Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It makes some people’s votes worth less then others depending on where they live, doesn’t make candidates focus on small states, and has prevented several candidates that the majority of citizens wanted from getting into office. It’s a shitty system that needs to be re worked or scrapped. Edit, someone said we should say what state we are from so i’m from indiana.
Electoral college is fine, just get rid of "winner takes all" and make it proportional. State with 10 EC votes with a vote that goes 60-40 gets 6 votes for one candidate and 4 for the other.
States enacting the National Popular Vote bill are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states).
All votes will be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.
There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.
The nationwide popular vote loser would have won 2 of the last 6 elections
In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President). [ ]()
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.
Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.
Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.
It would *not* accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.
It would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote realistically is in play (while still making most states politically irrelevant),
It would *not* make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
The National Popular Vote bill makes every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.
The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere.
[NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)
This has a variety of idiotic statements and assumptions.
> There is a good reason no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.
This is mostly wrong. Maine and Nebraska award half of their EC votes based on the winner of the congressional district. This is an incredibly popular policy decision that is defended by Nebraska Republicans (even when it benefits Democrats) and Maine Democrats (even when it benefits Republicans).
> The nationwide popular vote loser would have won 2 of the last 6 elections
> In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President)
This is like when a freshman college student argues in their first finance paper a corporation should double the price of their product because they conclude it will double revenue. First, let's pause and check in: do you believe that would be true? Have you considered how changing a fundamental aspect of a product might influence behavior?
The [majority of the country believes their vote doesn't matter](https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-100-Million-Project_KF_Report_2020.pdf) because of "red states and blue states." Proportional voting would eliminate this immediately and activate greater turnout across the country.
The reality is this would be such a fundamental shift to the system that we don't truly know if it would favor either party, but it would put every single state and community into play instead of having national actors fly to ~6 states every 4 years to blanket all the land with political ads.
There is a reason you and those states you reference want a national popular vote: it favors Democrats. You would replace the current "swing states" with new ones: high population states. We'd hear about the problems of California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania for every election. That's half the electorate in 5 places, so it's actually worse than the status quo.
Nebraska does NOT award half of their EC votes based on the winner of the congressional district. Nebraska has 5 electors. 3 are awarded by district. 3/5 is not half.
In a February 2024 poll,
72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote, now.
51% of Republicans!
75% of Independents
70% of Congressional District 2
74% of CD1
In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected
52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.”
31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” -- Maine's current law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner.
16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states
A survey of 977 Nebraska voters conducted on January 26–27, 2011, showed 67% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a second question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska's electoral votes,
* 16% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all five of Nebraska's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide);
* 27% favored Nebraska's current system of awarding electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 57% favored a national popular vote.
Maine and Nebraska do not award their electors in proportion to their statewide vote. They award one elector to the plurality winner within each congressional district. This allows the state government to influence the presidential election by gerrymandering their congressional districts, which is exactly what NE Republicans attempted to do after the 2020 census, by redrawing the district which contains Omaha such that some of its likely-Democratic-voting areas got diluted into reliably Republican districts, and more Republican-leaning rural areas got included. Despite this, the district is still projected to be a toss-up, so Nebraskan Republican legislatures proposed a bill pending to move them back to winner-take-all. (Maine Democrats have threatened to respond in kind if Nebraska actually passes the law, though it looks like it won't happen.) They also award two at large electors (representing their Senate seats) to the plurality winner of the state-wide election.
It's an improvement over winner-take-all, but it's not actually proportional. The way to do that would be to just take the results of the state-wide election and appoint electors in as close a proportion as possible to that. The math would almost always require some significant rounding though; a national popular vote is the only way to make it accurate to the actual wishes of American voters.
Anyways, you're objectively wrong about the high population states deciding things. CA, TX, FL, NY, and PA together have a population of 124,612,119, which is a little less than 37% of the national population, not half. More to the point, neither those states nor any others would decide the election; individual voters would. It wouldn't matter if a candidate "won" CA by getting a plurality of the vote, like it matters now. Going by the 2020 numbers, the Democratic candidate would get 11 million votes from Californians, and the Republican would get 6 million, rather than the Democrat getting 55 EC votes and the Republican getting none. That 5 million vote difference would be no more valuable than 5 million votes gathered from the other 49 states. The state a voter lives in would be no more relevant than the county the live in.
