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

[San Lumen]

I said every other country that directly elects its President goes solely of popular vote. Some might have runoffs but no other country has a system were someone wins based on land area as opposed to votes. No other country in the world has a electoral college.

First, the US President is not directly elected, but rather indirectly elected; the people elect a smaller group of people who do the real electing. Whether this is a good idea or not is certainly up for debate. Saying that every country that directly elects its head of state does so by popular vote is like saying that all apples are apples.

Second, Germany, India, Pakistan, Estonia, Myanmar and others would like to have a word with you. Even the Irish and French have electoral colleges, though they elect an upper house instead of a head of state.

Those countries do not directly elect their president. Every other country that elects its President does so by popular vote. Some might have run off elections but whomever gets the most votes in elected and if that means those votes came from major cities no one complains.

[The Saint James Islands]

First, the US President is not directly elected, but rather indirectly elected; the people elect a smaller group of people who do the real electing. Whether this is a good idea or not is certainly up for debate. Saying that every country that directly elects its head of state does so by popular vote is like saying that all apples are apples.

Second, Germany, India, Pakistan, Estonia, Myanmar and others would like to have a word with you. Even the Irish and French have electoral colleges, though they elect an upper house instead of a head of state.

Those countries do not directly elect their president. Every other country that elects its President does so by popular vote. Some might have run off elections but whomever gets the most votes in elected and if that means those votes came from major cities no one complains.

Please re-read what I just wrote: The President of the United States is indirectly elected, just like the presidents of Germany, India, Pakistan, Estonia and Myanmar. Saying that every country that directly elects its head of state does so by popular vote is grammatical tautology. It is akin to saying that people die when they are killed.

[San Lumen]

Those countries do not directly elect their president. Every other country that elects its President does so by popular vote. Some might have run off elections but whomever gets the most votes in elected and if that means those votes came from major cities no one complains.

Please re-read what I just wrote: The President of the United States is indirectly elected, just like the presidents of Germany, India, Pakistan, Estonia and Myanmar. Saying that every country that directly elects its head of state does so by popular vote is grammatical tautology. It is akin to saying that people die when they are killed.

A indirect vote is not the same as a direct vote. I did not say every country directly elects its president via popular vote. I said every country that does elect their President directly does so by popular vote alone.

[Spirit of Hope]

Those countries do not directly elect their president. Every other country that elects its President does so by popular vote. Some might have run off elections but whomever gets the most votes in elected and if that means those votes came from major cities no one complains.

Please re-read what I just wrote: The President of the United States is indirectly elected, just like the presidents of Germany, India, Pakistan, Estonia and Myanmar. Saying that every country that directly elects its head of state does so by popular vote is grammatical tautology. It is akin to saying that people die when they are killed.

In theory the president of the United States is indirectly elected, in practice the president of the United States is directly elected with a series of weird rules about voter appropriation.

It should be noted that pledged electors have been a thing since basically the beginning of the electoral college, which undermines it's very purpose. As it stands now the electors are largely chosen by the party, pledge their vote to their parties candidates, and almost never vote for another person. In fact there is no election where dishonest electors have changed the outcome.

Further entrenching this reality, is the fact that a number of the states have laws that force the electors to vote as they pledged. Which means electors can't show discretion in who they vote for, effectively killing the idea that it is an indirect election.

About the only time the electoral college worked as intended, that is as an indirect body electing of the president, was when they chose George Washington. After him electors started pledging themselves to a candidate or a party. This has only become further entrenched over time, while at the same time who chooses the electors has switched to a popular vote rather than the state's legislative bodies.

What the electoral college now does is bundle together votes based on geography, make it winner takes all, and then distributes the power of those geographic regions lopsidedly.

[The Saint James Islands]

A indirect vote is not the same as a direct vote.

We don’t disagree here.

I did not say every country directly elects its president via popular vote.

I was pointing out other countries with electoral colleges in response to your statement that no other country had such an institution.

I said every country that does elect their President directly does so by popular vote alone.

You are saying the same thing twice, but with different words.

---

Edit to avoid doublepost:

In theory the president of the United States is indirectly elected, in practice the president of the United States is directly elected with a series of weird rules about voter appropriation.

It should be noted that pledged electors have been a thing since basically the beginning of the electoral college, which undermines it's very purpose. As it stands now the electors are largely chosen by the party, pledge their vote to their parties candidates, and almost never vote for another person. In fact there is no election where dishonest electors have changed the outcome.

