Should the US switch to popular vote vs. electoral college?

[Telconi]

Were you able to vote for a candidate you supported for each office?

I wasn't allowed to vote actually, because apparently we need 'Voter IDs' which I was supposed to get in the mail over a month ago.
Still haven't gotten it.

So you were barred from voting and you don't consider yourself oppressed? Well shoot, I don't even know how to respond to that.

[New haven america]

I very much appreciate you not providing your home state, or how and why you are "oppressed."
Your argument is very compelling.

I very much appreciate you reading my reply.

I have the misfortune of living in California. You want to talk about governments not giving a voice to citizens, I had a ballot, in which I was allowed to pick between two candidates from a single party. All of the people in San Francisco complaining about being unrepresented will find no sympathy with me.

Considering Trump lost by 2 mil. votes, and Congress is now fully Republican controlled, yes, the people of San Francisco are underrepresented.

[Risottia]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Mod Edit: Edit title to get rid of "topopular" because it was driving me crazy.

I don't know exactly how Cali, the most populated state, was favoured in the last election over, dunno, Montana or Wyoming, but popular vote makes more sense. Especially in the first turn-runoff style.

[Risottia]

Were you able to vote for a candidate you supported for each office?

I wasn't allowed to vote actually, because apparently we need 'Voter IDs' which I was supposed to get in the mail over a month ago.
Still haven't gotten it.

Isn't there some office at which you could have requested it directly or filed a complaint?

Anyway, weird place - here electoral and public registrars are open even during election exactly to release voters' certificates in case they were lost or had gone missing.

[The Lone Alliance]

Considering Trump lost by 2 mil. votes, and Congress is now fully Republican controlled, yes, the people of San Francisco are underrepresented.

Except in the media.

[Uzizho]

The electoral college was made with the intention that the states would deal with the people and that the federal government would deal with the states. The problem that we have now is that the government has become more centralized, and as such the federal is impacting the people and not the states. Personally I am a big supporter of state rights and I think this wouldn't be a big issue if the role of the president wasn't so much more powerful than the Founders ever intended it on being.

I would also like to point out the hypocrisy in those saying that state right's are a bad idea while supporting the popular vote for "democracy's sake." The governor of California, Jerry Brown, won 60% of the vote. Trump won about 32% of the popular vote in California. Wouldn't it follow that it would be more democratic for the governor to have more control over California because more people voted for him? The more local power in government becomes the more truly representative it gets. Just because you don't agree with the viewpoint of the majority of people in certain states doesn't give you the right to take their voices away. A centralized government is not a more democratic one.

[Fretanttedon]

We should eliminate the electoral college because almost all of the campaign was in battleground states. THIS SHOULD STOP NOW!!!

[Genivaria]

The electoral college was made with the intention that the states would deal with the people and that the federal government would deal with the states. The problem that we have now is that the government has become more centralized, and as such the federal is impacting the people and not the states. Personally I am a big supporter of state rights and I think this wouldn't be a big issue if the role of the president wasn't so much more powerful than the Founders ever intended it on being.

I would also like to point out the hypocrisy in those saying that state right's are a bad idea while supporting the popular vote for "democracy's sake." The governor of California, Jerry Brown, won 60% of the vote. Trump won about 32% of the popular vote in California. Wouldn't it follow that it would be more democratic for the governor to have more control over California because more people voted for him? The more local power in government becomes the more truly representative it gets. Just because you don't agree with the viewpoint of the majority of people in certain states doesn't give you the right to take their voices away. A centralized government is not a more democratic one.

Your post makes little sense, suppressing the majority is exactly what the EC does.

And there is no hypocrisy, people have rights and governments don't.
State's rights is nothing more than a dangerous myth.

[Uzizho]

The electoral college was made with the intention that the states would deal with the people and that the federal government would deal with the states. The problem that we have now is that the government has become more centralized, and as such the federal is impacting the people and not the states. Personally I am a big supporter of state rights and I think this wouldn't be a big issue if the role of the president wasn't so much more powerful than the Founders ever intended it on being.

I would also like to point out the hypocrisy in those saying that state right's are a bad idea while supporting the popular vote for "democracy's sake." The governor of California, Jerry Brown, won 60% of the vote. Trump won about 32% of the popular vote in California. Wouldn't it follow that it would be more democratic for the governor to have more control over California because more people voted for him? The more local power in government becomes the more truly representative it gets. Just because you don't agree with the viewpoint of the majority of people in certain states doesn't give you the right to take their voices away. A centralized government is not a more democratic one.

Your post makes little sense, suppressing the majority is exactly what the EC does.

And there is no hypocrisy, people have rights and governments don't.
State's rights is nothing more than a dangerous myth.

