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

[Northern Federation of Korea]

more soldiers from cities, not a higher percentage, a far higher rate of attrition from cities and a far higher rate of enlistment from rural areas (and pacific islands).

My system would eliminate the draft. No reason for it.

And if you don't like the southern accent or someone's lifted pick up truck (or some person from the hoods idiotic drop-kitted car for that fucking matter), then fucking deal with it. It's called freedom. something which some of us hold higher and more important than your precious democracy which has fucked us over in every election since coolidge.

Why should we set policies to support the minority? Fine, even as a black person I'll say this: Get rid of bullshit like affirmative action and special black clubs and womens clubs and the special snowflakes in gender studies if you don't care about the minority.

And Democracy has failed, if anything the american experiment has shown the with the urbanization of people comes the higher likelihood that a democratic society will vote away their freedoms carelessly. Patriotism is love of your country always, not love of your government or it's systems. Obviously the constitution left too much leeway for the creeping tyranny of democratic society, and we need new solutions to save the experiment of freedom.

"more soldiers from cities, not a higher percentage, a far higher rate of attrition from cities and a far higher rate of enlistment from rural areas (and pacific islands). "
- That doesn't matter in warfare. You think in war we'll care about who is giving a higher percentage of soldiers? No we just want more and quicker. Why do you think us and other countries defend their cities much more heavily than rural areas in war?

"My system would eliminate the draft. No reason for it."
- Besides the fact that we don't have the worlds largest military by size and we're #3 in world population and 4x smaller than China?

"then fucking deal with it. It's called freedom"
- Right back at ya. If you won't stop acting like idiots then we won't stop treating you like idiots. If you don't like what we do to you, it's called freedom.

" It's called freedom. something which some of us hold higher and more important than your precious democracy which has fucked us over in every election since coolidge."
If it's fucked you over since the 1920's then why the hell are you living here? I heard Russia needs a few farmers who don't mind being interrogated by the FSB every few weeks. Oh and there's no democracy! Just made perfectly for you!

"Get rid of bullshit like affirmative action and special black clubs and womens clubs and the special snowflakes in gender studies if you don't care about the minority."
Hey I ain't arguing for that and I won't. I do agree affirmative action is racist and BS and gender studies should be integrated into health and it's related studies.

"And Democracy has failed, if anything the american experiment has shown the with the urbanization of people comes the higher likelihood that a democratic society will vote away their freedoms carelessly."
And so instead of reforming it you want to start clean and deal with another 100 years of trial and error? If my cars broken I would fix it, not buy an entirely new car.

"Patriotism is love of your country always"
And what defines a country? You clearly don't love the majority of the people living here which created the American culture, or the government and it's history. The only thing left to make you a patriot is our geography. Tell me, do you love our green fields and mountains enough to die for it? Because if not I'm afraid you're our worst enemy.

"Obviously the constitution left too much leeway for the creeping tyranny of democratic society, and we need new solutions to save the experiment of freedom."
Correct me if I'm wrong. But didn't you want some kinda dictatorship that helps the minority? How is that any ways freedom for a country when the mass majority are being oppressed?

Russia seems to be doing fine, and they are pretty much a republic . . . and they will be doing better . . . same as us . . . very soon.

[Spirit of Hope]

I'm just curious why you are so against a popular vote system, yet appear to be alright with proportionally awarding the EC votes. The later basically creates the former, though with votes in smaller states being more powerful than votes in larger states.

Under either system the executive branch is going to only really represent whoever wins, unless you change how the executive branch is set up. Arguing about how the executive should be set up isn't really for this thread, but I would like it if you elaborated on why you don't think the executive needs to be changed if we use a proportional electoral college.

This is all I'm quoting as it's the most relevant and easy way for me to format the response.

I'll admit that I'm approaching this problem from the view point of an engineer trying to deal with or fix somebody else's design. The two main complaints that I see against the electoral college is that it can lead to a president (ignoring the vice president and repercussions throughout the executive branch with cabinet members) that does not win the national popular vote and can theoretically result in outrageous unrepresentation (the ~20% figure often used). Since the system is, by design, based around giving the states the same elective power of the federal executive government as they have federal legislative power the first figure strikes me as a less than necessary issue to deal with.

However, I can easily see the issue with a mildly weighted system potentially producing the result of an extremely weighted system. That seems to be against the design which warrants some fixing. Since it's pretty much an issue of the states, and D.C., deciding their electoral slates based upon a first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system which is nonsensical when allotting multiple points the fix to that issue seems obvious. It's pretty much fixed by having the slates allotted in proportion to the states' citizens votes, while also being somewhat easier to achieve as it requires campaigning individually instead of hoping for something like the NPVIC.

I disagree with calling this solution as leading to a popular vote as it still retains the slight weighting in the current system.