Further entrenching this reality, is the fact that a number of the states have laws that force the electors to vote as they pledged. Which means electors can't show discretion in who they vote for, effectively killing the idea that it is an indirect election.

About the only time the electoral college worked as intended, that is as an indirect body electing of the president, was when they chose George Washington. After him electors started pledging themselves to a candidate or a party. This has only become further entrenched over time, while at the same time who chooses the electors has switched to a popular vote rather than the state's legislative bodies.

What the electoral college now does is bundle together votes based on geography, make it winner takes all, and then distributes the power of those geographic regions lopsidedly.

Whether the votes are pledged or not is irrelevant. I don’t dispute that the election is treated as if it were direct, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t. The definition of an indirect election is one where the public vote for a body which does the actual electing, one which US presidential elections fits.

[Saikaya]

The electoral college is the only form of an aristocracy that the United States has, no, it should not switch to popular vote.

[San Lumen]

The electoral college is the only form of an aristocracy that the United States has, no, it should not switch to popular vote.

Why not? Why should certain votes count more than others?

[Genivaria]

The electoral college is the only form of an aristocracy that the United States has, no, it should not switch to popular vote.

Did you just refer to aristocracy a a GOOD thing?

[Mattopilos]

The electoral college is the only form of an aristocracy that the United States has, no, it should not switch to popular vote.

Did you just refer to aristocracy a a GOOD thing?

Next he will say that kleptocracy is da bestest.

[WhatsamattaU]

The electoral college is the only form of an aristocracy that the United States has, no, it should not switch to popular vote.

Why not? Why should certain votes count more than others?

First, I believe that calling the Electoral College an "aristocracy" is silly. You might call it a remnant of the land-holding founders of the nation.

Again, let me stress that the nation is called, "The United States of America" and not "The United Peoples of America". It is the electors of the States that vote in the Electoral College. When you vote for the President and Vice President, what you are doing is you are attempting to tell your State how it should vote. Your vote is equal to any other citizen in your State, or any citizen in any other State in the Union, in that regard. But your vote does not control the votes of other States.

What the Electoral College is, is a compromise. Big population States say that they ought to have more say (votes) than small population States. Smaller population States say that they are equal in importance, if not in population to the larger population States.

So, looking at the Status Quo, what can you offer the smaller population States that they ought to bend over and take it from the larger population States regarding the selection of the President and Vice President?

Personally, I think that the Electoral College, along with the House of Representatives and the Senate, was a great idea.

[San Lumen]

Why not? Why should certain votes count more than others?

First, I believe that calling the Electoral College an "aristocracy" is silly. You might call it a remnant of the land-holding founders of the nation.

Again, let me stress that the nation is called, "The United States of America" and not "The United Peoples of America". It is the electors of the States that vote in the Electoral College. When you vote for the President and Vice President, what you are doing is you are attempting to tell your State how it should vote. Your vote is equal to any other citizen in your State, or any citizen in any other State in the Union, in that regard. But your vote does not control the votes of other States.

What the Electoral College is, is a compromise. Big population States say that they ought to have more say (votes) than small population States. Smaller population States say that they are equal in importance, if not in population to the larger population States.

So, looking at the Status Quo, what can you offer the smaller population States that they ought to bend over and take it from the larger population States regarding the selection of the President and Vice President?

Personally, I think that the Electoral College, along with the House of Representatives and the Senate, was a great idea.

In every other country that directly elects it's president you don't have rural areas complain if urban areas decide an election. No one complains in Argentina or Brazil when large cities decide elections.

[Post War America]

Why not? Why should certain votes count more than others?

First, I believe that calling the Electoral College an "aristocracy" is silly. You might call it a remnant of the land-holding founders of the nation.

Again, let me stress that the nation is called, "The United States of America" and not "The United Peoples of America". It is the electors of the States that vote in the Electoral College. When you vote for the President and Vice President, what you are doing is you are attempting to tell your State how it should vote. Your vote is equal to any other citizen in your State, or any citizen in any other State in the Union, in that regard. But your vote does not control the votes of other States.

What the Electoral College is, is a compromise. Big population States say that they ought to have more say (votes) than small population States. Smaller population States say that they are equal in importance, if not in population to the larger population States.

