65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed
Hmm this seems unfair. How about we redo the survey but this time break it down state-by-state where the majority option in each state will be considered the “winner” of the entire state (except for in Maine and Nebraska, in which the minority option is still given some points) and then these states will appoint a certain number of people (the number of people each state can appoint is equal to how many representatives they have plus two for their senators, except in DC where its capped at the state with the least amount of appointed people) where they will redo the survey again but now they have the opportunity to change the results if they feel like it (but don’t worry that basically has never happened so it’s all good) and after that each state will count the actual votes and then mail them to DC where Congress will count the votes from each state and the members of Congress get a chance to vote to ignore a state if enough of them feel like it (but again don’t worry this has never happened! It’s all good!) and after that hopefully one of the options has a majority because if not then the house gets to choose and if they can’t decide then the senate gets to pick and if nobody can make up their minds then the Speaker gets to temporarily decide until everyone figures their stuff out.
I think that’s how Americans should answer all their surveys since it’s more fair.
I would modify the electoral college rather than get rid of it. Make it so that states are obligated to assign their electoral votes to candidates in proportion to the number of votes received.
Why? You're accepting the premise but then stopping short. Yes, a candidate's final outcome in the election should be proportional to the number of votes they received. You want to make it less unfair, but we can just as easily make it completely fair by making the outcome exactly proportional to the vote.
not completely disenfranchise rural voters
According to the US Census, roughly 20% of Americans live in rural areas. Under the Electoral College, most of these people get effectively no say in who is the president. Nobody cares what rural voters in Texas or California or Wyoming or Oklahoma think because they're not swing states. In a popular election, these 20% of Americans would get 20% of the say, and their individual vote would carry the same weight as everyone else. That's the only fair system. Making it less rigged is still rigged.
On the whole, yes, the Electoral College gives a larger weight to rural voters by stealing it from urban voters. I was merely highlighting that it also effectively disenfranchises a lot of rural voters by consolidating all electoral power in roughly a dozen swing states. I think the argument that we need to give special privilege to rural voters is bogus, but even accepting the premise, the EC still sucks at that. The specious arguments made in its favor don’t hold up.
Tbf I guess it makes a bit of sense, if say LA, NYC, CHI, and DC all vote to ban cars because they feasibly can and they have the population density to make it happen, some guy in Nebraska who’s nearest neighbor is 15mi away might be upset that he has to get a horse and buggy to buy cold cuts at the costco. On the one hand, fuck him, he should abandon his farm, life, and friends and move to the city (to starve with the rest of us I guess, if all the farmers move), but on the other they probably don’t want to do that which is why they live where they do now.
Presidents that seem to like executive decrees these days*
Idk man, not saying it’s likely they’d do that, just saying “having a few cities be largely responsible for selecting the head of the executive branch may not be desireable to those living in between.”
Figured people would be able to not take everything literal, but this is the internet where metaphor is replaced with dunking on someone you decide is mentally inferior, my mistake.
But it isn’t equitable because presidential candidates only ever pay attention to swing states.
And people should be represented equally. The location of a citizen shouldn’t effect the strength of their voice.
Ever single other public office in the U.S is voted by popular vote. If there were problems with it then why don’t we have mini electoral colleges for each seat? The president should be a popular vote, no different than any other office.
I love how conservatives do not care about any topic yet they spend their precious time writing tons of comments on topics they definitely do not care about…
It’s nice to see who the real snowflakes are from time to time :D
Then maybe it’s time you accept who you really are and throw your centrist mask.
Anyone preferring the Electoral College to a direct democratic vote for the presidential election is a downright conservative in my eyes, as he (or she) prefers to keep things as they are (conserve) even if these things are proven to be worst than an already existing alternative.
Glad I could show you your true colours, I hope you’ll be more honest with yourself and everybody around you from now on. Even if I doubt it, since you are a conservative and conservatives flee from truth as vampires flee the sunlight.
Fist of all, thanks for your comment. Secondly, I never stated a preference, I only asked a question. Some people are so afraid of questions that the interpret them as statements. Rather than thinking about an issue, they choose to take a side. This is lazy thinking. You’re one of those.
