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

[Libertypendence Park]

One of the purposes of the Electoral College is to thwart highly populous states from riding roughshod over smaller states. In the event that no candidate reaches the required states, the election is turned over to the House of Representatives.

Erm - how? Surely if you based it on the popular vote - as in how many votes each candidate got, then it wouldn't matter on the size of the state, because the vote of every single citizen, no matter where they lived, would matter equally.

And surely the Electoral College does the opposite of what you are saying. In that (in this election) the vote of someone in California counted for more than 11 times as much as the vote for someone in Idaho. Which - for a country that prides itself on democracy, and a country that was apparently founded with the words "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" is a tad hypocritical and somewhat full of bollocks, if you ask me.

America's political system goes to obscene lengths to protect its minorities, and rightly so.

[The Serbian Empire]

I believe it should be handled on the Congressional district popular vote level with the 2 senators going for the state's overall popular vote winner.

Don't kid yourself, with our current luck it's going to be 8.

Who'd the Dems need to nominate in 2020 to ensure a Trump re-election?

It's obvious... Hillary Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Kwame Kilpatrick, and so on... In other words, anyone with a horrid scandal in their past.

[The East Marches]

I believe it should be handled on the Congressional district popular vote level with the 2 senators going for the state's overall popular vote winner.

Who'd the Dems need to nominate in 2020 to ensure a Trump re-election?

It's obvious... Hillary Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Kwame Kilpatrick, and so on... In other words, anyone with a horrid scandal in their past.

I had a chuckle at the Rod Blagojevich reference. He may have to be the candidate for 2024, he will still be in jail in 2020.

[The Serbian Empire]

I believe it should be handled on the Congressional district popular vote level with the 2 senators going for the state's overall popular vote winner.


It's obvious... Hillary Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Kwame Kilpatrick, and so on... In other words, anyone with a horrid scandal in their past.

I had a chuckle at the Rod Blagojevich reference. He may have to be the candidate for 2024, he will still be in jail in 2020.

Kwame Kilpatrick on the other hand.

[Arumdaum]

The electoral college does not favor places like CA. At all. In fact, CA is much less represented due to being both a large state (bc regardless it'll always have two senators) and a safe state.

[Galloism]

I believe it should be handled on the Congressional district popular vote level with the 2 senators going for the state's overall popular vote winner.

Who'd the Dems need to nominate in 2020 to ensure a Trump re-election?

It's obvious... Hillary Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Kwame Kilpatrick, and so on... In other words, anyone with a horrid scandal in their past.

Let's just go with Kanye West or Paris Hilton.

Because at this point, what the hell?

[Ebliania]

Well of course. I'm fucking butthurt.

[Grand Britannia]

Lmao I fucking called it that this would happen.

[The Serbian Empire]

I believe it should be handled on the Congressional district popular vote level with the 2 senators going for the state's overall popular vote winner.


It's obvious... Hillary Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Kwame Kilpatrick, and so on... In other words, anyone with a horrid scandal in their past.

Let's just go with Kanye West or Paris Hilton.

Because at this point, what the hell?

Personally, I think Kanye or Paris would be more popular.

[Timmy City]

I believe it should be handled on the Congressional district popular vote level with the 2 senators going for the state's overall popular vote winner.

Who'd the Dems need to nominate in 2020 to ensure a Trump re-election?

It's obvious... Hillary Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Kwame Kilpatrick, and so on... In other words, anyone with a horrid scandal in their past.

They need to nominate someone like Cory Booker.

[Arumdaum]

I believe it should be handled on the Congressional district popular vote level with the 2 senators going for the state's overall popular vote winner.


It's obvious... Hillary Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Kwame Kilpatrick, and so on... In other words, anyone with a horrid scandal in their past.

They need to nominate someone like Cory Booker.

Oh god fucking no that'd just be a repeat of this fucking election

[New haven america]

Yes.

[Conservative Values]

Just to point out: It is impossible to know if Trump or Clinton would have won in a popular vote system as we don't know how many people in dark red or blue states didn't go to the polls because there wasn't a single competive race by a large margin.

If we were in a different system people would have acted differently and the results would also be different.

[Arlenton]

Don't see any reason why they would. The EC is doing it's job quite well.

[New haven america]

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?

Don't fix something that ain't broke.

Yes it is.

If you looked at the current election, when Hillary conceded she was winning the popular vote, as did All Gore in 2000. The Electoral College has allowed inept dumbasses to beat the popular vote about 5 times now.That''s not a good democratic system.

[Stormaen]

I believe it should be handled on the Congressional district popular vote level with the 2 senators going for the state's overall popular vote winner.

I've suggested the same compromise, but as others have pointed out: if you're reforming the electoral college to reflect popular vote, why not just change it to a popular vote election.

[Arlenton]

Don't fix something that ain't broke.

Yes it is.

If you looked at the current election, when Hillary conceded she was winning the popular vote, as did All Gore in 2000. The Electoral College has allowed inept dumbasses to beat the popular vote about 5 times now.That''s not a good day system.

It's not broke, it's doing what it was made to do just fine.

[Blackwatch Federation]

No because if we didn't have it we'd have Clinton right now. The electoral vote saved us this time.

[New haven america]

Yes it is.

If you looked at the current election, when Hillary conceded she was winning the popular vote, as did All Gore in 2000. The Electoral College has allowed inept dumbasses to beat the popular vote about 5 times now.That''s not a good day system.

It's not broke, it's doing what it was made to do just fine.

No, it's going against democracy. The popular vote is losing, that's not democratic at all.

[United Marxist Nations]

The reason we have the electoral college is because we are not a union of individuals, we are a union of states. If we went by the popular vote, then the metro areas and large states could dictate to rural areas who wins. The fact is: the majority of the states would rather have Trump than Hillary, and, on the basis this country was founded, that is what matters.

[Arlenton]

It's not broke, it's doing what it was made to do just fine.

No, it's going against democracy. The popular vote is losing, that's not democratic at all.

It was never meant to be that definition of "democratic". It was supposed to balance things out for the less populated states. It has done that.

[WhatsamattaU]

Erm - how? Surely if you based it on the popular vote - as in how many votes each candidate got, then it wouldn't matter on the size of the state, because the vote of every single citizen, no matter where they lived, would matter equally.

And surely the Electoral College does the opposite of what you are saying. In that (in this election) the vote of someone in California counted for more than 11 times as much as the vote for someone in Idaho. Which - for a country that prides itself on democracy, and a country that was apparently founded with the words "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" is a tad hypocritical and somewhat full of bollocks, if you ask me.

America's political system goes to obscene lengths to protect its minorities, and rightly so.

In this case, because the Electoral College also give each state two electors, simply because they are states, as well as elections based on population, it enabled a group of smart states better footing against more populous states.

America is not a direct democracy, but a democratic Republic.

Considering how much of my opinion in an overwhelmingly unbalanced party state, my vote didn't make that much difference.

Finally, do you believe minorities only have rights based on ethnicity, or can a group of people with minority views also be deserving of protections?

[The New Peoples of the Nile]

Let's remember why we have an electoral college. A.) So little states have a say in the election of the presidency. B.) Because it's a stable vote that takes less time to produce final results. C.) To prevent a tyranny of the majority situation.

[WhatsamattaU]

Let's remember why we have an electoral college. A.) So little states have a say in the election of the presidency. B.) Because it's a stable vote that takes less time to produce final results. C.) To prevent a tyranny of the majority situation.

Well Said !

[Russian Fedration]

Yes. It would be a Accurate Reflection of the Peoples will