So, looking at the Status Quo, what can you offer the smaller population States that they ought to bend over and take it from the larger population States regarding the selection of the President and Vice President?

Personally, I think that the Electoral College, along with the House of Representatives and the Senate, was a great idea.

Except that with an NPV, states are totally irrelevant. The people inside them are what matters. And before you talk about how "if we switched to NPV only the biggest cities would matter", lemme reiterate what others (who did the crunchy bits) and myself (who gave empyrical evidence) have said numerous times before on this very thread. In order to win using just the urban vote, you would need, at minimum, to turn out 100% of the vote for you, in 70 different cities, located in 38 different states. Based on my own personal experiences I can say that having lived in three different cities within the SAME state that cities within one politically safe state (I live in Massachusetts) can vary fairly significantly, nevermind the differences between say, Flagstaff and Chicago. Hell the neighborhoods within cities have different politics. Therefore it would likely be extraordinarily difficult to appeal to enough urban voters to win just on the urban vote without having a platform broad enough to win rural voters too.

Further our current system does NOT protect the voting populations of small states. Due to the EC, the map can usually be divided up into safe Republican states, safe Democratic states, and swing states. Politicians usually spend the majority of their time campaigning in swing states, and therefore pandering to the issues relevant to swing states. Really the only vote that matters with the status quo therefore, are the populations of those swing states, and more specifically a small segment of generally white, usually suburban, swing voters. Further, most of the swing states are fairly large with only one traditional battleground being small (New Hampshire). This means that the EC does the opposite of what you want.

[Spirit of Hope]

In theory the president of the United States is indirectly elected, in practice the president of the United States is directly elected with a series of weird rules about voter appropriation.

It should be noted that pledged electors have been a thing since basically the beginning of the electoral college, which undermines it's very purpose. As it stands now the electors are largely chosen by the party, pledge their vote to their parties candidates, and almost never vote for another person. In fact there is no election where dishonest electors have changed the outcome.

Further entrenching this reality, is the fact that a number of the states have laws that force the electors to vote as they pledged. Which means electors can't show discretion in who they vote for, effectively killing the idea that it is an indirect election.

About the only time the electoral college worked as intended, that is as an indirect body electing of the president, was when they chose George Washington. After him electors started pledging themselves to a candidate or a party. This has only become further entrenched over time, while at the same time who chooses the electors has switched to a popular vote rather than the state's legislative bodies.

What the electoral college now does is bundle together votes based on geography, make it winner takes all, and then distributes the power of those geographic regions lopsidedly.

Whether the votes are pledged or not is irrelevant. I don’t dispute that the election is treated as if it were direct, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t. The definition of an indirect election is one where the public vote for a body which does the actual electing, one which US presidential elections fits.

Which is a nice argument, except it avoids reality. That would be like saying that Nazi Germany wasn't actually a dictatorship because they still had elections. This ignores the reality of the situation, in the electoral colleges case that it effectively creates a popular vote with weird geographic groupings and disproportionate voting power.

Why not? Why should certain votes count more than others?

First, I believe that calling the Electoral College an "aristocracy" is silly. You might call it a remnant of the land-holding founders of the nation.

Again, let me stress that the nation is called, "The United States of America" and not "The United Peoples of America". It is the electors of the States that vote in the Electoral College. When you vote for the President and Vice President, what you are doing is you are attempting to tell your State how it should vote. Your vote is equal to any other citizen in your State, or any citizen in any other State in the Union, in that regard. But your vote does not control the votes of other States.

Actually a number of states legally require their electors to vote as pledged. So in those states at least legally there vote does control how there state votes.

Secondly while the argument that the electoral college is indirect is nice, it is basically false. Since Washington they have never actually carried out the job of actually debating and choosing the president, but instead voting as pledged. There has never been an election where faithless electors have had an effect, and they are chosen by the political parties so that they will vote along party lines.

What the Electoral College is, is a compromise. Big population States say that they ought to have more say (votes) than small population States. Smaller population States say that they are equal in importance, if not in population to the larger population States.

First that wasn't really the intended purpose of the electoral college. It was more of a slave vs. free state compromise and a recognition about different voting rights for their citizens between states.

Next is the problem of changing demographics. When the electoral college was made the there was a population difference of 1 to 12 between the largest state and the smallest state. And an even smaller 1 to 10 for free white males. Now it is 1 to 66. And is only going to get worse as cities continue to increase in size as compared to rural areas. This is actually a revolution the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen because it was impossible for cities of the modern size to exist without modern medicine and sewage systems.

