC, gay marriage only became an issue in the last couple decades, yet we've had these same election laws since the founding of the nation. If we really cared about changing them, we have done so by now. I, for one, certainly haven't seen any desire to change the Electoral College system on the right, since they benefit from it; instead, they steadfastly defend the system.

So yes, a majority of Americans do support this election system.

[majewsky]

So you say "If people *really cared about the issue, they'd be demanding change." From the absence of that demand, you conclude that "a majority of Americans do support this election system", but the latter does not follow from the former. There's a huge difference between supporting something and being indifferent about something. Also:

> Have you seen any groundswell of movement to try to change any of the election laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

[perl4ever]

There's also a meaningful difference between being indifferent because something is not a priority or it appears infeasible to change, vs. being indifferent because it really doesn't matter to you were it the only thing on the agenda.

[perl4ever]

I think it clearly irrational to support/oppose a system based on the fact that you just won/lost under it, if you don't expect it to be biased in the future.

I don't think that opposing a correction to the system should even count as an opinion, because the present system was not designed; it evolved, so any appeal to a worthwhile purpose is post-hoc reasoning.

I attribute the support for the current system entirely to people who must validate their feelings that the ends of getting Bush & Trump elected justified the means. This means it is plausible that it is in nobody's interest, when we look to the future.

[magduf]

>because the present system was not designed; it evolved,

Huh? Where'd you get this from? The Electoral College did not evolve, it was specifically designed by the Framers as a compromise between the rural and urban states.

>I attribute the support for the current system entirely to people who must validate their feelings that the ends of getting Bush & Trump elected justified the means. This means it is plausible that it is in nobody's interest, when we look to the future.

You're provably wrong here: The system was specifically designed the way it was to give more power to the rural (lower population density) states. That's exactly what it's done in elections where the popular vote winner lost. The people who support it continue to support it for that same reason: it's giving them the result they want, which is disproportionate power to rural states and rural voters like them.

It's absolutely in their interest to support that: they have different values than urban voters, and they want to win elections. The EC system helps them achieve this by tipping the scale in their favor, so of course they want it to remain unaltered.

Your assertion is that it's in "nobody's interest" is plainly wrong. You only think that because you're biased in favor of your own interests, which align with urban voters (like me), and you think that your interests should be all voters' interests, or that they're correct. Rural voters don't agree with you, and they think they should have more voting power per person than urban voters, so of course the current system is in their interest, even if it is inherently unfair.