As for my disagreement with just going to the popular vote, my disagreement is based upon the representation argument. While 3 million more people voting for the losing candidate might sound like a lot, it's only a 2.1% difference relative to the amount of votes cast. With the exception of the 1824 election (excluded due to it being a 4-way race with the House of Representatives choosing the winner), the other 4 upsets were by similarly small percentages. In general, the system produces a winner by the popular vote but the mild weighting, pretty much due to the Senate and the size of the House of Representatives being frozen, allows for such upsets in reality. To change the system to a popular vote would result in, at best, a slight increase in representation. The two main methods to achieve this would require either a constitutional amendment or waiting and hoping for the NPVIC to kick in. Essentially, the argument is to put a lot of work/hope/waiting in for a mere slight return which doesn't alter the system too much.

Since getting a de facto or de jure popular vote for the presidency and vice presidency requires time and fairly major effort to achieve (NPVIC being more of the former than the latter with some hoping and hand-wringing added) then getting the executive branch to be more representative seems to be a worthwhile goal. Basically, I think the executive branch of government could use rework regardless of whether we keep the electoral college or go to the popular vote. However, as the latter option requires significant time, work, effort, and some hope sprinkled in the mix for one of the solutions, I want more bang for my buck. The effort and time put into getting slightly better representation is not worth it but doing so on a grander scale would be.

EDIT: Essentially, to put an imperfect analogy into the mix, I either want to patch up the potential bugs in the software or majorly change things so its substantially better.

Alright, that answers my question.

I'd say my biggest complaint against the electoral college is less the weighting of votes, though that does bother me, and more the safe state/swing state dichotomy. Which is entirely the result of winner takes all elections for state's electoral votes. Simply getting states to switch to a proportional system I think would go a long way towards fixing the issues of the electoral college. Unfortunately I find states changing to proportional vs. take all to be unlikely because it diminishes the states importance, and hands votes to an apposing party.

I do agree if we are going to start on a constitutional amendment to fix the EC, there are probably some other things I would want to fix along the way.

[Vassenor]

She lossed by roughly 1,ooo votes, because 3,ooo of the people who voted for her were illegal immigrants. I don't believe their votes count at all.

Evidence please.

[Post War America]

She lossed by roughly 1,ooo votes, because 3,ooo of the people who voted for her were illegal immigrants. I don't believe their votes count at all.

First of all, you're off by about 3000% in the other direction (literally), second, for a claim that bold you're gonna need some sauce.

[Great Nepal]

A lot more people are pushing for popular vote rather than overhaul of executive because it doesn't require constitutional amendment; so as long as states making up majority in electoral college agree to interstate popular vote compact - arrangement whereby those states assign their electoral votes based on national popular vote, it is done. I think it has 170ish/270 required atm

As an engineer by trade and training I hate half-assed solutions like the NPVIC. I'd rather my state, California, have the electoral slate be representative of us now by having the allotment be proportional than to wait and hope that eventually enough states join a half-assed solution.

If people were truly dedicated to representation, they'd support an idea for the popular vote similar to mine because it is vastly more representative in our governance than now or with the NPVIC which is a lot of waiting and hand-wringing for only a slightly more representative "solution."

Perfection is the enemy of functional; we need the system to be functional before aiming for perfection. There are better solutions to NPVIC; those solutions require approval from two third of the states; including states that objectively benefit from current system so those solutions aren't going to be implemented and any state that unilaterally goes for one of the solutions, like one you propose for California would result in that state being irrelevant electorally - thereby throwing away its leverage for sake of wishy washy message sending.

She lossed by roughly 1,ooo votes, because 3,ooo of the people who voted for her were illegal immigrants. I don't believe their votes count at all.

Given you've obviously got evidence of mass scale voter fraud, and aren't talking out of your arse - I'm wondering why you haven't turned over this evidence to the relevant authorities.

[Chinese Peoples]

In a country where all 435 house constituencies and 100 senate constituencies elect their congresspersons by popular and direct vote, I see no reason why the same cannot apply to the presidency.

[Israloc]

People often forget that the United States of America was not founded as a democracy but rather a Federated Republic and union of thirteen colonies. The electoral college system is there to protect the sovereignty of the smaller states in the union and ensure that they still wield power compared to the larger and more populous states.

Without Electoral College, a President could win the election by campaigning and trying to appeal solely to folks in California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

The Senate reflects the Union of States by giving 2 Senators, regardless of population, to each state. The House of Commons is more proportional with regional seats being divided up based on population and then holding first-past-the-post elections every 2 years.

I voted to keep Electoral College. Mind you, I'm Canadian but that shouldn't matter as I do have an opinion on the issue.