Finally this isn't even the case under the electoral college. It doesn't represent the small states, but focuses everyone's attention on the swing states. Only one of which is actually a small state. These swing states absorb almost all of the candidates time and money. They are campaigned to at the expense of almost every other states issues being heard on a substantive level. So what the electoral college does is makes states unequal in power.

So, looking at the Status Quo, what can you offer the smaller population States that they ought to bend over and take it from the larger population States regarding the selection of the President and Vice President?

Personally, I think that the Electoral College, along with the House of Representatives and the Senate, was a great idea.

First I would note that I agree the house and the senate were great ideas, and that those both represent the smal and the large states well in the legislator.

Then I would note the president doesn't represent the states, but the United States and that thus we should revisit how we chose him. There is no reason why the swing states should control the fate of the country.

First what the small states would gain from a switch from the electoral college is better representation because of the loss of power of the swing states.

Then I would advocate a run off system, either instant or otherwise, so that a president can't be elected without more than 50% of the voter turn out.

Then I would enter into discussions about how the other powers of the executive branch are distributed, so that there would be more power sharing between the sides at the highest level.

Finally I would note that seeking to empower yourself at the expense of others is immoral, though certainly in keeping with human nature.

[Savojarna]

And what do you mean by "only big cities would matter"? How would that be a problem? It is only a problem if there was a very meaningful urban/rural divide that somehow overcomes all other divides, and if the states were divided on this basis as well. However, none of those things are true. There are multiple other divides, and there are rural populations in states which get overvoted by "their" cities as well as urban populations being overvoted by "their" rural surroundings. Even if the cities would be decisive in the election, if a majority of the people wants to live in cities and have "city politics", so be it. That's how democracy works. Especially as the rural areas should have a way of getting significant influence in the Congress if they are so different.

Finally, even if you are right about cities following one party more than rural areas - if this is the case there would be the question if cities make people Democrat (or Republican) or Democrats (or Republicans) prefer moving to cities.

[San Lumen]

And what do you mean by "only big cities would matter"? How would that be a problem? It is only a problem if there was a very meaningful urban/rural divide that somehow overcomes all other divides, and if the states were divided on this basis as well. However, none of those things are true. There are multiple other divides, and there are rural populations in states which get overvoted by "their" cities as well as urban populations being overvoted by "their" rural surroundings. Even if the cities would be decisive in the election, if a majority of the people wants to live in cities and have "city politics", so be it. That's how democracy works. Especially as the rural areas should have a way of getting significant influence in the Congress if they are so different.

Finally, even if you are right about cities following one party more than rural areas - if this is the case there would be the question if cities make people Democrat (or Republican) or Democrats (or Republicans) prefer moving to cities.

I agree one hundred percent. No one would think it was fair if a a candidate for governor or senator won the most votes as result of winning urban areas but lost because their opponent got more land area.

Brazil and Argentina a very urbanized countries No one complains when cities decide national election, They don't try to make certain votes count less than others.

[WhatsamattaU]

What the Electoral College is, is a compromise. Big population States say that they ought to have more say (votes) than small population States. Smaller population States say that they are equal in importance, if not in population to the larger population States.

First that wasn't really the intended purpose of the electoral college. It was more of a slave vs. free state compromise and a recognition about different voting rights for their citizens between states.

Next is the problem of changing demographics. When the electoral college was made the there was a population difference of 1 to 12 between the largest state and the smallest state. And an even smaller 1 to 10 for free white males. Now it is 1 to 66. And is only going to get worse as cities continue to increase in size as compared to rural areas. This is actually a revolution the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen because it was impossible for cities of the modern size to exist without modern medicine and sewage systems.

Finally this isn't even the case under the electoral college. It doesn't represent the small states, but focuses everyone's attention on the swing states. Only one of which is actually a small state. These swing states absorb almost all of the candidates time and money. They are campaigned to at the expense of almost every other states issues being heard on a substantive level. So what the electoral college does is makes states unequal in power.

So, looking at the Status Quo, what can you offer the smaller population States that they ought to bend over and take it from the larger population States regarding the selection of the President and Vice President?

Personally, I think that the Electoral College, along with the House of Representatives and the Senate, was a great idea.