And yet, where presented with an answer explaining you that democracy = all votes have the same value (which is the literal definition of democracy ( you decided to answer “no thanks” and proceeded to keep your wrong line of thinking.
That’s not lazy thinking, that’s no thinking at all. Just like a conservative would do.
I do. But ours is in need of reform to make it a better republic that more accurately reflects the will of the people.
A popular vote would mean the costal areas would have the largest vote and rural areas would get ignored.
That’s already what happens under the electoral college.
And every single other electected position in government goes by what is essentially a popular vote, if this was such a problem, all other positions would also be electoral college.
It would quickly lead to a breakup up of the union.
The U.S. is the only country that uses an electoral college. All other countries that exist, and are democratic republics use a popular vote and they’re just fine.
If a popular vote for presidency would cause the destruction of this country, why hasn’t popular vote for all other positions done so already? It’s because this is just fearmongering based on zero evidence. Actually it’s worse, because there is plenty of evidence it wouldn’t do this because of the aforementioned other countries that use popular vote.
The level makes a difference. We are a combination of states.
Popular vote for the president would destroy our country. It’s not going to happen unless we are ready for the nation to break up. The smaller states will leave.
No it doesn’t. If a popular vote would destroy this country because of the imbalance between rural/urban areas, then it would have already done so on a state level.
I’ve said it in several other places in this thread.
All votes should be counted equally.
as to why we would change a system that works perfectly.
It doesn’t work perfectly.
It makes it so that if you don’t live in a swing state, your vote is effectively meaningless. If you’re a democrat in a heavy republican state, then your vote will never go towards supporting your candidate of choice. If you’re a republican in a heavy republican state, the same applies. If you’re a republican in a heavy republican state, your vote also doesn’t do shit, because your state was going to vote republican anyway. Unless you’re in a swing state, the current system basically ignores you.
It also makes it so presidential candidates only ever cater towards swing states, and the cities within those swing states. All the rest of the states are basically ignored.
The electoral collage prevents third party candidates from ever having a chance because it is inherently a FPTP system, which inherently biases a two party system, which is a huge part of why our country is so fucked right now.
And on top of all of that, there have been several elections in which the candidate with the most votes has lost. That is a broken system.
That isn’t a compelling argument. It isn’t even a logical argument.
That isn’t a broken system. That is a system working as designed. You may not understand the perfection of the electoral college but you’ve yet to create a compelling reason to change it. The flaws you are mentioning are the strengths of the system.
What you want to do would require a constitutional amendment to change it and the smaller states would not allow that to happen for the reasons I have explained. It would negate their vote and we a government of 50 states, which means the states want to keep their power.
We are not a democracy, as our founding fathers understood the flaws. There is a reason we are still ticking while other nations have fallen or never prospered the way we have and part of that is by not allowing changes on a whim. The system was meant to move slowly and methodically. It was meant to have checks and balances.
While it isn’t perfect, it is a pretty damn good system. The most popular person shouldn’t be the one to win. It should be the one selected by the states through the electoral college. It allows the states to have a say in who becomes president.
Now if we could just remove the voting rights from poor people, we would be able to get this country back on track.
Popular doesn’t mean good. Joe won the popular vote and now we are all paying for his incompetence with rampant inflation. We can’t survive another four years of having such a popular president.
That isn’t a compelling argument. It isn’t even a logical argument.
You didn’t ask for a syllogism.
That isn’t a broken system. That is a system working as designed.
Then it is a terrible system. I don’t care what synonym for bad you think is most accurate here. The electoral college is inferior.
You may not understand the perfection of the electoral college
The founding fathers were not gods. They intended for the constitution to change over time as things become outdated, and this is one of those things. The president elected president should most accurately represent the people, and we don’t get that with the current system.
What you want to do would require a constitutional amendment
This is a separate tangent, so I won’t bother addressing it.
We are not a democracy
We are a democratic republic.
Democratic - we vote
Republic - for representatives
This is grade school levels of understanding that you are missing out on.
