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

[Nilla Wayfarers]

You're wrong because you have to bend over backwards and change definitions to defend a broken system.
And in your car analogy the car company would be sued and would have to change their design or lose business.

Flaws in a system when pointed out demand correction.

I'll continue this later, although in the meantime please explain your first point more.

You were offered objective reasoning, and dismissed it as an opinion. That is wrong.

[Proctopeo]

I'll continue this later, although in the meantime please explain your first point more.

You were offered objective reasoning, and dismissed it as an opinion. That is wrong.

Calling something objective does not make it objective.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

You were offered objective reasoning, and dismissed it as an opinion. That is wrong.

Calling something objective does not make it objective.

Can you explain how a number of votes, a series of verbal statements, and direct self-contradiction are subjective?

[San Lumen]

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.

That is a complete an utter failure of democracy. That';s neither fair nor democratic. Whomever gets the most votes should win. A vote in New York City should not count less than someone in Jefferson City.

[Genivaria]

You were offered objective reasoning, and dismissed it as an opinion. That is wrong.

Calling something objective does not make it objective.

So do you actually have an argument?

[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.

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

So instead of allocating votes depending on which congressional district voted which party, do a popular vote with the state. If a state has 42 electoral votes, for example, the overall winner would win 2 votes. If the winner won 75% of the popular vote in that state, 30 votes are allocated to the winner and 10 are allocated to the loser.

[Post War America]

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

So instead of allocating votes depending on which congressional district voted which party, do a popular vote with the state. If a state has 42 electoral votes, for example, the overall winner would win 2 votes. If the winner won 75% of the popular vote in that state, 30 votes are allocated to the winner and 10 are allocated to the loser.

I don't know mate, that smacks of being a reasonable compromise. I don't think the US body politic is capable of those anymore.

[San Lumen]

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

So instead of allocating votes depending on which congressional district voted which party, do a popular vote with the state. If a state has 42 electoral votes, for example, the overall winner would win 2 votes. If the winner won 75% of the popular vote in that state, 30 votes are allocated to the winner and 10 are allocated to the loser.

Why not just have the person with the most votes wins? What an amazing concept!!!! every other country in the world that directly elects its president does that.

[Post War America]

So instead of allocating votes depending on which congressional district voted which party, do a popular vote with the state. If a state has 42 electoral votes, for example, the overall winner would win 2 votes. If the winner won 75% of the popular vote in that state, 30 votes are allocated to the winner and 10 are allocated to the loser.

Why not just have the person with the most votes wins? What an amazing concept!!!! every other country in the world that directly elects its president does that.

Abolishing the electoral college would take a constitutional amendment, this patch would take laws. One is easier than the other. Given however, the political climate of the country neither are likely to happen.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

What about the radical idea of letting electors actually vote, instead of facing a fine if they don't place their ballots according to the popular vote?

[San Lumen]

What about the radical idea of letting electors actually vote, instead of facing a fine if they don't place their ballots according to the popular vote?

Even if you did theyd still but party over country. There should be just popular vote. My vote in New York shouldn't matter less than someone in Jefferson City.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

What about the radical idea of letting electors actually vote, instead of facing a fine if they don't place their ballots according to the popular vote?

Even if you did theyd still but party over country. There should be just popular vote. My vote in New York shouldn't matter less than someone in Jefferson City.

Absolutely, my preferred system would be STV popular vote, but having electors be able to vote would be a step in the right direction.

[Salandriagado]

Why not just have the person with the most votes wins? What an amazing concept!!!! every other country in the world that directly elects its president does that.

Abolishing the electoral college would take a constitutional amendment, this patch would take laws. One is easier than the other. Given however, the political climate of the country neither are likely to happen.

Actually, you could do national popular vote via the NPVIC, which doesn't require anything from the federal government at all: just the agreement of 270 EVs worth of states.

[Post War America]

Abolishing the electoral college would take a constitutional amendment, this patch would take laws. One is easier than the other. Given however, the political climate of the country neither are likely to happen.

Actually, you could do national popular vote via the NPVIC, which doesn't require anything from the federal government at all: just the agreement of 270 EVs worth of states.