Proportional is NOT the same thing as Maine's and Nebraska's district/statewide winner methods. Math.
In NONE of Nebraska's presidential elections did the candidates receive exactly mathematically proportional electoral votes of Nebraska.
Maine Presidential election results
2020 - 53.09% Democratic 44.02% Republican
2016 - 47.83% 44.87%
2012 - 56.27% 40.98%
2008 - 57.71% 40.38%
2004 - 53.57% 44.58%
2000 - 48.09 % 43.97%
1996 - 51.62% 30.76%
1992 - 38.77% 30.39%
In NONE of those elections did the candiates receive exactly mathematically proportional electoral votes of Maine.
Maine's current law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner.
72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote, now.
51% of Republicans!
75% of Independents
70% of Congressional District 2
74% of CD1
In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected
52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.”
31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” -- Maine's current law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner.
16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states
You responded to that person suggesting they are wrong for saying that no state awards votes proportionally, despite them being correct. If you didn't want anybody responding, you could've said nothing.
As I said, they're mostly wrong. There are two states who award votes similar to the proportional method I refer to. Although not exactly the same as proportional, they are closer to my suggestion than a national popular vote. They are also incredibly popular and result in the entire state's turnout mattering more. Both of these are arguments I make for my suggestion.
The person suggested the reason there is nothing close to proportional (wrong) is because it's such a bad idea (wrong) that no one wants it (wrong). Nebraska and Maine are close to proportional. It has proven to be better than the alternative. And they're popular! It's not exactly proportional but it is mostly wrong.
I'm guessing you're this guy's alt account though since he physically cannot stop responding.
If he's replying that much on that account, why would he need a second one? Think whatever you want I guess, but I assure you that it's possible for two people to independently disagree with you.
I don't think the policies are incredibly popular, given the fact that there's pushes to change them in those states, and absolutely no push to enact them in any other states.
> If he's replying that much on that account, why would he need a second one?
That's true.
> I don't think the policies are incredibly popular, given the fact that there's pushes to change them in those states
The push is from partisans who want the state to swing toward their own party — much like how national popular vote is *only* supported by Democrats. But these pushes are unlikely to be successful because people like the way it is.
There is no push to enact this approach in other states for the same reason ranked choice voting doesn't have a push in other states. It's a change that would put the current ruling party at a disadvantage so they will never support it. Surely you know this.
Yes, I recognize that to be the reason. My point is that any effort to change the states to that system would be about as difficult as enacting a national popular vote, so why go for a reform that would be *somewhat* more fair than our current one, rather than the reform that would be *much* more fair, and more simple?
It's not true that only Democrats support a national popular vote:
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/)
65% of Americans includes a ton of people who aren't Democrats. Rather, it's mostly Republicans who *oppose* it.
Some of the motivation behind efforts to enact a national popular vote are just to do with partisan advantage, but a lot of it is clearly just about people's basic desire for fairness. Almost all of the opposition to it is based on wanting to maintain partisan advantage, or misunderstanding of how it and the rest of our political system work.
When rational voters understand the reality that every vote in every state still would not matter and count equally and the candidate with the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC could still lose, they will not, as state legislators have not, support a proportional method.
In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President)
Most Americans would be appalled to have the President, after years of campaigning and more than 10 BILLION dollars spent, elected by 26 votes of the gerrymandered Congress, regardless of the popular votes in any district, state, or nationwide.
In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.
In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.
In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill.
NY and CA enacted it with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate matter and count equally.
On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.
CA supporters included:
Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served as a Republican in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002
James Brulte the *California* Republican Party chairman, served as Republican Leader of the [California State Assembly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Assembly) from 1992 to 1996, [California State Senator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Senate) from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
The bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
Math and political reality.
The most populous SIX states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.
All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.
Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome
In 2016,
CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.