What I'm saying is that the EC wouldn't be suppressing the majority if the federal government only dictated state to state relations and foreign affairs like it originally was intended. I fully agree that the EC is not good as it is now, but doing a popular vote isn't the best way to fix it. The federal government was intended to balance the interest of each of the states, so it makes sense that the states vote for president rather than a popular vote.

Moving on, "people have rights and governments don't"? What does that have to do with anything? You realize that people still democratically elect the people that run their states, right? Beyond that, state elections tend to have a higher margin of victory than national elections, meaning that state government tend to be more representative of the people they govern. Like the example above, 32% of people in California voted for Trump but 60% of them voted for their governor, Jerry Brown. So would it not be more democratic for state government to have more power if more people support state officials than federal officials? There is literally no logical reason that legislation made by a man from New York should affect everyone in Arizona, but under the current circumstances stuff like that happens all the time.

But then you have people saying things like, "Jim Crow laws happened because of state's rights. The Civil War happened because of state's rights." They say state's rights, despite being more democratic, should be lessened on moral grounds to stop things like the above from happening again. And I tend to see the same exact people saying that the EC should be demolished in favor of the popular vote for the sole reason of it being more "democratic." And that seems hypocritical to me.

[Genivaria]

Your post makes little sense, suppressing the majority is exactly what the EC does.

And there is no hypocrisy, people have rights and governments don't.
State's rights is nothing more than a dangerous myth.

What I'm saying is that the EC wouldn't be suppressing the majority if the federal government only dictated state to state relations and foreign affairs like it originally was intended. I fully agree that the EC is not good as it is now, but doing a popular vote isn't the best way to fix it. The federal government was intended to balance the interest of each of the states, so it makes sense that the states vote for president rather than a popular vote.

Moving on, "people have rights and governments don't"? What does that have to do with anything? You realize that people still democratically elect the people that run their states, right? Beyond that, state elections tend to have a higher margin of victory than national elections, meaning that state government tend to be more representative of the people they govern. Like the example above, 32% of people in California voted for Trump but 60% of them voted for their governor, Jerry Brown. So would it not be more democratic for state government to have more power if more people support state officials than federal officials? There is literally no logical reason that legislation made by a man from New York should affect everyone in Arizona, but under the current circumstances stuff like that happens all the time.

But then you have people saying things like, "Jim Crow laws happened because of state's rights. The Civil War happened because of state's rights." They say state's rights, despite being more democratic, should be lessened on moral grounds to stop things like the above from happening again. And I tend to see the same exact people saying that the EC should be demolished in favor of the popular vote for the sole reason of it being more "democratic." And that seems hypocritical to me.

1st off anyone who claims the Civil War was about state's rights is either ignorant or a liar.
2nd. "So would it not be more democratic for state government to have more power if more people support state officials than federal officials?"
How can you claim that people support state officials more than federal officials? That's just bald assertion.
3rd. 'State's rights' as you call them ARE NOT more democratic, voter suppression and gerrymandering as well as violation of civil liberties are done by individual states all the fucking time.

[Diopolis]

So, is anyone getting any traction on:

A. a Constitutional Amendment,
B. a Constitutional Convention, or
C. a Revolution?

Because unless one or more of those things happen, this topic is a waste of time.

The governor of Texas is attempting to convene a constitutional convention. He probably will not succeed.

[Diopolis]

Were you able to vote for a candidate you supported for each office?

I wasn't allowed to vote actually, because apparently we need 'Voter IDs' which I was supposed to get in the mail over a month ago.
Still haven't gotten it.

TX law allows you to either vote provisionally or sign a waiver that your ID is in the mail in such a situation. If your poll worker did not mention the option to you, they messed up.

[Genivaria]

I wasn't allowed to vote actually, because apparently we need 'Voter IDs' which I was supposed to get in the mail over a month ago.
Still haven't gotten it.

TX law allows you to either vote provisionally or sign a waiver that your ID is in the mail in such a situation. If your poll worker did not mention the option to you, they messed up.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Telconi]

I very much appreciate you reading my reply.

Considering Trump lost by 2 mil. votes, and Congress is now fully Republican controlled, yes, the people of San Francisco are underrepresented.

Rather they are or are not is irrelevant. I simply stated that they have no right to complain about a system that underrepresented them when they actively promote and further a system in the state to underrepresent political opponents.

[Genivaria]

Considering Trump lost by 2 mil. votes, and Congress is now fully Republican controlled, yes, the people of San Francisco are underrepresented.

Rather they are or are not is irrelevant. I simply stated that they have no right to complain about a system that underrepresented them when they actively promote and further a system in the state to underrepresent political opponents.

Do they?

[Telconi]

Rather they are or are not is irrelevant. I simply stated that they have no right to complain about a system that underrepresented them when they actively promote and further a system in the state to underrepresent political opponents.

Do they?

Yes.