That doesn't disqualify the latter part of my statement. The political climate of the United States makes that quite impossible.

[Great Nepal]

What about the radical idea of letting electors actually vote, instead of facing a fine if they don't place their ballots according to the popular vote?

That'd actually be much more closely resembling the design as it was originally intended - although I'm not sure if that'd be good or bad thing; on the one hand electors could actually discuss policy concerns and delegates from minor parties could get their policies integrated in return for supporting the candidate while on the other hand it might just end up entirely polarized throwing every election to the house.
Although to really work it'd require states to apportion electors proportionally within their state... which is just as difficult as PV.

[Insaeldor]

I understand the worry that if we do away with the Electoral college then the US would be dominated by a few states and that middle America would be out on any political power it might have.

I think a good way to fix this would be to establish a separate head of elected by the Senate and then hold a popular vote for the presidency. This way middle America could still exert influence over leadership while also doing away with an I democratic system that would more accurately represent the will of the people.

[Genivaria]

I understand the worry that if we do away with the Electoral college then the US would be dominated by a few states and that middle America would be out on any political power it might have.

I think a good way to fix this would be to establish a separate head of elected by the Senate and then hold a popular vote for the presidency. This way middle America could still exert influence over leadership while also doing away with an I democratic system that would more accurately represent the will of the people.

That's exactly the problem we have now.

[Spirit of Hope]

I understand the worry that if we do away with the Electoral college then the US would be dominated by a few states and that middle America would be out on any political power it might have.

I think a good way to fix this would be to establish a separate head of elected by the Senate and then hold a popular vote for the presidency. This way middle America could still exert influence over leadership while also doing away with an I democratic system that would more accurately represent the will of the people.

Anyone who says the popular vote will lead to a few states dominating the election is wrong. To get 50% of the population most efficiently, that is by going to the urban areas, you would need to visit 38 states.

The electoral college actually creates a system where a few states control the election.

[Chinese Peoples]

I thought CGP Grey had explained this matter in great detail. The Electoral College doesn't really protect small states: it protect states where the vote could go either way.

And you already have the Senate bearing down on the President, and the Senate is elected on the basis of equal representation. In a system remotely resembling democracy, small states simply can't demand equal influence when your population is different.

[Insaeldor]

I understand the worry that if we do away with the Electoral college then the US would be dominated by a few states and that middle America would be out on any political power it might have.

I think a good way to fix this would be to establish a separate head of elected by the Senate and then hold a popular vote for the presidency. This way middle America could still exert influence over leadership while also doing away with an I democratic system that would more accurately represent the will of the people.

That's exactly the problem we have now.

I understand the worry that if we do away with the Electoral college then the US would be dominated by a few states and that middle America would be out on any political power it might have.

I think a good way to fix this would be to establish a separate head of elected by the Senate and then hold a popular vote for the presidency. This way middle America could still exert influence over leadership while also doing away with an I democratic system that would more accurately represent the will of the people.

Anyone who says the popular vote will lead to a few states dominating the election is wrong. To get 50% of the population most efficiently, that is by going to the urban areas, you would need to visit 38 states.

The electoral college actually creates a system where a few states control the election.

But the argument is that then the elections would be dominated by states which are solidly democratic and liberal rather than swing states which can shift politically depending on multiple factors.

I'm not saying that their absolutely right on that but I am saying that I understand the concern and that this plan would best help to relieve those worries by still giving much of the more rural conservative state in the Midwest and south political power that they might not otherwise have.

[Alvecia]

That's exactly the problem we have now.

Anyone who says the popular vote will lead to a few states dominating the election is wrong. To get 50% of the population most efficiently, that is by going to the urban areas, you would need to visit 38 states.

The electoral college actually creates a system where a few states control the election.

But the argument is that then the elections would be dominated by states which are solidly democratic and liberal rather than swing states which can shift politically depending on multiple factors.

I'm not saying that their absolutely right on that but I am saying that I understand the concern and that this plan would best help to relieve those worries by still giving much of the more rural conservative state in the Midwest and south political power that they might not otherwise have.