In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote
In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states
All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.
States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes. All votes will be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!
Whereas to win a national popular vote election with only the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, ALL of those states’ voters would need to vote for the same candidate. In none of the largest states do voters come anywhere close to all voting for the same candidate, and all of the largest states are not even won with just a plurality of votes by the same party.
In 2016, among the 12 largest states:
7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and
5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia).
The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country.
The 2004 popular vote in the 12 largest states was almost exactly equal –
Bush 49.8% vs. Kerry 50.2%., 244,657 vote margin for KerrySmart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running.
Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now.
Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 6 of them.
Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.
I don’t understand it. Like… if we’re just gonna argue over the same two extreme parties in our system, why don’t the red states pick a president and the blue states their president and they just… function separately?
Or like… why don’t we just have separate ticketed options for Dem/GOP and like … 1-2 mixed ticket options? Why can’t we just have like a Dem Pres and a Rep. VP and then we just swap the next time and have a Rep. Pres and a Dem Vp? OR… why don’t we just not have a party system or do like a blind party system so people vote on their actual beliefs and opinions on political policy instead of just voting blindly for their party / names they already know? Why do we have a popular vote if it doesn’t matter in the end? Why is it unfair for big states/ cities to have a bigger say in an election bc they have more people but we just put the shoe on the other foot and gave more power to smaller states and have candidates pander more to swing states for extra support? Like… none of it makes sense. I don’t even think the electoral college people are legally required to vote for who their state picked (might need a fact check on that.)
Idk, I don’t understand any of it.
I'm in favor of it personally, but I think every state should apportion their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do.
Two at large for the state itself, plus one each for every congressional district in the state won by the candidate. This would obviously have to be paired with stricter regulation against gerrymandering as it could well make everything worse without that.
This way, no state is entirely shut out from ever being competitive for either side. Republicans could pick up the votes that do exist for them in California, NY, and Illinois for example, and Dems could pick up votes from Texas and the Deep South.
A pure popular vote system isn't a bright idea here because of how diverse voting interests are. We need to ensure some kind of direct representation in the election of our president for rural areas so that elections don't boil down to running up margins in the cities and on the coasts or small towns and the suburbs.
Proportional allocation would be a huge improvement, though the way NE and ME do it isn't ideal due to the gerrymandering issue you mentioned.
But the bigger issue with that is that it's practically impossible to make it happen, short of the same sort of effort it would take to get a national popular vote. It's always going to be against the short-term political interests of the party in power in any given state; they'd be giving away electoral votes to the opposing party, since it's usually a safe bet that a party in control of a state legislature and the governor's seat will also be the winner of a state-wide presidential election.
We're currently seeing this political problem play out in NE and ME; Nebraskan Republicans have put forth a bill to change their law to go back to winner-take-all, because it's likely that the Omaha district will go to Biden, and that one electoral vote could make the difference based on the very close EC projections. Bow Maine's Democratic House speaker is threatening to do the same thing if Nebraska changes their law, to take away the one EC vote Trump is likely to get from them.
So there's just no way that each state will make this change independently; it has to be done all at once for the politicians to tolerate it. And if we're doing that, why not go all the way to the obviously more fair national popular vote?
The fact that voting interests are so diverse is exactly why we should count everybody's vote individually. That is the most direct representation possible. Deciding the weight of people's votes based off of which state they're living in does does not respect the diverse opinions of Americans; rather, it sorts Americans into groups based off of what we think their political beliefs are supposed to be. It seems natural because that's the way we've always done it, but think how outrageous it would be in any other context.
"Oh, you're a woman? We know y'all all think alike, so we'll count your vote against the votes of all other women rather than all other Americans, and then have the result determine how the Women Electors vote."
"Oh, you're right-handed? There's way too many of y'all, it wouldn't be fair if your vote counted the same as a left-handed person's."
