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

[Salandriagado]

What I'm saying is that the EC wouldn't be suppressing the majority if the federal government only dictated state to state relations and foreign affairs like it originally was intended. I fully agree that the EC is not good as it is now, but doing a popular vote isn't the best way to fix it. The federal government was intended to balance the interest of each of the states, so it makes sense that the states vote for president rather than a popular vote.

Moving on, "people have rights and governments don't"? What does that have to do with anything? You realize that people still democratically elect the people that run their states, right? Beyond that, state elections tend to have a higher margin of victory than national elections, meaning that state government tend to be more representative of the people they govern. Like the example above, 32% of people in California voted for Trump but 60% of them voted for their governor, Jerry Brown. So would it not be more democratic for state government to have more power if more people support state officials than federal officials? There is literally no logical reason that legislation made by a man from New York should affect everyone in Arizona, but under the current circumstances stuff like that happens all the time.

But then you have people saying things like, "Jim Crow laws happened because of state's rights. The Civil War happened because of state's rights." They say state's rights, despite being more democratic, should be lessened on moral grounds to stop things like the above from happening again. And I tend to see the same exact people saying that the EC should be demolished in favor of the popular vote for the sole reason of it being more "democratic." And that seems hypocritical to me.

1st off anyone who claims the Civil War was about state's rights is either ignorant or a liar.
2nd. "So would it not be more democratic for state government to have more power if more people support state officials than federal officials?"
How can you claim that people support state officials more than federal officials? That's just bald assertion.
3rd. 'State's rights' as you call them ARE NOT more democratic, voter suppression and gerrymandering as well as violation of civil liberties are done by individual states all the fucking time.

The Civil War was absolutely about state's rights. Specifically, it was about the right of the northern states to not have slavery forced upon them by the southern states.

[Novorossitov]

Yes, the U.S.A. should, in my opinion, switch to the popular vote, but don't be like

"TRUMP ISNT PRESDENT ANYMOR HE LOST POPLAR VOTE WE SWITCHED TO POPLAR VOTE !!!!"

Trump won the election, and he's president-elect. Don't change that out of nowhere just because of a system change that happened after the election.

[San Lumen]

Yes, the U.S.A. should, in my opinion, switch to the popular vote, but don't be like

"TRUMP ISNT PRESDENT ANYMOR HE LOST POPLAR VOTE WE SWITCHED TO POPLAR VOTE !!!!"

Trump won the election, and he's president-elect. Don't change that out of nowhere just because of a system change that happened after the election.

Well I for one do not think its fair or democratic a candidate wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote by over two million. I do not consider him a legitimate president.

[Novorossitov]

Well I for one do not think its fair or democratic a candidate wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote by over two million.

It may not be either but the electoral college was designed with democracy in mind. It's flawed yes, but does it really not make sense? I would take popular vote any day, but the electoral college has a sense of regionalism to it. You first win states, each 1,000,000 inhabitants counted as 1 electoral vote, and then you count up the votes. The founding fathers probably didn't think or realize that it would be possible to lose the popular vote this way.

I do not consider him a legitimate president.

Well unfortunately there's no way to change that.

[Diopolis]

Yes, the U.S.A. should, in my opinion, switch to the popular vote, but don't be like

"TRUMP ISNT PRESDENT ANYMOR HE LOST POPLAR VOTE WE SWITCHED TO POPLAR VOTE !!!!"

Trump won the election, and he's president-elect. Don't change that out of nowhere just because of a system change that happened after the election.

Well I for one do not think its fair or democratic a candidate wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote by over two million. I do not consider him a legitimate president.

And if it had happened the other way around- Trump had won by two million votes, but Hillary won the electoral college- would you consider Trump the legitimate president?

[San Lumen]

Well I for one do not think its fair or democratic a candidate wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote by over two million.

It may not be either but the electoral college was designed with democracy in mind. It's flawed yes, but does it really not make sense? I would take popular vote any day, but the electoral college has a sense of regionalism to it. You first win states, each 1,000,000 inhabitants counted as 1 electoral vote, and then you count up the votes. The founding fathers probably didn't think or realize that it would be possible to lose the popular vote this way.

I do not consider him a legitimate president.

Well unfortunately there's no way to change that.

The EC doesnt make sense at all. They could overturn the election but thats a discussion for a another thread.

[Lost heros]

Can you honestly say you're being any better?

Yes, I'm not attempting to advance any agenda. I'm simply trying to defend myself from others advancing a harmful agenda.

Like y'know San Francisonians upset about the EC

[Salandriagado]

Well I for one do not think its fair or democratic a candidate wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote by over two million.

It may not be either but the electoral college was designed with democracy in mind. It's flawed yes, but does it really not make sense? I would take popular vote any day, but the electoral college has a sense of regionalism to it. You first win states, each 1,000,000 inhabitants counted as 1 electoral vote, and then you count up the votes. The founding fathers probably didn't think or realize that it would be possible to lose the popular vote this way.

