That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Overturning the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which is no trivial task.

Mob rule is entirely different: it refers to rule imposed from outside the law, possibly by a large group.

Also, the "fewer votes" really only applies to the presidency, not the senate, house, or governors.

Trump is the president of the States, not the people. Anyways, he won 304 out of 538 votes, which is, in fact, a majority.

Yes, we all know how an archaism in our system allows for what is now the most powerful branch of government to be controlled by the minority in this country.

Sorry, you said that he received fewer votes. I thought you might not know.

Not the Senate?

The Senate results in huge vote power discrepancies.

Power discrepancies and mob rule are different things.

[edit: though it's correct that the Senate, like the EC, is not "popular", as every state has two senators, rather than a proportionate amount, like representatives]

That point in your edit is actually a pretty big deal. We're already in a situation where a majority of the Senate represents less than 20% of the country's population. Some people will (correctly) retort that the Senate was never intended to be popular in the way you used the word, but -- just like the Electoral College -- the significant concentration of population in urban areas is something that the founders almost certainly didn't foresee.

While "mob rule" may be an unfair term, not only did more people vote for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, there have been more votes cast for Democrats than Republicans as a whole not only in Senate races over the last decade but in House races, too -- the Republican majority there is protected by gerrymandering.

> That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Middle school civics class explanations of the electoral college are fine. You can understand the reasons the electoral college was created and still oppose the fact that there have been multiple recent cases where the electoral college went against the popular vote. And, not that it's particularly relevant, but I highly doubt the very people who designed the electoral college would approve of its use when it seems to routinely elect someone who lost the popular vote.

Oh, I'm personally against the electoral college (have been since I was a kid). However, it's still not mob rule, by the virtue of the fact that mob rule is necessarily non-legal, while the electoral college is the essence of "legal".

And the people who set up electoral college (the authors of the constitution) explicitly added a mechanism to change the system via amendments (it's just very hard to get one passed).

Clearly, the college was a compromise the authors of the constitution felt that had to make to create the US. I bet a lot of them didn't like it.

When you say routinely: only 5 presidents have been elected without the majority of the popular vote, spread throughout a couple hundred years.

> However, it's still not mob rule, by the virtue of the fact that mob rule is necessarily non-legal, while the electoral college is the essence of "legal".

Okay. I'm not attached to the particular semantics of "mob rule," but if you define it deliberately such that it doesn't apply in this scenario, then of course it doesn't apply. I just meant, very simply, that it's rule by someone other than who the people expressed their desire to be ruled by.

> I just meant, very simply, that it's rule by someone other than who the people expressed their desire to be ruled by.

That's not what the term means. It's practically the opposite of one of the meanings of the word, which is a pejorative for majoritarian rule. An absolute autocrat is about as far as you can get from mob rule, and yet it's "rule by someone other than who the people express their desire to be ruled by".

You’re not really grokking “mob rule”. “Mob rule” can easily even be putting someone in charge that a majority of people want. The point is that it’s done outside of the legal system.

The "mob" in "mob rule" does not refer to a mafia. Perhaps that's the source of this confusion?

Indeed, it comes from Latin “mobile vulgus”, which means roughly “easily swayed common people”. “mobile” is of course the origin of the English word “mobile”, but the thing being easily moved here is the crowd’s feelings and opinions. “vulgus” is source of the English word “vulgar”, but less pejorative - the masses, the crowd, the common or ordinary people, the non-elite

> I highly doubt the very people who designed the electoral college would approve of its use when it seems to routinely elect someone who lost the popular vote.

That's literally why they invented the electoral college. To add indirection between the popular vote and the presidency.

It could be argued the electoral college is designed to prevent mob rule by preventing would be presidents from getting elected just by pandering to the “mobs” of people living in high population states like California and Texas

Though it doesn't prevent Presidents from getting elected by pandering to the mobs living in Oklahoma and Kentucky.

The issue with fighting mob majority rule with minority rule is that there's no reason a minority is itself any better or non-moblike than a majority. It's trivial for me to select a different minority whose votes are allowed to count that gives totally opposite results than what exists now. The one advantage of having government be determined by a majority of all people is that you can't slice and dice "all people" to be a particular biased subset of people to get particular outcomes.

On the contrary, I think the electoral college was introduced precisely to ensure that the person who won the election was not who would win the popular vote.

That's certainly not the case. The electoral college was designed such that each state's legislature chooses how to attribute their electoral college votes. Many states in the first few presidential elections just had their state legislatures assign the votes.

But still, I find it difficult to believe that the people who designed the electoral college would think it's okay that we held a national election, we got to see who wins the popular vote, and we still choose a different person for President.

As I understand it, many of the founding fathers explicitly feared that general populace would vote poorly and wanted people who were educated and had access to sufficient information to make a decision to do so on their behalf.

the rationale for it is laid out in a few paragraphs in the federalist papers number 68

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68

basically they wanted smart people amenable to debate and not be corrupted by a foreign nation to pick a president that doesn't have the nation's best interest at heart. or a vile person.

considering they do not do that anymore and vote based on popular vote per state it's a vestigial tail of our democracy. also, considering they were supposed to not cap the number of house of representative members and the delegates were based on this number also means that it's corrupted even more so than it was.

I was also told the following rationale: If elections are decided entirely by popular vote, then candidates are incentivized to campaign in population centers, and have no incentive to ever visit sparsely populated states. (Like, bringing your margin from 70% to 85% of 4 million people is worth more than going from 0% to 100% of 400k people.)

Except it's simply not true. Instead candidates focus on a set of fairly high-population swing states, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

That only makes sense if you believe that land area is the appropriate unit to attempt to equalize political influence over, rather than people. If you think the people are who should have political influence in a democracy, rather than units of land, then it should be desirable that politicians campaign to as many people as they reasonably can.

It's not equalizing political influence between states (that is, bringing them into equality), just bringing them somewhat away from inequality. (Also, states don't have equal land area, it's more like political districts.) The electoral college gives votes as a linear combination of "per political district" and "per people", with 435/538 = 80.8% being "per people".

Also, I guess it's the fact of "winner takes all within a state" that disincentivizes candidates from simply drumming up more support within states they've already won, more so than the distribution of votes per state.

Land area is not the appropriate unit. States are the appropriate unit.

Absent the electoral college there would not be a United States of America.

The parent comment referred to sparsely populated states. That is a function of population and land area.

Have you considered the idea that what the founding fathers believed is irrelevant?

Just asking, I'm not an american.

We haven't chosen to throw away their plan. So long as we're trying to follow it, it's a good idea to understand how and why they arrived at it.

I think it is largely irrelevant, except that it can be useful to debunk people whose arguments depend on false claims about what the founding fathers believed.

No, only the current President received less of the popular vote. The government is more than just the President. Congressbeings are elected via direct election in their districts.

The Electoral College is working as designed. It was never intended to implement a direct democracy.

Here's a video that goes into more detail on the Electoral College and the Popular Vote Compact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY

Aside: This is the first time I've seen "congressbeing" and from now on it will be my preferred term.