[Vassenor]

People often forget that the United States of America was not founded as a democracy but rather a Federated Republic and union of thirteen colonies. The electoral college system is there to protect the sovereignty of the smaller states in the union and ensure that they still wield power compared to the larger and more populous states.

Without Electoral College, a President could win the election by campaigning and trying to appeal solely to folks in California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

The Senate reflects the Union of States by giving 2 Senators, regardless of population, to each state. The House of Commons is more proportional with regional seats being divided up based on population and then holding first-past-the-post elections every 2 years.

I voted to keep Electoral College. Mind you, I'm Canadian but that shouldn't matter as I do have an opinion on the issue.

Haven't we busted each of those myths by now? All the EC does is make the Swing States more important than all the others.

[San Lumen]

People often forget that the United States of America was not founded as a democracy but rather a Federated Republic and union of thirteen colonies. The electoral college system is there to protect the sovereignty of the smaller states in the union and ensure that they still wield power compared to the larger and more populous states.

Without Electoral College, a President could win the election by campaigning and trying to appeal solely to folks in California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

The Senate reflects the Union of States by giving 2 Senators, regardless of population, to each state. The House of Commons is more proportional with regional seats being divided up based on population and then holding first-past-the-post elections every 2 years.

I voted to keep Electoral College. Mind you, I'm Canadian but that shouldn't matter as I do have an opinion on the issue.

Why should it matter? Whoever get the most votes should win. My vote in New York should matter and count just as much as someone in Jefferson City. In Canada you can win by sweeping the seats in Urban areas i believe. Isn't that what the liberals did in 2015?

[Spirit of Hope]

People often forget that the United States of America was not founded as a democracy but rather a Federated Republic and union of thirteen colonies. The electoral college system is there to protect the sovereignty of the smaller states in the union and ensure that they still wield power compared to the larger and more populous states.

Without Electoral College, a President could win the election by campaigning and trying to appeal solely to folks in California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

The Senate reflects the Union of States by giving 2 Senators, regardless of population, to each state. The House of Commons is more proportional with regional seats being divided up based on population and then holding first-past-the-post elections every 2 years.

I voted to keep Electoral College. Mind you, I'm Canadian but that shouldn't matter as I do have an opinion on the issue.

First making the presidency elected by a popular vote does not make the US a democracy, it continues to be a republic.

Second the four states you listed only represent about 32% of the US. I'm not sure how that will determine the election, especially since you could use instant run off to make it so you need to get 50%+ of the populations vote to win.

Third the candidates for president wouldn't campaign by state, but by population. It takes more than 70 urban areas to get to 50% of the population, and they represent roughly 38 states. But since you won't be able to get everyone to vote for you you are going to have to campaign in more areas.

Forth the electoral college, for a combination of reasons, makes it so that the only states that are campaigned in are the "swing states." Which means 6 states dominate the spending or visits of the candidates (2/3rds of campaign stops are in 6 states). This means the EC actually undermines the idea of states getting represented. Really only one of the swing states is a "small state."

[Chinese Peoples]

In Canada you can win by sweeping the seats in Urban areas i believe. Isn't that what the liberals did in 2015?

You mean sweeping the places where most people live and vote? Shouldn't politics be based on people instead of places on maps?

[Greed and Death]

In a country where all 435 house constituencies and 100 senate constituencies elect their congresspersons by popular and direct vote, I see no reason why the same cannot apply to the presidency.

As long as we do it by state like we do the Senate.

[San Lumen]

In Canada you can win by sweeping the seats in Urban areas i believe. Isn't that what the liberals did in 2015?

You mean sweeping the places where most people live and vote? Shouldn't politics be based on people instead of places on maps?

yeah and Canada is very urbanized and the Liberals won big in most of the Urban areas.

[Chinese Peoples]

You mean sweeping the places where most people live and vote? Shouldn't politics be based on people instead of places on maps?

yeah and Canada is very urbanized and the Liberals won big in most of the Urban areas.

If the USA is not satisfied with demographics, then they can launch a policy rewarding rural living. People need to decide who the president is, and they have a realistic expectation that they will. All electors are elected on the basis of a pledge for a presidential candidate; you can count those who vote for electors on the basis of their own platforms with fingers on one hand. All this serves to show that the Electoral College is there to represent the people, to communicate the will of the people, not there to make up its own mind, consciously or unconsciously. If the Electoral College must be retained, I posit an amendment to its composition:

Each state shall have as many electors as it has voters who qualify to vote in the elections for the chief executive of in that state, and no state shall instruct how each elector shall cast his vote.

[San Lumen]

yeah and Canada is very urbanized and the Liberals won big in most of the Urban areas.