No, they almost certainly realised: they just didn't have a choice in the matter. The Electoral College is a response to the fundamental technological problems of the day, more than anything philosophical: it just wasn't practical to conduct a popular vote in such a large country. At this point, the EC were literally taking the news of their state's votes to the nation, because there was no faster form of communication across land than a guy on a horse. That's why they are given so much lattitude to change things: if something changes (say, a candidate dying during the journey), they needed to have the flexibility to make decisions on behalf of their state, since there was no possibility of communicating back home to ask what to do.

[Telconi]

Yes, I'm not attempting to advance any agenda. I'm simply trying to defend myself from others advancing a harmful agenda.

Like y'know San Francisonians upset about the EC

Abolishing the EC, is an agenda... Levying punitive taxes on me, is an agenda... Taking my property because they dislike what I could potentially do with it, is an agenda... Actively designing a system that obligates me to vote for candidates I have extreme ideological disagreements with, is an agenda... Gerrymandering congressional dis tricts and state Representative districts in an attempt to ensure incumbent reelection is an agenda... They are advancing each and every one of these, please give an example of an agenda I'm advancing?

[Karamiko]

The good thing about the Electoral College is that it gives a voice to small states which would otherwise be irrelevant in the election. Occasionally bowing down to minority opinions may be important because it prevents a "Tyranny by Majority" state where 51% of the population always determines what happens to the other 49% regardless of what the 49% thinks.

The bad thing about the Electoral College is, of course, that it distorts the democratic process. Because of the Electoral College, America is not a true democracy. I've done calculations of Electoral College vote versus population in certain states, and I have found that in the Electoral College, one vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times as much as a vote in California. It's wrong that people's votes are being diluted just because they live in a few large states instead of a bunch of small ones. In a true democracy it's one person, one vote.

I'd probably get rid of the electoral college if it were up to me, but if we choose to keep it, I can understand that.

[The Romulan Republic]

The good thing about the Electoral College is that it gives a voice to small states which would otherwise be irrelevant in the election. Occasionally bowing down to minority opinions may be important because it prevents a "Tyranny by Majority" state where 51% of the population always determines what happens to the other 49% regardless of what the 49% thinks.

The bad thing about the Electoral College is, of course, that it distorts the democratic process. Because of the Electoral College, America is not a true democracy. I've done calculations of Electoral College vote versus population in certain states, and I have found that in the Electoral College, one vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times as much as a vote in California. It's wrong that people's votes are being diluted just because they live in a few large states instead of a bunch of small ones. In a true democracy it's one person, one vote.

I'd probably get rid of the electoral college if it were up to me, but if we choose to keep it, I can understand that.

This argument, that the EC gives smaller states a voice, only makes sense if we still regard the US as a collection of sovereign states rather than a United Country, something that should have been settled by the Civil War.

Without the EC, states wouldn't matter. Only votes. And every voter would have the same representation, regardless of weather they were in Ohio, New York, Texas, or Wyoming.

Whereas now, swing state votes matter more, and voters in solidly blue or red states, regardless of size, get screwed.

[New haven america]

Despite Clinton being the popular candidate (in Urbanized Areas), Trump won majority of the counties (less urbanized, more suburban/rural).

Would I want to see a change in the electoral college? No, the electoral college is unique as it lets the victors of smaller states decide the election rather than the larger populous concentrations of larger states. It is an embodiment of the American Electoral System, and Trump along with 43 other people won with the electoral college (not counting Grover Cleveland). I can see that people are upset that Trump won, but frankly he did win under the guise of the Electoral College which clearly made him the winner.

In order for a change to a populist voting system, there has to be a MASSIVE constitutional amendment which would change the voting system. I'd leave it as is, ad it is the American system.

Hi, someone from a rural/suburban area here, and I can in fact confirm my county did not vote for Trump.

[Lost heros]

Like y'know San Francisonians upset about the EC

Abolishing the EC, is an agenda... Levying punitive taxes on me, is an agenda... Taking my property because they dislike what I could potentially do with it, is an agenda... Actively designing a system that obligates me to vote for candidates I have extreme ideological disagreements with, is an agenda... Gerrymandering congressional dis tricts and state Representative districts in an attempt to ensure incumbent reelection is an agenda... They are advancing each and every one of these, please give an example of an agenda I'm advancing?

Are you honestly claiming that your vote and your party is pursuing an agenda on a national level?

[Telconi]

Abolishing the EC, is an agenda... Levying punitive taxes on me, is an agenda... Taking my property because they dislike what I could potentially do with it, is an agenda... Actively designing a system that obligates me to vote for candidates I have extreme ideological disagreements with, is an agenda... Gerrymandering congressional dis tricts and state Representative districts in an attempt to ensure incumbent reelection is an agenda... They are advancing each and every one of these, please give an example of an agenda I'm advancing?

Are you honestly claiming that your vote and your party is pursuing an agenda on a national level?

My vote is perusing the agenda of "Leave me alone with y'all's political agendas"

And I don't have a party, so my not party is doing nothing.

[Neuwland]

I don't care I am a Texan and a proud one Texas is a nation being illegally occupied.

[Diopolis]

I don't care I am a Texan and a proud one Texas is a nation being illegally occupied.

It's your(well, that of people like you) conspiracy addled rambling that gives the independence movement a bad name.