First I would note that I agree the house and the senate were great ideas, and that those both represent the smal and the large states well in the legislator.

Then I would note the president doesn't represent the states, but the United States and that thus we should revisit how we chose him. There is no reason why the swing states should control the fate of the country.

First what the small states would gain from a switch from the electoral college is better representation because of the loss of power of the swing states.

Then I would advocate a run off system, either instant or otherwise, so that a president can't be elected without more than 50% of the voter turn out.

Then I would enter into discussions about how the other powers of the executive branch are distributed, so that there would be more power sharing between the sides at the highest level.

Finally I would note that seeking to empower yourself at the expense of others is immoral, though certainly in keeping with human nature.

We agree on the power structure, but not the EC.... Well, that's the topic.

You contradict yourself by saying that the President doesn't represent the States, but represents the United States. If he represents the United States then why shouldn't it be the votes of the States that matter. In the case of this recent election, if each State (+D.C.) had an equal vote, it would have been 30 to 21 in favor of our current President.

You fail to explain how smaller population States would gain by cutting off what little dicks they already have, from little power to zero power, not even Hedwig's Angry Inch.

I look at your contempt of "swing States" with amusement. Why do seem to hold them in little regard? You know that they are called "swing States" because they might be won by either party? Reminds me of gay acquaintances looking down on bisexuals as if the bi's were lower than them because they wouldn't/couldn't commit to one sexual preference.

[Savojarna]

What you fail to explain is why the States should have a right to their own vote past a vague reference to the name "United States". Many of these states are very arbitrary. If we go by the relatively common model of democracy being made up by representation, participation and accountability:

Representation is highest with the popular vote approach, as everyone's vote counts directly and equally and the preference of the majority prevails. The EC is relatively representative through the numbers of votes, while your "one vote per state" approach makes no sense in a federation. Even the EU, which is not a state, doesn't use the one country, one vote approach apart from some exceptions.
Participation would likely grow if everyone's vote counts equally - as a Republican Californian or a Democrat Texan, there is already little reason to vote in the EC, and in your world there is little incentive for a Democrat Californian as well, given that their vote will be entirely offset by some small state in the middle of the US (I'm not from the US, I can't tell those apart and dont know which are always Republican, sorry. They're to me like the Baltic and Balkan States to stereotypical Americans).
Accountability potentially gets hurt as well since this system would be more likely to create a very stable situation for one party, even though that is not a systemic feature of the one-vote-per-state system per se, only combined with today's political situation.

Your argument for small states is not a valid point until you explain to me why these are special and we need to take care of them as a separate group, despite state borders in some areas being purely arbitrary borders drawn as administrative divisions and despite states not having a homogenous preference.

[Tagete]

The introduction of simultaneous ballot like in Australia may get the electoral college fairer.

[Savojarna]

The introduction of simultaneous ballot like in Australia may get the electoral college fairer.

What is the benefit compared to popular vote though?

[Spirit of Hope]

First that wasn't really the intended purpose of the electoral college. It was more of a slave vs. free state compromise and a recognition about different voting rights for their citizens between states.

Next is the problem of changing demographics. When the electoral college was made the there was a population difference of 1 to 12 between the largest state and the smallest state. And an even smaller 1 to 10 for free white males. Now it is 1 to 66. And is only going to get worse as cities continue to increase in size as compared to rural areas. This is actually a revolution the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen because it was impossible for cities of the modern size to exist without modern medicine and sewage systems.

Finally this isn't even the case under the electoral college. It doesn't represent the small states, but focuses everyone's attention on the swing states. Only one of which is actually a small state. These swing states absorb almost all of the candidates time and money. They are campaigned to at the expense of almost every other states issues being heard on a substantive level. So what the electoral college does is makes states unequal in power.


First I would note that I agree the house and the senate were great ideas, and that those both represent the smal and the large states well in the legislator.

Then I would note the president doesn't represent the states, but the United States and that thus we should revisit how we chose him. There is no reason why the swing states should control the fate of the country.

First what the small states would gain from a switch from the electoral college is better representation because of the loss of power of the swing states.

Then I would advocate a run off system, either instant or otherwise, so that a president can't be elected without more than 50% of the voter turn out.

Then I would enter into discussions about how the other powers of the executive branch are distributed, so that there would be more power sharing between the sides at the highest level.