There is a reason we are still ticking while other nations have fallen or never prospered the way we have
It ain’t the electoral collage that got us here.
and part of that is by not allowing changes on a whim. The system was meant to move slowly and methodically. It was meant to have checks and balances.
An electoral college doesn’t have anything to do with allowing changes on a whim, or moveing slowly and methodically. All it is, is a way of counting votes. Counting the votes in a more accurate method doesn’t change the speed of the process. And you can still have checks and balances under a popular vote.
Now if we could just remove the voting rights from poor people, we would be able to get this country back on track.
Are you joking, or are you actually this misinformed/malicious/mislead?
Popular doesn’t mean good.
Never said it did.
Joe won the popular vote and now we are all paying for his incompetence with rampant inflation. We can’t survive another four years of having such a popular president.
He won because of the electoral collage, because of how it forces a two party system. Joe Biden is the result of your oh so fond electoral college. If we had something that actually elected officials that we all like (see STAR voting), Joe Biden would never have become president.
No I’m very serious. Allowing the plebes to vote has done a lot of damage to the country. They just vote to take from others. That isn’t how to run a country.
You keep saying there is something wrong with the system when there isn’t. It works as designed and it won’t change in our lifetime.
The voters don’t matter as much as the state. That’s how the system was designed and works.
Also it isn’t a rented. It while require an amendment and it won’t happen for the reasons I’ve described. The little states won’t want to lose their power. As such it’s a thought exercise at best
We have the senate, which is needed to pass any law and gives equal representation to the states. We have the supreme court, which can strike down any law as unconstitutional. We have plenty of checks on mob rule without disenfranchising a gigantic swath of voters.
So instead we get minority rule. Soooooo much better when the small number of loonies get to derail a functional government with a temper tantrum that 'the masses' want.
It's a badly designed system, and claiming it's like this on purpose doesn't negate how bad the system is. Also, we should not be chained to ideas that came around 250 years ago when other people have improved on the idea and made it less shitty.
Who gives a fuck about the states' vote? States are just containers for people, and an excuse that the minority loves to use to explain how they get to rule over majority.
The electoral college is an undemocratic and broken system that makes my vote in a small state worth more than your vote in a bigger state.
A vote is a vote, and only losers need to remove the vote from the masses to be able to win. It's literally the only reason there's been a Republican president since H.W., and it's no surprise they're desperate to keep around the undemocratic voting method that allows them to steal elections they didn't win.
States are entities under the government with their own laws.
We are not a democracy fascist. We are a constitutional republic. The founding fathers had no interest in a rule by the masses nor do i.
Maybe you should learn the history of our government and why it was designed the way it was rather than pushing weird fascist ideology that states don’t matter and only the federal government counts.
We’d break as a nation quickly under your ideology.
God no. I want a constitutional republic. That’s what America is.
Personally I wish we’d have more restrictions around voting. The old days of property owners being able to vote is a good idea. I’m not a fan of the poor voting.
Lol, you don't know what words mean and are just trying to sound cool. ProTip: just because you don't like something doesn't make it fascist.
But I would love to see your melted brain actually explain how 'every citizen having an equal vote' resembles fascistic tendencies like only protecting the in group, but that would require an actual understanding of fascism.
The founding fathers had no interest in a rule by the masses nor do i.
They also didn't want anyone other than landholding white men to vote, but we've realized that's a stupid idea. The founding fathers didn't give you a holy document to be reversed, they wrote a framework they expected us to modify.
Maybe you should learn the history of our government and why it was designed the way it was rather than pushing weird fascist ideology that states don’t matter and only the federal government counts.
Bold of you to think I don't understand why they did what they did and still think it's a bad system. Also, again with the uneducated claim of fascism.
And you really need to work on your reading comprehension, I said the states' votes don't matter, because I think every citizen should vote, not land.
We’d break as a nation quickly under your ideology.
Ahahaha, you clearly don't see how the nation is breaking down around us under the current system.
I full support only land owning people voting. I have no issue with that at all.
I read your fascist take just fine. Why I called you a fascist.
LOL, of course the person who doesn't understand fascism is perfectly ok with implementing proto-facsist policies. You're all about the in-group protection and out-group punishment too aren't you, you pea-brained actual fascist.