[Gasbourn]

It may not be either but the electoral college was designed with democracy in mind. It's flawed yes, but does it really not make sense? I would take popular vote any day, but the electoral college has a sense of regionalism to it. You first win states, each 1,000,000 inhabitants counted as 1 electoral vote, and then you count up the votes. The founding fathers probably didn't think or realize that it would be possible to lose the popular vote this way.

No, they almost certainly realised: they just didn't have a choice in the matter. The Electoral College is a response to the fundamental technological problems of the day, more than anything philosophical: it just wasn't practical to conduct a popular vote in such a large country. At this point, the EC were literally taking the news of their state's votes to the nation, because there was no faster form of communication across land than a guy on a horse. That's why they are given so much lattitude to change things: if something changes (say, a candidate dying during the journey), they needed to have the flexibility to make decisions on behalf of their state, since there was no possibility of communicating back home to ask what to do.

I do not think you realize the importance of the EC. It simply serves to make sure that the voice of the people is heard. Evenly. Otherwise the most populous (and liberal) cities would practically control the election and America would have fall to pieces a long time ago.

[Jackova]

NO. IF WE SWITCH TO POPULAR VOTE CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK WILL BE PICKING OUR PRESIDENT.

[Vassenor]

NO. IF WE SWITCH TO POPULAR VOTE CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK WILL BE PICKING OUR PRESIDENT.

[citation needed]

[Spirit of Hope]

No, they almost certainly realised: they just didn't have a choice in the matter. The Electoral College is a response to the fundamental technological problems of the day, more than anything philosophical: it just wasn't practical to conduct a popular vote in such a large country. At this point, the EC were literally taking the news of their state's votes to the nation, because there was no faster form of communication across land than a guy on a horse. That's why they are given so much lattitude to change things: if something changes (say, a candidate dying during the journey), they needed to have the flexibility to make decisions on behalf of their state, since there was no possibility of communicating back home to ask what to do.

I do not think you realize the importance of the EC. It simply serves to make sure that the voice of the people is heard. Evenly. Otherwise the most populous (and liberal) cities would practically control the election and America would have fall to pieces a long time ago.

Incorrect. First historically most of the US's population was rural, cities didn't start to have a majority of the nations population until the 1920's. Even now Cities only represent about 60% of the US's population. The top ten urban areas together represent less than a quarter of the US's population.

Obviously the Urban population would have to rather decisively vote together to win the election without the rural population.

The Electoral College in no way makes sure the voice of the people is heard. It only really makes sure the special interests of the key swing states is hurt, with six states getting the lions share of campaigning in them.

[Socialist Nordia]

No! We can't! If we do, then that will make people living in cities be equal to people living in rural areas!!! Rural areas will lose their unfair advantage that makes their votes worth 3 times as much!

[Genivaria]

No, they almost certainly realised: they just didn't have a choice in the matter. The Electoral College is a response to the fundamental technological problems of the day, more than anything philosophical: it just wasn't practical to conduct a popular vote in such a large country. At this point, the EC were literally taking the news of their state's votes to the nation, because there was no faster form of communication across land than a guy on a horse. That's why they are given so much lattitude to change things: if something changes (say, a candidate dying during the journey), they needed to have the flexibility to make decisions on behalf of their state, since there was no possibility of communicating back home to ask what to do.

I do not think you realize the importance of the EC. It simply serves to make sure that the voice of the people is heard. Evenly. Otherwise the most populous (and liberal) cities would practically control the election and America would have fall to pieces a long time ago.

NO. IF WE SWITCH TO POPULAR VOTE CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK WILL BE PICKING OUR PRESIDENT.

Debunked assertion #3245231.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do not think you realize the importance of the EC. It simply serves to make sure that the voice of the people is heard. Evenly. Otherwise the most populous (and liberal) cities would practically control the election and America would have fall to pieces a long time ago.

NO. IF WE SWITCH TO POPULAR VOTE CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK WILL BE PICKING OUR PRESIDENT.

Debunked assertion #3245231.

Indeed.

It is a sign of how ridiculous support for the broken and undemocratic EC is that a default argument for it is "if we don't have it, a couple (Democratic, which I suspect is what these people really have a problem with) states will pick the President"... when the only reason "winning states" matters at all is because the EC exists.

Without the EC, "winning states" would be largely irrelevant. Just winning votes, regardless of where they were from. And you'd have to win voters from other states, because a) the majority of the electorate does not reside in California and New York and b) not all people in those states vote the same way- they're only counted as if they do because of winner-take-all EC bullshit.

Whereas right now, a few midwestern states plus Florida pretty much pick the President... and the rest of the country- blue, red, and neither- can go fuck itself.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hard to believe that keeping the EC is actually winning the poll.

Few things are sadder than watching people vote for their own disenfranchisement, and that of their fellow citizens.

[Genivaria]

Hard to believe that keeping the EC is actually winning the poll.

Few things are sadder than watching people vote for their own disenfranchisement, and that of their fellow citizens.

Only because the EC is the only reason Trump won, the Trump voters thought the EC was the devil before.

There is literally no argument to keep the EC and all those put forward have been debunked countless times just on this thread.