[quote=@The Harbinger of Ferocity]
I have yet to see how it does not work as intended, but more so my focus is on what is considered "the majority". In the strictest definition that additional 2% of the population does skew the numbers into a "majority" over the other percentage, but even that is not really much of a majority; there might be grounds to claim the system is broken and rigged if it were a difference of five percent or so. The actual difference between 46% and a 48% are negligible when factoring in that once again, a number of these people are concentrated in cities. The difference falls into the realm of margin of error - not that there was any - yet more that I mean its difference is statistically negligible to the outcome, which it was.[/quote]

It's not a statistic, it's a vote. Margin of error doesn't apply. Margin of error is a concept that exists to determine whether the population you polled is symbolic of a larger population. If you poll 200 people to inquire how an election will go, the margin of error is telling you how far off that 200 might be as a representative of the larger voting population. But in an election, the voting population isn't just a sample, it is the entire voting population, sooo a margin of error doesn't apply. 

[quote]
To answer the other component, do I think majority rule to be "evil"? [i]Yes to an extent[/i], because I know for a fact that the "Deep Blue States" do not speak for me or my beliefs. Just because you have a larger, more concentrated number of like minded people does not make you right; it just means you have a larger, more concentrated population of like minds - my state and lifestyle still want to be legally represented, especially as our own local "majority" that is a part of a union. Furthermore, this would have a better basis if, and only if, the numbers were [i]heavily[/i] skewed for the majority or for the minority. The electoral college, as dysfunctional as any other system built by man, more or less did what it was designed to do by and large; barring of course the faithless electors, who I view personally as traitors to their people, regardless of their party because of their motives and actions.
[/quote]

This is a chaotic argument because it doesn't state why you should legitimately be allowed to impose your values on the majority. That the majority isn't always right is obvious, but the idea that the majority is the closest we can come to legitimate government is the basis of any system with a democratic foundation. Our system was built with the assumption that the government would swallow the more capricious problems of mob rule so that we can have the best of both worlds. You are saying that the majority shouldn't be allowed representation within that government because they live too close to each other or something, which is a weird argument

[hider=My Hider]
But I digress, the notion of "only swing states" is inaccurate within itself; a few of those heavy blue states that have not voted red in many years did vote this time around for them. Swing states are battlegrounds of course however, the argument that if it were a popular vote that you could come in and "Sweep up what the other side doesn't pander to." is not going to work well in a system that games towards a legitimate popularity contest versus the current metric. By the numbers and by location, the rural voters are going to be fewer and further between, it is not as easy to communicate with them, sway them, gather them, motivate them or compel them. No less, their goals and objectives in life are going to be naturally more diverse than major population centers.
[/hider]

It's very easy to communicate with them. It's the 21st century, location isn't as important as it once was. All you gotta do is make sure the spread out rural population gets your message. 

[quote]Off the cuff but on topic, United States itself never was or is a true democracy, it is an electoral republic, those officials represent on behalf their peoples' districts, or at least should be. It is a democratic process certainly, although in a different forum. The popular vote is mostly irrelevant and only needs to aggregate enough in regions to push an electoral vote. I am not saying this as if you do not know, because that would be arrogant and foolish, but because I cannot see a basis of argument for "Popular vote wins."[/quote]

That's how the system works, but the reality is that our system bases its legitimacy on democracy. This is something I get the impression most of the founding fathers didn't completely understand, so throughout history we've seen the presence of democracy insert itself more and more. We are more and more a government of the people yatta yatta yatta. So democracy is the legitimization factor. 

[quote]About the electoral college ignoring the vote altogether, I am fairly certain they would not do so unless under a situation of extreme duress. If it comes to that, the United States is already beyond repair and likely in a flaming spiral downward that no amount of voting or politicking will save it from.[/quote]

I agree, and that is good, because if it happened it would be fucking apocalyptic. The point is that the system cannot work the way it was intended, not completely. Electors were not originally tied to the vote because they were supposed to be one of those things defending us from mob rule. But if they were to act like that now, they would delegitimize the government even quicker than the electoral thing currently is. 

[quote]The disinterest of Americans voting is under their own lack of discipline and nothing but it. I live and work in a traditionally blue state and knew that even if my county was to be particularly red leaning, our electoral votes were going to the Democrats. I still voted out of principal and obligation. If people do not believe their vote matters, not only are they very wrong, they are doing a disservice to the people of the United States. Then again, I find that an unsettling number of American citizens are complacent, so this is not news either.[/quote]

Which is the effect I am talking about. To say people are just suddenly undisciplined is silly. If they thought that it mattered, they'd show up. Dwindling civil participation is the direct effect of people thinking they don't matter. 

[quote]Even if a Republican won the popular vote, I know that accounts for nothing. It is a relatively meaningless number, not entirely true I will say as the electoral votes are more important, that should not really be used to gauge anything. I remember clearly the Obama administration sweeping the first election they won and a strong follow-up on the second. I would call that [i]more[/i] disheartening than having a difference of 1-2% popularity, but life still went on.
[/quote]

Life is going on. Well, for me at least. Fuck, I didn't have money on either of the twats to begin with. What I am saying is that this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Just because you are enthralled to a particular party doesn't mean their using this trick to get a President means you should assume it is a partisan issue now and you need to do service to you party by defending this trick. I'm not talking about disheartening democrats or something like that; if Trump had swept the thing popular and all, no matter how disheartened democrats were they couldn't really bitch that the system did them in. But in this case a majority voted for a candidate and the minority dictated terms anyway based on a technicality, which creates the effect "What's my vote matter if the winner loses?", which delegitimizes the system.