"This is the way we've always done it" doesn't discount a practice from being fascist, you stupid fascist. If you actually knew what fascism was, you'd be able to make an argument why it isn't that isn't trivial to dismiss as a fallacy.
Appealing to history or authority isn't a real argument, its a crutch for the intellectually lazy who can't make a real argument. Its also hilarious given the various explicitly authoritarian/borderline fascistic beliefs you profess.
Reading this convo has given me a seizure, and I’m an Italian with grandparents who lived under the original fascist regime of Mr. Mussolini.
You don’t understand what fascism is and, at the same time, you want to reintroduce fascism in your country by limiting the voting rights of people based on their economics.
Maybe it’s you who should return to school to learn something, like reading and logical thinking.
Fucking fascists and their incapability to use the braincells they were born with
“Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States, or to the People.” -10th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Restrict the federal government’s power to only those powers explicitly delegated to them by the Constitution and I’d be ok with eliminating the Electoral College.
Because the will of the people in your definition is the will of a handful of cities
No it’s not. A popular vote is a vote that reflects what the majority want. It has nothing to do with the location of the voter. We should not have the weight of our votes be effected by where we live, like we currently have with the electoral college. My vote should count the same way as anybody else’s, and so should yours.
Ideally the presidency and all other offices would be handled with STAR or approval voting, as they do not produce spoiler effects, weights by voter location, and help reduce extremist candidates.
It’s literally in the Constitution.
And it needs to change because the current system is fundamentally flawed. Our current system weights a voter’s voice by where they live, ignores huge swaths of people, has a spoiler effect, and does nothing to stop extremist candidates.
People in swing states should not get the only say.
Swing states don’t get the only say, a vote in an uncontested or lopsided race is still counted. All you are complaining about is you want your state to feel special on election night.
a vote in an uncontested or lopsided race is still counted.
But they are effectively meaningless because California will always vote blue and Texas will always vote red. If you try to vote against your state’s pre-selected candidate your vote basically just gets tossed.
Actually it’s worse, since your population contribution actually ends up going towards electors that vote against what you voted for.
All you are complaining about is you want your state to feel special on election night.
No, I want all votes to be counted equally. I live in a swing state, and unless you live in a tighter swing state, my vote means more than yours ever will. That’s bullshit, and a fundamentally bad design.
My state shouldn’t be special. That’s the whole point of getting rid of the electoral college, to ensure all votes are counted equally regardless of origin of state.
Applying your logic to a popular vote, people’s votes won’t matter as the margin will be more than 100,000 their vote makes no difference. Is your goa tol make everyone’s vote not matter?
people’s votes won’t matter as the margin will be more than 100,000 their vote makes no difference
But each of those votes are counted the same, and I don’t want FPTP like you seem to think.
Instead I want STAR or approval voting. So that complaint doesn’t really apply because with both STAR and approval, each vote is counted equally, and give you more control over how your vote contributes to the final count.
Votes are counted equality in the electoral system, popular voting, ranking systems, or approval. Your perceived value of a vote in the swing states vs a vote in solid states is just that. The votes still count no matter which state they are from.
Votes are counted equality in the electoral system
No they aren’t, they are weighted by state, and if your state votes against you your vote essentially gets tossed out in favor of the candidate you voted against.
So you’ve shifted from votes only matter in swing states to votes only matter if their side wins and smaller states have a higher elector to population rates.
None of that matters, each person’s vote is counted once. You are conflating the outcome of the election to whether the vote counts. It’s like saying everyone who voted against an issue that passed vote did not count.
So you’ve shifted from votes only matter in swing states to votes only matter
No, I haven’t shifted, I’m describing several different problems.
Swing states are the only ones that make a difference. That’s why candidates only visit swing states for the most part.
Votes are ignored when your state votes against you (Ex: California votes 51% blue 49% red, but 100% of the electoral votes go to blue, effectively ignoring half the voters). Your vote should go to your choice, not the opposition.
Each vote is weighted differently based on citizen location, which is antithetical to democracy
None of that matters, each person’s vote is counted once.