If the USA is not satisfied with demographics, then they can launch a policy rewarding rural living. People need to decide who the president is, and they have a realistic expectation that they will. All electors are elected on the basis of a pledge for a presidential candidate; you can count those who vote for electors on the basis of their own platforms with fingers on one hand. All this serves to show that the Electoral College is there to represent the people, to communicate the will of the people, not there to make up its own mind, consciously or unconsciously. If the Electoral College must be retained, I posit an amendment to its composition:

Each state shall have as many electors as it has voters who qualify to vote in the elections for the chief executive of in that state, and no state shall instruct how each elector shall cast his vote.

Why not just abolish it entirely then? Have only popular vote. The candidate with the most vote wins . Such an amazing concept that it's what every other country in the world that directly elects its president does

[Rupingle]

I understand that the electoral college is in place so that Los Angeles and New York don't control the entire election. I think that the 'winner takes all' approach is extremely undemocratic, right to the core! I believe the best way to settle this is to have every state operate like Maine and Nebraska, giving 2 votes to the overall winner and proportionally assigning the other votes. This would give California a couple of red votes, and vice versa for Texas.

[Vassenor]

I understand that the electoral college is in place so that Los Angeles and New York don't control the entire election. I think that the 'winner takes all' approach is extremely undemocratic, right to the core! I believe the best way to settle this is to have every state operate like Maine and Nebraska, giving 2 votes to the overall winner and proportionally assigning the other votes. This would give California a couple of red votes, and vice versa for Texas.

Winning 100% of the vote in all of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. is not even close to 50% of the national vote.

[Chinese Peoples]

-snip-

Why not just abolish it entirely then? Have only popular vote. The candidate with the most vote wins . Such an amazing concept that it's what every other country in the world that directly elects its president does

Agreed entirely. I'm glad to learn that we're on the same side.

[San Lumen]

I understand that the electoral college is in place so that Los Angeles and New York don't control the entire election. I think that the 'winner takes all' approach is extremely undemocratic, right to the core! I believe the best way to settle this is to have every state operate like Maine and Nebraska, giving 2 votes to the overall winner and proportionally assigning the other votes. This would give California a couple of red votes, and vice versa for Texas.

Your wrong. That's not why it was created. It was created as a check on the people to prevent someone like Trump from becoming president and it failed to do its job. If we used the Maine and Nebraska method nationwide a political party could gerrymander the presidency.

What would be undemocratic about the person with the most votes winning? It's so undemocratic it's what every other country in the world that directly elects its president does

[Proctopeo]

I understand that the electoral college is in place so that Los Angeles and New York don't control the entire election. I think that the 'winner takes all' approach is extremely undemocratic, right to the core! I believe the best way to settle this is to have every state operate like Maine and Nebraska, giving 2 votes to the overall winner and proportionally assigning the other votes. This would give California a couple of red votes, and vice versa for Texas.

Your wrong. That's not why it was created. It was created as a check on the people to prevent someone like Trump from becoming president and it failed to do its job. If we used the Maine and Nebraska method nationwide a political party could gerrymander the presidency.

What would be undemocratic about the person with the most votes winning? It's so undemocratic it's what every other country in the world that directly elects its president does

The short answer is actually because they didn't trust direct democracy - their primary concern was the Tyranny of the Majority.

[Vassenor]

Your wrong. That's not why it was created. It was created as a check on the people to prevent someone like Trump from becoming president and it failed to do its job. If we used the Maine and Nebraska method nationwide a political party could gerrymander the presidency.

What would be undemocratic about the person with the most votes winning? It's so undemocratic it's what every other country in the world that directly elects its president does

The short answer is actually because they didn't trust direct democracy - their primary concern was the Tyranny of the Majority.

And instead we have been left with tyranny of the minority.

[Proctopeo]

The short answer is actually because they didn't trust direct democracy - their primary concern was the Tyranny of the Majority.

And instead we have been left with tyranny of the minority.

We're not under tyranny, and even under President Trump, we, in all likelihood, won't be.

[Genivaria]

I understand that the electoral college is in place so that Los Angeles and New York don't control the entire election. I think that the 'winner takes all' approach is extremely undemocratic, right to the core! I believe the best way to settle this is to have every state operate like Maine and Nebraska, giving 2 votes to the overall winner and proportionally assigning the other votes. This would give California a couple of red votes, and vice versa for Texas.

Except it's not done by city but by state, and the top 10 largest states by population are:
California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan.
Behold the deciders of the election under the EC.

[Genivaria]

And instead we have been left with tyranny of the minority.

We're not under tyranny, and even under President Trump, we, in all likelihood, won't be.

We live with a system where you can lose by 3 million votes and still win.
If that's not a failure of democracy I don't know what is.

[Spirit of Hope]

And instead we have been left with tyranny of the minority.

We're not under tyranny, and even under President Trump, we, in all likelihood, won't be.

And popular vote wouldn't create a tyranny either, all the other checks and balances still exist.