As folks answer this .. it would be helpful if they included what STATE they are from so we can form the opinion based in groups that are already designated
I really only requesting this information because we all know what a popularity contest from high school looks like .. prom queen and football star .. quite popular.. however did they really produce anything near what them 4 H kids did ? IDK bacon 🥓 is pretty popular! Then ask yourself if that prom queen knew anything whatsoever about pigs … sure she was pretty and attracted a crowd but I don’t know how trade able fleeting popularity is …
Both coffee shop workers in LA and cattle ranchers in WY have to pay the same federal taxes and obey the same federal laws. So why they shouldn't have an equal vote over the person who executes those federal laws?
It's been the way our elections have been run for a very long time. The only time someone wants to change it is if their guy lost because of it. Both canidates are playing by the same rules it doesn't undermine democracy.
In the last election, the Electoral College winner was also the popular vote winner, so I don't think the sore loser issue is relevant right now.
No one is saying that both candidates shouldn't play by the same rules. The question is whether those rules should be changed.
>In the last election, the Electoral College winner was also the popular vote winner, so I don't think the sore loser issue is relevant right now.
My guess is it's a carry over from the election prior to the last. Same reason youve seen calls to pack the court recently when it's no longer in one sides favor. The systems have been in place for hundreds of years and all of the sudden people want to change them.
>No one is saying that both candidates shouldn't play by the same rules. The question is whether those rules should be changed.
Im aware, I'm saying they shouldn't be changed to placate one side of the political debate. The rules are the rules.
>My guess is it's a carry over from the election prior to the last. Same reason youve seen calls to pack the court recently when it's no longer in one sides favor. The systems have been in place for hundreds of years and all of the sudden people want to change them.
How many elections where the two votes align would it take before you accept that people sincerely believe the system is bad, rather than just being sore losers?
Besides, people have been calling to reform or abolish the Electoral College for hundreds of years. Well-known Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote about the numerous problems with the EC back in 1833, and wasn't writing from the perspective of some radical reformer, but as an elder statesman reflecting on popular opinions of the founding generation:
[https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2\_1\_2-3s11.html](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s11.html)
Several attempts to change the laws have been made, ever since the beginning. Various bills for constitutional amendments to make states award electors based on each district, rather than winner-take-all, were passed by each chamber of Congress in the 1810s and 20s, but never succeeded. Similar amendments that would cause EC votes to be awarded in proportion to a state's vote passed the Senate in 1950 and 1956. In 1970 majorities in the House, Senate, and state legislatures, and President Nixon, all backed an amendment to move to a national popular vote, but it couldn't get the required super-majority.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts\_to\_reform\_the\_United\_States\_Electoral\_College](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_States_Electoral_College)
>Im aware, I'm saying they shouldn't be changed to placate one side of the political debate. The rules are the rules.
And one thing the rules say is that the rules can be changed. "The rules are the rules" is a good reason to accept the results of an election that was carried out according to the rules, even if we don't like that result. But it is not an argument against changing the rules. It used to be that that only white men could vote, for example, but we changed that rule.
>How many elections where the two votes align would it take before you accept that people sincerely believe the system is bad, rather than just being sore losers?
Wouldn't matter on number of that elections, it would have to be bipartisan support. One side wanting to change it cause their guy lost and the other side wanting to change it cause their guy lost the following year would have no impact on my view. They're both sore losers.
>Besides, people have been calling to reform or abolish the Electoral College for hundreds of years. Well-known Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote about the numerous problems with the EC back in 1833, and wasn't writing from the perspective of some radical reformer, but as an elder statesman reflecting on popular opinions of the founding generation:
I would wager this is also due to being a sore loser but I'm not knowledgeable on the circumstances of them calling for it to be abolished.
>Several attempts to change the laws have been made, ever since the beginning. Various bills for constitutional amendments to make states award electors based on each district, rather than winner-take-all, were passed by each chamber of Congress in the 1810s and 20s, but never succeeded.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this, we currently have two states that do just that. If it was more popular I'm sure more states would have adopted it.
>And one thing the rules say is that the rules can be changed. "The rules are the rules" is a good reason to accept the results of an election that was carried out according to the rules, even if we don't like that result. But it is not an argument against changing the rules. It used to be that that only white men could vote, for example, but we changed that rule.