Finally I would note that seeking to empower yourself at the expense of others is immoral, though certainly in keeping with human nature.

We agree on the power structure, but not the EC.... Well, that's the topic.

You contradict yourself by saying that the President doesn't represent the States, but represents the United States. If he represents the United States then why shouldn't it be the votes of the States that matter. In the case of this recent election, if each State (+D.C.) had an equal vote, it would have been 30 to 21 in favor of our current President.

The United States as a whole is different from a collection of states. The House represents the People, the Senate the States, and the President the combined whole of the United States. As it stands the Electoral College makes the president only truly answerable to a small number of the States, specifically the Swing States. I will explain more on this bellow.

You fail to explain how smaller population States would gain by cutting off what little dicks they already have, from little power to zero power, not even Hedwig's Angry Inch.

Because the presidency will no longer be dominated by the Swing States. How much time and money was spent on Wyoming, or any of the other small states, this last election? Basically none. The only small state that gets any attention is the New Hampshire, and that is because it is a traditional swing state, not because it is a small state.

But further using a popular vote system would rather fairly balance out the power of the states. After all California and New York both have sizable portions of their population that are rural and don't agree with the policies of the cities that dominate their election, and thus render their votes meaningless.

Additionally let us look at the top five states by population.
1) California: Democrat
2) Texas: Republican
3) New York: Democrat
4) Florida: Swing
5) Illinois: Democrat

As a note these states together don't hold more than a third of the population, and thus couldn't control the election even if they voted unanimously together. Which they don't.

But instead we could look at it by population centers, because no one will actually care about state lines in a popular vote system. It takes 70 urban centers to get 50% of he vote, and they are spread out across 38 of the states. A much better cross section of america than the current system.

I look at your contempt of "swing States" with amusement. Why do seem to hold them in little regard? You know that they are called "swing States" because they might be won by either party? Reminds me of gay acquaintances looking down on bisexuals as if the bi's were lower than them because they wouldn't/couldn't commit to one sexual preference.

I don't look at swing states with contempt because they could be won by either side. I look at the concept of swing states because they utterly undermine the presidential election.

Here is a simple fact: 2/3rds of presidential candidates visits in 2016 were in six states. Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan. I will note none of those are small states, so the argument that the electoral college gives voice to the small states can be seen here to be utter bunk.

Or we could look at where candidates spent there money in 2012. Ten states received 99% of the advertising money. Again it wasn't really about the small states though, Florida received 20% of the money, Ohio 17%, Virginia 15%, North Carolina 10%. That is well over 50% of advertising money, and yet there isn't a small state to be seen. Wonder why that might be? Oh right, New Hampshire tends to be the only small swing state, good thing it got 4% of advertising money.

Swing states cause presidential candidates to pander to their interests at the expense of everyone else. As long as a democrat doesn't screw California or New York to much then they can promise Pennsylvanian whatever Pennsylvanian wants to try and win the election. Same goes for Republicans and Texas.

To make it worse, because of the nature of swing states it isn't even all of the people in them you have to care about, since most groups can be relied upon to vote one way or another. All the candidates have to do is focus on the voters who statistically swing their votes in the swing states.

What this means is that instead of campaigning to the American people, the presidential candidates are focusing on a small minority of the population in specific geographic locations.You can see that clearly in this election, where Trump lost by 3 million votes in the popular vote but won because he got the 100,000 swing votes in swing states.

Small states lose out just as much under this system as big states do, but that seams to be ok by you.

I don't mind that people change their votes. I mind that the system is set up to make it so the voices of a tiny minority of the United States are the ones who receive all of the attention, at the exclusion of damn near everyone else. Anyone who has studied how governments behave can tell you that this doesn't end well. And I say that as one who has benefited from the system in the past. Swing voter in a swing state.

[Nariterrr]

Please re-read what I just wrote: The President of the United States is indirectly elected, just like the presidents of Germany, India, Pakistan, Estonia and Myanmar. Saying that every country that directly elects its head of state does so by popular vote is grammatical tautology. It is akin to saying that people die when they are killed.

In theory the president of the United States is indirectly elected, in practice the president of the United States is directly elected with a series of weird rules about voter appropriation.

It should be noted that pledged electors have been a thing since basically the beginning of the electoral college, which undermines it's very purpose. As it stands now the electors are largely chosen by the party, pledge their vote to their parties candidates, and almost never vote for another person. In fact there is no election where dishonest electors have changed the outcome.