Honestly, I think that's an even worse argument. You shouldn't have to rig the political system to that each side has a equal chance of winning. What then is the point of elections. Might as well just flip a coin.

[Chinese Peoples]

But the argument is that then the elections would be dominated by states which are solidly democratic and liberal rather than swing states which can shift politically depending on multiple factors.

I'm not saying that their absolutely right on that but I am saying that I understand the concern and that this plan would best help to relieve those worries by still giving much of the more rural conservative state in the Midwest and south political power that they might not otherwise have.

That's absurd. Political parties that fewer people support do not deserve to be in government.

On the other hand, those "more rural conservative state[sic]" would certainly block political reform because it is in their interest to do so.

[Spirit of Hope]

That's exactly the problem we have now.

Anyone who says the popular vote will lead to a few states dominating the election is wrong. To get 50% of the population most efficiently, that is by going to the urban areas, you would need to visit 38 states.

The electoral college actually creates a system where a few states control the election.

But the argument is that then the elections would be dominated by states which are solidly democratic and liberal rather than swing states which can shift politically depending on multiple factors.

I'm not saying that their absolutely right on that but I am saying that I understand the concern and that this plan would best help to relieve those worries by still giving much of the more rural conservative state in the Midwest and south political power that they might not otherwise have.

That thinking is wrong though.

First let us look at the top five state by population, which account for only 37% of the US population
1) California, Democrat.
2) Texas, Republican
3) Florida, Swing
4) New York, Democrat
5) Illinois, Democrat

As you can see, neither side truly has a strong lead here. Plus added up these states aren't enough to get 50% of the population even if they all voted in lockstep. Which they won't, and their internal populations won't.

Secondly why would candidates worry about states in a popular vote system? They would worry about people, and where people live. Which means looking at the urban areas, and how they are distributed. It takes the top 70 urban areas to get 50% of the population, and those urban areas are spread across 38 states. But again, they aren't all going to vote in lockstep, so you will have to campaign in further areas to actually win.

[Insaeldor]

But the argument is that then the elections would be dominated by states which are solidly democratic and liberal rather than swing states which can shift politically depending on multiple factors.

I'm not saying that their absolutely right on that but I am saying that I understand the concern and that this plan would best help to relieve those worries by still giving much of the more rural conservative state in the Midwest and south political power that they might not otherwise have.

Honestly, I think that's an even worse argument. You shouldn't have to rig the political system to that each side has a equal chance of winning. What then is the point of elections. Might as well just flip a coin.

So we should just have a Tyranny by majority a totally block a massive subsection of the population out of the electoral process? that's just as bad as the system we have now.

But the argument is that then the elections would be dominated by states which are solidly democratic and liberal rather than swing states which can shift politically depending on multiple factors.

I'm not saying that their absolutely right on that but I am saying that I understand the concern and that this plan would best help to relieve those worries by still giving much of the more rural conservative state in the Midwest and south political power that they might not otherwise have.

That's absurd. Political parties that fewer people support do not deserve to be in government.

On the other hand, those "more rural conservative state[sic]" would certainly block political reform because it is in their interest to do so.

I mean if we had Hillary win like Trump did that wouldn't be the case. The simple fact is that as a culturally and politically diverse nation we need to at the very least give those without the political power to win election the ability to have an equal platform and ability to protect there own interests. It be completely unfair for the west coast and east coast to dominate the electoral process and institute politicians which represent their interest at the expense of the rural south and mid west. While that would be an impatience fact of life it would definitely help in creating a more cohesive democracy since the verious socio-political entities would be given equal opertunity to dictate policy. It's also a failsage to ensure one socio-political group doesn't have absolute authority over the other.

It's an attempt to avoid the issues we face now but reversed.

[Alvecia]

Honestly, I think that's an even worse argument. You shouldn't have to rig the political system to that each side has a equal chance of winning. What then is the point of elections. Might as well just flip a coin.

So we should just have a Tyranny by majority a totally block a massive subsection of the population out of the electoral process? that's just as bad as the system we have now.

What is the difference between Tyranny of the Majority and the majority opinion, because honestly, based on what I've heard over and over in threads like these, it sounds like a lot of people don't think there is one.