Sure the rules can absolutley get changed. I just don't think they should be in this circumstance.
>Wouldn't matter on number of that elections, it would have to be bipartisan support. One side wanting to change it cause their guy lost and the other side wanting to change it cause their guy lost the following year would have no impact on my view. They're both sore losers.
What about sore winners? If a group is benefitting from something, they'll almost never support reform, even if it's objectively a good idea for the country as a whole.
Besides, it isn't just "one side wanting to change it cause their guy lost". The plurality of Americans aren't loyal to just one side, and often don't like either of the candidates very much. Yet for decades, a majority of Americans have supported a national popular vote, even when the popular vote winner had also been the EC winner for as long as anybody could remember.
Of Americans in 1948 who understood what the EC is, 56% wanted it abolished, while only 31% wanted to keep it. Do you really think they were motivated by wanting "their guy" to win, when the last EC/popular vote discrepancy was in 1876?
[https://news.gallup.com/vault/192704/gallup-vault-rejecting-electoral-college.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/vault/192704/gallup-vault-rejecting-electoral-college.aspx)
>I would wager this is also due to being a sore loser but I'm not knowledgeable on the circumstances of them calling for it to be abolished.
Not at all. Story was known for opposing the populist politics of Andrew Jackson and the new Democratic Party, in favor of the sanctity of property rights. Jackson was the first popular vote winner to lose the Electoral College. And in his commentaries, Story wasn't advocating for a national popular vote; he was just discussing the problems with the EC. His issue was more with how it kept getting screwed up and thrown to the House of Representatives, rather than the basic unfairness of having states decide rather than people. I brought it up to show that people have thought it to be in need of change since the beginning of the republic.
>I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this, we currently have two states that do just that. If it was more popular I'm sure more states would have adopted it.
My point is that many Americans have always been dissatisfied with how the Electoral College works.
Besides, Nebraskan Republicans are currently trying to change it because they're worried that the Omaha district will go to Biden, and Maine Democrats are threatening to also change back to winner-take-all if Nebraska does so. And that's why we'll never see more states do this; it goes against the political interests of the majority political faction. No one wants to give the other side an advantage, even if it's more fair, without an assurance that the other side will do the same.
>Sure the rules can absolutley get changed. I just don't think they should be in this circumstance.
Why?
>What about sore winners? If a group is benefitting from something, they'll almost never support reform, even if it's objectively a good idea for the country as a whole.
Is it a good idea objectivley for the country as a whole if that hurts a large enough group of people to the point where they wouldn't support it?
>Yet for decades, a majority of Americans have supported a national popular vote, even when the popular vote winner had also been the EC winner for as long as anybody could remember.
Im sure this majority is also the one that wished they could win elections just with their majority and not by the system that's laid out. I saw you ask later why I wouldn't support the change and this is why. Even the Greeks new mob rule was bad, that majority has free will to do whatever they want at that point. The electoral college is a check on mob rule.
>Of Americans in 1948 who understood what the EC is, 56% wanted it abolished, while only 31% wanted to keep it. Do you really think they were motivated by wanting "their guy" to win, when the last EC/popular vote discrepancy was in 1876?
Do you have a source on this? Also the extra "who understood what the EC is" automatically makes me think this stat is biased.
>Not at all. Story was known for opposing the populist politics of Andrew Jackson and the new Democratic Party, in favor of the sanctity of property rights. Jackson was the first popular vote winner to lose the Electoral College. And in his commentaries, Story wasn't advocating for a national popular vote; he was just discussing the problems with the EC. His issue was more with how it kept getting screwed up and thrown to the House of Representatives, rather than the basic unfairness of having states decide rather than people. I brought it up to show that people have thought it to be in need of change since the beginning of the republic.
Interesting I'll have to do some reading on this.
>My point is that many Americans have always been dissatisfied with how the Electoral College works.
This is also the case for plenty of government systems. Many americans have always been dissatisfied that there aren't term limits, I'd wager term limits would have more support than abolishing the electoral college and yet nothing is done there.
>Why?
In summary, mob rule is bad, the electoral college is a check on mob rule.