[Lost heros]

Considering Trump lost by 2 mil. votes, and Congress is now fully Republican controlled, yes, the people of San Francisco are underrepresented.

Rather they are or are not is irrelevant. I simply stated that they have no right to complain about a system that underrepresented them when they actively promote and further a system in the state to underrepresent political opponents.

So it's okay for a group of people to advocate for a system to underrepresent political opponents.

[Telconi]

Rather they are or are not is irrelevant. I simply stated that they have no right to complain about a system that underrepresented them when they actively promote and further a system in the state to underrepresent political opponents.

So it's okay for a group of people to advocate for a system to underrepresent political opponents.

I wouldn't say it's okay. But in a system where we have two major parties, and both actively push systems to underrepresent voters of the opposite party, I have no sympathies for anyone crying about it. If I could wave a magic wand and make politics fair, I would. But in the meantime, I will oppose any effort to make a system that benefits me fair, while the same proponents of this reform actively push an unfair system that's detrimental to me.

[Lost heros]

So it's okay for a group of people to advocate for a system to underrepresent political opponents.

I wouldn't say it's okay. But in a system where we have two major parties, and both actively push systems to underrepresent voters of the opposite party, I have no sympathies for anyone crying about it. If I could wave a magic wand and make politics fair, I would. But in the meantime, I will oppose any effort to make a system that benefits me fair, while the same proponents of this reform actively push an unfair system that's detrimental to me.

And you don't realize that thinking like this is just going to perpetuate both horrid systems.

[Saltair]

Despite Clinton being the popular candidate (in Urbanized Areas), Trump won majority of the counties (less urbanized, more suburban/rural).

Would I want to see a change in the electoral college? No, the electoral college is unique as it lets the victors of smaller states decide the election rather than the larger populous concentrations of larger states. It is an embodiment of the American Electoral System, and Trump along with 43 other people won with the electoral college (not counting Grover Cleveland). I can see that people are upset that Trump won, but frankly he did win under the guise of the Electoral College which clearly made him the winner.

In order for a change to a populist voting system, there has to be a MASSIVE constitutional amendment which would change the voting system. I'd leave it as is, ad it is the American system.

[Telconi]

I wouldn't say it's okay. But in a system where we have two major parties, and both actively push systems to underrepresent voters of the opposite party, I have no sympathies for anyone crying about it. If I could wave a magic wand and make politics fair, I would. But in the meantime, I will oppose any effort to make a system that benefits me fair, while the same proponents of this reform actively push an unfair system that's detrimental to me.

And you don't realize that thinking like this is just going to perpetuate both horrid systems.

And supporting the abolishment of an electoral college, while allowing the state to continue underrepresenting me will create a system where I have a 'fair' presidential election, and still unfair state elections. If what has been asserted is true, and presidential elections are tilted to favor the Republican party, why would I desire to give up my sole avenue of vindication?

[Lost heros]

And you don't realize that thinking like this is just going to perpetuate both horrid systems.

And supporting the abolishment of an electoral college, while allowing the state to continue underrepresenting me will create a system where I have a 'fair' presidential election, and still unfair state elections. If what has been asserted is true, and presidential elections are tilted to favor the Republican party, why would I desire to give up my sole avenue of vindication?

Okay, now imagine the same thing, but now you're a democrat. You and democrat you can argue endlessly while your underrepresented locally and him federally, or you both can stop being stupid and support fair elections regardless of who's party would win.

[Telconi]

And supporting the abolishment of an electoral college, while allowing the state to continue underrepresenting me will create a system where I have a 'fair' presidential election, and still unfair state elections. If what has been asserted is true, and presidential elections are tilted to favor the Republican party, why would I desire to give up my sole avenue of vindication?

Okay, now imagine the same thing, but now you're a democrat. You and democrat you can argue endlessly while your underrepresented locally and him federally, or you both can stop being stupid and support fair elections regardless of who's party would win.

If I could ever have a reasonable belief that the California State Democratic party would actually go through with that, then sure. But it is never going to happen, these people only care about advancing their own agenda, fairness be damned.

[Lost heros]

Okay, now imagine the same thing, but now you're a democrat. You and democrat you can argue endlessly while your underrepresented locally and him federally, or you both can stop being stupid and support fair elections regardless of who's party would win.

If I could ever have a reasonable belief that the California State Democratic party would actually go through with that, then sure. But it is never going to happen, these people only care about advancing their own agenda, fairness be damned.

Can you honestly say you're being any better?

[Telconi]

If I could ever have a reasonable belief that the California State Democratic party would actually go through with that, then sure. But it is never going to happen, these people only care about advancing their own agenda, fairness be damned.

Can you honestly say you're being any better?

Yes, I'm not attempting to advance any agenda. I'm simply trying to defend myself from others advancing a harmful agenda.