This is irrelevant, the issue is not the number of times counted, it’s how it’s counted.
You are conflating the outcome of the election to whether the vote counts.
That is quite literally how the electoral vote works. Blue votes from Texas are ignored, with the electoral votes going to red.
It’s like saying everyone who voted against an issue that passed vote did not count.
Maybe that’d be true if electoral votes reflected the actual vote within a state, but they don’t, it’s almost always winner take all.
Swing states are not the only votes that make a difference. If enough people believed that in a solid state and didn’t vote the outcome would change ie their vote counts.
Your vote should go to your choice, not the opposition.
Your vote doesn’t get changed based on the outcome it stays the same. It is still counted.
Issue voting is winner take all and unless I missed it you don’t have a problem with that.
What you are asking for is a more granular representation for votes, not to “make everyone’s vote count”.
You’ve yet to address how votes in states that lose are not counted. I can see 6,006,429 people in California voted for Trump in 2020 so their votes were counted.
Votes are ignored when your state votes against you (Ex: California votes 51% blue 49% red, but 100% of the electoral votes go to blue, effectively ignoring half the voters). Your vote should go to your choice, not the opposition.
This is some real woosh material right here. The point I’m trying to make seems to be sailing right over your head while you gripe about technicalities.
Those people effectively did not have their votes counted. They effectively voted for Biden in the end because their electoral votes that represent them voted against them.
All Republicans have to do is propose policies that actually appeal to the masses and they too can win democratically rather than through gerrymandering and electoral shenanigans
Lmao, you are even more pathetic than your cheeto-in-command, even he understood he lost the elections fair and square and put up a shenanigan to cover for his failure.
You still believe his lies though and this makes you even stupider than Donald Trump.
Kudos to your lack of intelligence for making you survive this far
Nice to see another Demonrat shill that can’t say anything without insults. Typical lefty nutjob. Do me a favor and go get 5 more vax’s so you can wheeze your insults while having a heart attack.
I absolutely will should the need arise because, guess what? I believe in science and medical professionals unlike you uncultured swine.
Oh, also, the vax you are so adamant you’ll not take was developed and distributed under your cheeto-in-command administration.
“It’s a good vaccine, the best we’ve ever got” were his words if I do recall correctly. Operation warp speed was the name of the development and distribution plan if my memory doesn’t fail me.
How do you feel about that, you poor redneck? Hurts that your idol has betrayed your cause? Of course not, you aren’t able to feel or think like a human since you’re just a step above a monkey but hey, we did already know that even before you answered my comment.
You are a sad, sad person. Your misguided labeling me as a redneck and thinking I’m not aware of Trump’s stance on the vax. He is wrong. I can admit it and not lose sleep. Because unlike you and your pathetic ilk I don’t have to worship him or agree with everything he says to still think he’s a much better choice than the pedophile in chief that is in the white house. And please don’t lower my already abysmal opinion of you by saying his daughter’s diary is fake. Enjoy your myocarditis.
Lmao, like I care what a waste of oxygen like you think about me. Ever seen the videos of Jeffery Epstein and Trump together at a party dancing and having a jolly good time? Well, I guess that they also must have grabbed so many pussies together too, and on the young side, if you get what I mean. And Ivanka? Oh dear, she wasn’t Jeffery’s daughter, do you think Trump did watch while he did what Epstein was used to to his daughter? I reckon he did, Trump has always has a crush for his daughter. Who also married a Jew who controlled Trump during his presidency, so much so that both the Zionists and the Saudis are still very happy with him to this day! 2 billions times happy to be precise!! The weakest president in history when it comes to racist and totalitarian regimes, ask Putin or Xi about that!!
But you won’t do shit about all of this, because even if you could understand how much Trump has fucked with your head and your sense of reality you would still vote for him 'cause you know he would give you the chance to be the worst version of yourself possible and God forbid you might become a decent human being, it’s much easier to remain a husk of a person rather than trying to improve yourself. For the first one you don’t have to do nothing, just existing and enjoying being in an animal-like state is more than enough, while for the second you need to accept that you are not perfect, work each and every day of your life to better yourself as a human by learning something or by changing an aspect of you which is not a good one.