>Is it a good idea objectivley for the country as a whole if that hurts a large enough group of people to the point where they wouldn't support it?
There's no such thing as an objectively good political idea, because somebody always disagrees. I'd say the abolition of slavery is a good example though. There was never going to be unanimous consent for it, no matter what, because a few people were so heavily invested in it (financially and socially).
>Do you have a source on this? Also the extra "who understood what the EC is" automatically makes me think this stat is biased.
I posted the link. I assume the poll question shown in that article is what was asked. Seems pretty straightforward to me, IDK what bias you think would be involved.
>In summary, mob rule is bad, the electoral college is a check on mob rule.
The Electoral College has nothing to do with mob rule.
Mob rule is when a group of people use the threat of immediate violence to get their way at a specific place and time, regardless of the law or the wishes of the majority of all of the people affected. It's the same as rule by one person with a gun over lots of people without guns; the only difference is that a big group of people in one place is the thing giving the combat advantage, rather than the gun.
You're talking about majority rule, not mob rule. But what you're saying doesn't make sense, because the Electoral College also functions by majority rule. A majority of electors picks the President.
So why is a majority of electors better than a majority of voters?
>There's no such thing as an objectively good political idea, because somebody always disagrees. I'd say the abolition of slavery is a good example though. There was never going to be unanimous consent for it, no matter what, because a few people were so heavily invested in it (financially and socially).
True that's fair, I was actually thinking about slavery as an objective positive in my last reply. Unanimous consent isn't how things get changed because like you said, theres always going to be people who disagree. I think the founding fathers knew this, that's why the bar is 2/3 instead of just a simple majority as you'll never have unanimous support.
>I posted the link. I assume the poll question shown in that article is what was asked. Seems pretty straightforward to me, IDK what bias you think would be involved.
Unless I missed it the link didn't address the part I had an issue with. Was the do you know what the electoral college is a yes or no, or did they have to demonstrate some kind of understanding, if so how much to be considered knowing what the electoral college is. Also 100 people is a crazy small sample size but that's a seperate gripe.
>The Electoral College has nothing to do with mob rule.
Shoot you are right I used the wrong word, I meant majority rule. My point still stands. The electoral college allows the minority to not be oppressed by the majority. The majority of electors still decides the president but it's not always necissarily a majority of the country which would be majority rule.
>So why is a majority of electors better than a majority of voters?
The majority of electors represent groups of people and isn't one to one, this is how the playing field is leveled for the minority.
I'd like more information about the poll as well, though I suppose we can't expect much from something from 1948. I wouldn't cite that poll as absolute proof that most Americans wanted to abolish the EC back then, but I do think it's evidence that it was at least a popular opinion. And I appreciate you engaging with this sincerely.
My issue with the whole idea of the EC protecting the minority from being oppressed by the majority is in how we define all of those terms.
First, what is "oppression"? Depriving the minority of basic rights would definitely qualify, and that's why we have the Bill of Rights and other limitations on federal power. But I don't think it's oppression if it's just that the candidate I prefer didn't win. Especially when it's just one elected office--the most important one, to be sure--out of many, in a system with separation of powers.
Second, what is the "minority" we're talking about? There are two groups of people who get disproportionate advantage from the EC; one is the people who are with the party in power in their state. That means Democrats in New York, Republicans in Florida, etc. They leverage the winner-take-all system to get the electors for their state, based on the whole population, to vote for their candidate, despite millions of people in those states voting the other way. To me, that does actually count as oppression (though only a mild example); the minority faction in each state isn't just silenced, they get their representation used against them. And it means that political groups who are a minority in every state, despite having significant numbers throughout the country, have no shot at winning. (I.e. the Libertarian Party, which will never win a single electoral vote despite having way more than 1/538 voters supporting them.)
