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

[Jamzmania]

Think about this:

Number of Electors in Wyoming: 3
Population of Wyoming: .5826 million

3/.5826=5.15
Wyoming gets 5.15 electors per million people.

Number of Electors in California: 55
Population of California: 38.8 million
55/38.8=1.42
California gets 1.42 electors per million people

Ratio of electors per million between Wyoming and California: 5.15/1.42=3.63
You know a system is broken when a vote in Wyoming counts 3.63 times as much as a vote in California. And that is EXCLUDING thinking bout swing states and safe states.

It's not broken if that is what the system is intended to do.

[Galloism]

Think about this:

Number of Electors in Wyoming: 3
Population of Wyoming: .5826 million

3/.5826=5.15
Wyoming gets 5.15 electors per million people.

Number of Electors in California: 55
Population of California: 38.8 million
55/38.8=1.42
California gets 1.42 electors per million people

Ratio of electors per million between Wyoming and California: 5.15/1.42=3.63
You know a system is broken when a vote in Wyoming counts 3.63 times as much as a vote in California. And that is EXCLUDING thinking bout swing states and safe states.

It's not broken if that is what the system is intended to do.

If a system is intended to disenfranchise voters, it should be dismantled, just as poll tests and poll taxes were, for the same reason.

[Salandriagado]

Think about this:

Number of Electors in Wyoming: 3
Population of Wyoming: .5826 million

3/.5826=5.15
Wyoming gets 5.15 electors per million people.

Number of Electors in California: 55
Population of California: 38.8 million
55/38.8=1.42
California gets 1.42 electors per million people

Ratio of electors per million between Wyoming and California: 5.15/1.42=3.63
You know a system is broken when a vote in Wyoming counts 3.63 times as much as a vote in California. And that is EXCLUDING thinking bout swing states and safe states.

It's not broken if that is what the system is intended to do.

Broken By Design is a thing.

[Valrifell]

Think about this:

Number of Electors in Wyoming: 3
Population of Wyoming: .5826 million

3/.5826=5.15
Wyoming gets 5.15 electors per million people.

Number of Electors in California: 55
Population of California: 38.8 million
55/38.8=1.42
California gets 1.42 electors per million people

Ratio of electors per million between Wyoming and California: 5.15/1.42=3.63
You know a system is broken when a vote in Wyoming counts 3.63 times as much as a vote in California. And that is EXCLUDING thinking bout swing states and safe states.

It's not broken if that is what the system is intended to do.

90% of the population was rural at the time of ratification.

What fucking sense does a system that gives more power to a a dominant majority group make? Especially in a Republic.

[SSR of Yuketobaniac]

No because big cities would rule the popular vote and voter fraud would be easier.

[Galloism]

No because big cities would rule the popular vote and voter fraud would be easier.

Actually, voter fraud gets harder in a popular vote system.

With the EC, you only need to swing a few important races by a hundred thousand votes or so. With a national election, you would need organized voter fraud in the millions normally. (All without getting found out)

[Great Nepal]

No because big cities would rule the popular vote and voter fraud would be easier.

Top 100 cities have total people who're of voting age equal to 6% of total national vote cast in 2012 elections.

[Socialist Nordia]

This is how you can tell a system is really broken

[Valrifell]

This is how you can tell a system is really broken

So now we're left with a system in which you can get elected with a minority of states or a minority of voters (maybe both I don't know) and which someone in Wyoming matters 3x more than someone in Cali (theoretically).

If that is the case, who is this system supposed to benefit? Who does it represent? Apparently not the people or the states.

[Confederation of the Equator]

[minecraft villager sound]

[Socialist Nordia]

In Brazil, we have popular vote but it's extremely broken and just wrong. I don't think the electoral college is perfect, but surely better than what we have here.

I've heard Brasil is extremely corrupt, but how exactly is the popular vote system broken there?

[Salandriagado]

This is how you can tell a system is really broken

So now we're left with a system in which you can get elected with a minority of states or a minority of voters (maybe both I don't know) and which someone in Wyoming matters 3x more than someone in Cali (theoretically).

Yeah, you can definitely do both at the same time. New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas, and California (11 states, 22% of them) give 270 EVs between them, and have a population of 180m. Assuming roughly equal turnouts in all states for simplicity, winning just those states requires around 30% of the popular vote.

[The Nihilistic view]

This is how you can tell a system is really broken

You know you could win a popular vote with 1 vote cast in your favour. That's 11 times less than the minimum under the electoral college.

[Jamzmania]

This is how you can tell a system is really broken

So now we're left with a system in which you can get elected with a minority of states or a minority of voters (maybe both I don't know) and which someone in Wyoming matters 3x more than someone in Cali (theoretically).

If that is the case, who is this system supposed to benefit? Who does it represent? Apparently not the people or the states.