Further entrenching this reality, is the fact that a number of the states have laws that force the electors to vote as they pledged. Which means electors can't show discretion in who they vote for, effectively killing the idea that it is an indirect election.

About the only time the electoral college worked as intended, that is as an indirect body electing of the president, was when they chose George Washington. After him electors started pledging themselves to a candidate or a party. This has only become further entrenched over time, while at the same time who chooses the electors has switched to a popular vote rather than the state's legislative bodies.

What the electoral college now does is bundle together votes based on geography, make it winner takes all, and then distributes the power of those geographic regions lopsidedly.

We are neither in theory or in practice responsible for electing the President. It does not matter if the Electoral College is proportional to the popular vote most of the time, it should be that way all the time. Not to mention the fact that the Electoral College is extremely disproportional and gives the power to select the President to four to six states. The rule should be one vote equals one vote, in the current system your vote really does not matter if you live in a safe state.

[WhatsamattaU]

All this talk about how unfair it is that there are "swing States".

What's more stupid is that there are States voting in lock-step with particular parties!

National liberal politcians all come out to Los Angeles and Hollywood for HUGE fundraising dinners, yet they hardly spend any of that money in California!

[Spirit of Hope]

All this talk about how unfair it is that there are "swing States".

What's more stupid is that there are States voting in lock-step with particular parties!

National liberal politcians all come out to Los Angeles and Hollywood for HUGE fundraising dinners, yet they hardly spend any of that money in California!

You do realize that is part of the issue with the electoral college, right? The fact that there are swing and safe states is a result of the electoral college, and how it geographically bundles together voters. This issue is only aggravated by the winner takes all system that most states use for distributing votes. California swings heavily left for a number of reasons, which results in those who swing right in California effectively not having a vote. The opposite happens in Texas. You effectively don't have to care about the opinion of a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas when you are running for President.

I mean the top ten states for campaign donations provide 57% of the money but had .1% spent in them. It is because the states that provide you with the most money.

Swing states are "worse" because they are the ones who actually control the election, but swing states get their power because there are "safe" states that candidates don't have to worry about.

[WhatsamattaU]

All this talk about how unfair it is that there are "swing States".

What's more stupid is that there are States voting in lock-step with particular parties!

National liberal politcians all come out to Los Angeles and Hollywood for HUGE fundraising dinners, yet they hardly spend any of that money in California!

You do realize that is part of the issue with the electoral college, right? The fact that there are swing and safe states is a result of the electoral college, and how it geographically bundles together voters. This issue is only aggravated by the winner takes all system that most states use for distributing votes. California swings heavily left for a number of reasons, which results in those who swing right in California effectively not having a vote. The opposite happens in Texas. You effectively don't have to care about the opinion of a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas when you are running for President.

I mean the top ten states for campaign donations provide 57% of the money but had .1% spent in them. It is because the states that provide you with the most money.

Swing states are "worse" because they are the ones who actually control the election, but swing states get their power because there are "safe" states that candidates don't have to worry about.

As a Californian, I know a lot of my fellow golden staters have lost a lot of brain cells to marijauna.

The swing states are too divided to effectively "control" the election. If more states were more open minded, we could have lots of swing States.

[Lavochkin]

You do realize that is part of the issue with the electoral college, right? The fact that there are swing and safe states is a result of the electoral college, and how it geographically bundles together voters. This issue is only aggravated by the winner takes all system that most states use for distributing votes. California swings heavily left for a number of reasons, which results in those who swing right in California effectively not having a vote. The opposite happens in Texas. You effectively don't have to care about the opinion of a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas when you are running for President.

I mean the top ten states for campaign donations provide 57% of the money but had .1% spent in them. It is because the states that provide you with the most money.

Swing states are "worse" because they are the ones who actually control the election, but swing states get their power because there are "safe" states that candidates don't have to worry about.

As a Californian, I know a lot of my fellow golden staters have lost a lot of brain cells to marijauna.

The swing states are too divided to effectively "control" the election. If more states were more open minded, we could have lots of swing States.

Or if liberals just move to other states. Liberals do hold the majority, however they always just clump into cities in states like San Fran in California. If liberals moved to like Wisconsin or Michigan AND spread out into the country sides, NOT just the cities, liberals could easily pull off wins after wins in elections.