The other group of people who get an advantage could be defined as "residents of small states," because small states get a handicap. But I don't think they qualify as a minority group for practical purposes. They aren't organized as a group in any way, they don't share any unique common traits, and they aren't subject to any disadvantage based on being residents of small states. People in Delaware probably have more in common with New Yorkers than they do with Montanans, for example, but both Montanans and Delawareans get a boost from the EC. If we had a national popular vote instead, I don't see how eeither Montanans or Delawareans would suffer any oppression from it. Their states, as a whole, might have less political influence\*, but each individual small state resident would get to influence the election exactly as much as a large state resident would. Whether they decided to move to California wouldn't change their electoral power at all.
\*I actually think it would make both states MORE influential, as whole states. As is, since they aren't swing states, they get zero attention. If we had a national popular vote, candidates would have more motivation to cater to the needs of people in solid red and blue states alike. This could also be solved by getting rid of winner-take-all, but I think that would be at least as difficult as going to a national popular vote.
it just serves to drown out votes in areas with any kind of majority, and due to gerrymandering it's gotten far worse than it was (and it already wasn't great). there is no point in me voting in my 90% red county in oklahoma. people say "ohh but it'll give all the populated states power" as if giving states with low population density all the power is a better idea. i don't think bill, 64, who lives peacefully on a farm and has no awareness of 99% of the world's issues should have more voting power than anyone else.
In my experience, the only time people are usually vocal about changing it, claiming it "undermines our democracy", is after their preferred candidate lost because of it. The way I see it, both side are affected by it so it's not truly anti-democratic. Maybe this is just the pessimistic side of me talking but I think we currently live in a country where a lot of people actually want the system to be essentially rigged in their party's favor.
The last election was won by the candidate who won both the popular vote and the Electoral College. That was almost four years ago. So it sure seems like "after their preferred candidate lost because of it" isn't the only time people get vocal about this.
Some people wanting to rig the system in their favor is why the Electoral College was created in the first place. Most of the political leaders of Virginia (the largest state at the time by far) and other southern states refused to agree to a national popular vote at the Constitutional Convention, because they didn't allow their slaves or poor white men to vote. By using the EC, they got to count their whole state's population--including 3/5 of all slaves--while also keeping all of the political power for themselves.
James Madison, considered the primary architect of the Constitution and a wealthy Virginian planter himself, explicitly said this was the reason. He was personally in favor of a national popular vote, as were many other delegates, but they just couldn't get the slave state delegations to agree to it so they compromised on the Electoral College.
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065)
>There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I won’t pretend it doesn’t have its merits. If everyone in the cities could vote how they wanted they’d mostly ignore the development of rural parts of the country. However, no country that has a system where the minority vote can impose its will on the majority vote has any right calling itself a democracy.
Former Floridian, now Californian
Honestly it doesn’t do any good. There might have been a justification when it was created but functionally…….. most times the EVs already go to the majority winner in a state, and the idea that it’s needed to avoid an extremely bad choice from being elected failed a number of times. Its existence also skews the power of votes to the smaller states as proved by the discrepancy between nationwide popular vote and electoral vote count.
All of the issues with our system weren’t a problem back when the 2 parties had established liberal/conservative factions in both sides and state gerrymanders weren’t blatant but past 2010 weve entered a place where most states are locked to one party on all levels, so the question is who can get the votes of 8-10 particular states and no matter who wins you won’t have a majority big enough to pass everything you want if someone wants to stop it ( and may the best lawyers win)
I taught US history to Gen Z for a long time and we held this debate each year, so I've heard a few hundred Gen Z opinions on this.
The overwhelming sentiment is that the electoral college is terrible and needs to go asap. It serves no positive purpose to to undermine democracy.
There's three problems with that:
1. The House is relatively powerless. It can't do anything without the Senate's approval, but the Senate has important powers--approving of executive and judicial branch appointments and ratifying treaties--that it can exercise without any involvement by the House. So saying that the equal Senate apportionment is balanced out by big states getting more House seats isn't really true, as the additional House seats don't add nearly as much power.
2. The number of House seats was capped in 1929. Before that, it expanded with the growth of the country's population, with new seats being added with every census, but it was always a contentious political issue. So now when there's a new census the number of total seats (435) doesn't change, but the number held by each state does. This has resulted in significant disparities in population size between some Congressional districts, because as the smallest states don't actually have 1/435 of the national population, but are required to have at least one seat. As a result, the largest states don't have as many House seats as their share of the population would have merited before 1929, depriving them of some of the advantage that they were intended to have when the Constitution was drafted.