I’ll enjoy my myocarditis as much as I enjoy Santa on December the 25th, I’ll watch children like you believe this fantasy while patting your head and telling you “sure darling, now go play with your glue but don’t eat it, it’s not good for you”. And maybe you are like a child, do you still believe a bearded man in the sky is watching everything you do while being an absolute asshole with his judgment? Please tell me you think Jesus is your saviour and that Mary was a virgin after childbearing, this would complete the picture of the moron you already are XD XD XD XD
You are literally, the worst troll ever. You rant like a 13 year old that just discovered the internet. Really go touch grass, get a girlfriend and stop chugging CNN.
Oh yeah baby, give it to me, more gaslighting please and don’t even try to reply to any of my points, the cognitive dissonance would be too hard on your weak brain filled to the brim with bigoted Christian propaganda.watch out for what’s to vone, after his fake business now your idol will have to face his fake electors scheme judgment! Can’t wait to see how that will turn out ;)
100% correct. The system isnt perfect, but the way it is for a reason. Anybody that wants it popular is just voting for a system that’s easier to overthrow.
It’s incredibly easy to overthrow a popular vote. How many dead people have been found voting for people? How many ballots in trunks of peoples cars last couple years? Take them out, put them in, not like federal oversight works, that was proven in PA during Trump/Biden. Having the electoral college is a layer of insulation for both that, and populous states and cities controlling everything while completely taking a voice from the rest of the country. Given that the popular has only been overridden twice in two decades, it’s hardly a bitching point.
How many dead people have been found voting for people? How many ballots in trunks of peoples cars last couple years?
These are election security issues, none of which are unique to a popular vote. They can happen and have happened under our electoral collage. So this is a moot point.
and populous states and cities controlling everything while completely taking a voice from the rest of the country
That’s not how it works. All votes are counted equal regardless of who they are or where they are from under a popular vote. Neither cities or land votes, only people do and the system should reflect that.
The rest of the country would actually get a say under a popular vote unlike with the electoral college. Most people don’t live in a city in a swing state, which is the only place politicians cater to.
Given that the popular has only been overridden twice in two decades, it’s hardly a bitching point.
That’s not the point though. The point is that all votes should be counted equally.
And if you live in a state that is solidly blue/red then your vote is essentially meaningless. Nobody should get a bigger voice from living in a swing state, it should be everyone’s voice.
Given that the popular has only been overridden twice in two decades, it’s hardly a bitching point.
Well yeah, if you frame an argument badly of course it sounds stupid. But to properly frame the point, 2/5 elections were won while losing the popular vote, and 3/5 presidential terms would not have happened if we voted democratically (Bush won the popular vote based on being the incumbent and war fervor, which he only had because of his fraudulent win).
60% of all presidential terms since 2000 we're not won democraticly, but that's not a problem for the people who can only win that way.
Let’s explore limits. Given 50 states, two of which have population of 165,999,976 people each, and rest 48 states have population of 1, such country with Electoral College will be dictatorship of 26 people.
Should senators not be elected by the popular vote of each state? Should states develop their own state electoral colleges that give votes based on the proportional population of each county?
So then you agree that it is a terrible idea for our votes to be weighted based on where people live, so that we can avoid things like individual cities swaying the vote?
I think so too. Everybody’s vote should be equal, which is why we should have a popular vote instead of the electoral collage.
Combined those might round up to 4% of the population of the United States. Explain again how they'll control the outcome of a popular election?
Implicit in your argument is the self-evidently fair notion that the country should not be controlled by a minority ... except that is precisely what the Electoral College allows and what the popular vote makes impossible. Under the EC, the president is effectively decided only by voters in a dozen or so swing states (which exact states are in play varies by year but the number is pretty consistent). Candidates literally don't even campaign for votes in the other ~38 states, just sometimes making brief fundraising stops.
The founding fathers cobbled together a stop-gap system that placated the oh-so-varied interests of different groups of privileged white men. It wasn't fair then and it has no moral justification in the present day. It's an affront to the basic principles of self-government now that we've expanded "self" to finally mean all Americans.
Add comment