It's supposed to represent the whole country. Donald Trump won because the majority of the states voted for him. Look at any election map. Clinton got the west coast, a strip of the east coast, and a couple of pockets in the heartland, while Trump won across the country, and you would have had her win.

[Valrifell]

So now we're left with a system in which you can get elected with a minority of states or a minority of voters (maybe both I don't know) and which someone in Wyoming matters 3x more than someone in Cali (theoretically).

If that is the case, who is this system supposed to benefit? Who does it represent? Apparently not the people or the states.

It's supposed to represent the whole country. Donald Trump won because the majority of the states voted for him. Look at any election map. Clinton got the west coast, a strip of the east coast, and a couple of pockets in the heartland, while Trump won across the country, and you would have had her win.

He still lost the popular vote, which represents the wills of the people of the country and is probably a superior metric for determing the opinion of the nation.

I repeat: what does the Electoral College represent if you don't need the majority of the nation in any metric to go along with it?

[Jamzmania]

It's supposed to represent the whole country. Donald Trump won because the majority of the states voted for him. Look at any election map. Clinton got the west coast, a strip of the east coast, and a couple of pockets in the heartland, while Trump won across the country, and you would have had her win.

He still lost the popular vote, which represents the wills of the people of the country and is probably a superior metric for determing the opinion of the nation.

I repeat: what does the Electoral College represent if you don't need the majority of the nation in any metric to go along with it?

It represents the states.

[Valrifell]

He still lost the popular vote, which represents the wills of the people of the country and is probably a superior metric for determing the opinion of the nation.

I repeat: what does the Electoral College represent if you don't need the majority of the nation in any metric to go along with it?

It represents the states.

You don't need a majority of states to win tho.

[Confederation of the Equator]

[minecraft villager sound]

[Jamzmania]

It represents the states.

You don't need a majority of states to win tho.

If it was just a matter of needing a majority of states to win, every state would have the same vote.

I suppose I should really say that it is a compromise between states and population, but that states, I think, are the primary consideration.

[Valrifell]

You don't need a majority of states to win tho.

If it was just a matter of needing a majority of states to win, every state would have the same vote.

I suppose I should really say that it is a compromise between states and population, but that states, I think, are the primary consideration.

Well, as stated before, the compromise is shit because you don't need either to win.

[Galloism]

So now we're left with a system in which you can get elected with a minority of states or a minority of voters (maybe both I don't know) and which someone in Wyoming matters 3x more than someone in Cali (theoretically).

If that is the case, who is this system supposed to benefit? Who does it represent? Apparently not the people or the states.

It's supposed to represent the whole country. Donald Trump won because the majority of the states voted for him. Look at any election map. Clinton got the west coast, a strip of the east coast, and a couple of pockets in the heartland, while Trump won across the country, and you would have had her win.

It would be logical, given more people support her for president than any other alternative.

State lines are largely arbitrary at this point. People are not.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It's supposed to represent the whole country. Donald Trump won because the majority of the states voted for him. Look at any election map. Clinton got the west coast, a strip of the east coast, and a couple of pockets in the heartland, while Trump won across the country, and you would have had her win.

He still lost the popular vote, which represents the wills of the people of the country and is probably a superior metric for determing the opinion of the nation.

I repeat: what does the Electoral College represent if you don't need the majority of the nation in any metric to go along with it?

The will of the people of the respective states.
It's part of the whole 'federal republic' thing the US is. It's actually a pretty common phenomenon for countries to use in their choice of leaders, other countries just typically do it by having the coalition parties in Parliament vote in the head of government (such as in the UK), rather than involving the people at all (who were given their voice in their choice of Parliamentary representatives, after all).
The US devised a different system. Largely because we had to because at the time, the system for choosing a head of government was for the Queen/King to appoint them (or just be them).
Which, for obvious reasons, wasn't a viable option for the US.

[Jamzmania]

If it was just a matter of needing a majority of states to win, every state would have the same vote.

I suppose I should really say that it is a compromise between states and population, but that states, I think, are the primary consideration.

Well, as stated before, the compromise is shit because you don't need either to win.

You don't technically need either to win, but it's highly unlikely that you will get neither.

I think it has been mentioned before that Trump's election now makes a 7% rate of someone being elected without the majority of the popular vote.

[Valrifell]

He still lost the popular vote, which represents the wills of the people of the country and is probably a superior metric for determing the opinion of the nation.

I repeat: what does the Electoral College represent if you don't need the majority of the nation in any metric to go along with it?

The will of the people of the respective states.

This argument I can see because you do need a majority of the population of several states to get into the White House.

It's still terribly undemocratic from a national stage, but it makes some kind of sense to me.

[Jamzmania]

The will of the people of the respective states.

This argument I can see because you do need a majority of the population of several states to get into the White House.

It's still terribly undemocratic from a national stage, but it makes some kind of sense to me.

The national stage doesn't really matter, as it is, and I'm perfectly fine with that.