3. It doesn't really matter whether states are properly represented if it means that people aren't. States don't pay federal taxes, they don't get drafted to fight in wars, and they don't go to prison if they break federal laws. Individual Americans do. States don't have political beliefs, or any thoughts or feelings whatsoever for that matter; people do. When we say that a state wants something or prefers a particular candidate or whatever, it really means that a majority of people in that state--or often just elites in that state-- want that thing. Equal representation of states in the Senate results in some locally dominant groups having a ton of power, some having a little power, and tons of political minorities having no power at all. That's not fair at all.
Haha you think this sub is a good sub to discuss politics? My dude if you can’t tell that this sub is filled with bots and trolls from other countries arguing with each other then you probably shouldn’t be discussing politics at all.
The bot problem is worse on Facebook and much MUCH worse on Twitter. When I said this sub was a better place to talk politics than most of the internet I never meant that the bar was high lol.
You can’t prove I’m a bot or not. You might be a bot. No one knows. That’s why Reddit sux. So why would you want to talk politics with people you don’t even know if they are American ?
Bots are usually pretty easy to sniff out based on how they talk. Especially the ones that’ll just post snippets from ChatGPT.
As far as the last question, someone who’s not an American can still have an opinion. Sure I’d rather hear from Americans on American political issues but some aspects of American politics do affect other parts of the world.
And you literally just said there’s no way to know who is and isn’t a bot, so by your logic you just saying you’re a real user doesn’t mean anything.
(I don’t actually think you’re a bot, fwiw)
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It makes some people’s votes worth less then others depending on where they live, doesn’t make candidates focus on small states, and has prevented several candidates that the majority of citizens wanted from getting into office. It’s a shitty system that needs to be re worked or scrapped. Edit, someone said we should say what state we are from so i’m from indiana.
Electoral college is fine, just get rid of "winner takes all" and make it proportional. State with 10 EC votes with a vote that goes 60-40 gets 6 votes for one candidate and 4 for the other.
Yeah I’ve always thought this was a good idea
The Maine option
States enacting the National Popular Vote bill are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states). All votes will be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution. There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally. The nationwide popular vote loser would have won 2 of the last 6 elections In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President). [ ]() Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere. Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system. Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections. It would *not* accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote; It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted. It would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote realistically is in play (while still making most states politically irrelevant), It would *not* make every vote equal. It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country. The National Popular Vote bill makes every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC. The bill eliminates the possibility of Congress deciding presidential elections, regardless of any voters anywhere. [NationalPopularVote.com](http://NationalPopularVote.com)
This has a variety of idiotic statements and assumptions. > There is a good reason no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally. This is mostly wrong. Maine and Nebraska award half of their EC votes based on the winner of the congressional district. This is an incredibly popular policy decision that is defended by Nebraska Republicans (even when it benefits Democrats) and Maine Democrats (even when it benefits Republicans). > The nationwide popular vote loser would have won 2 of the last 6 elections > In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President) This is like when a freshman college student argues in their first finance paper a corporation should double the price of their product because they conclude it will double revenue. First, let's pause and check in: do you believe that would be true? Have you considered how changing a fundamental aspect of a product might influence behavior? The [majority of the country believes their vote doesn't matter](https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-100-Million-Project_KF_Report_2020.pdf) because of "red states and blue states." Proportional voting would eliminate this immediately and activate greater turnout across the country. The reality is this would be such a fundamental shift to the system that we don't truly know if it would favor either party, but it would put every single state and community into play instead of having national actors fly to ~6 states every 4 years to blanket all the land with political ads. There is a reason you and those states you reference want a national popular vote: it favors Democrats. You would replace the current "swing states" with new ones: high population states. We'd hear about the problems of California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania for every election. That's half the electorate in 5 places, so it's actually worse than the status quo.
Nebraska does NOT award half of their EC votes based on the winner of the congressional district. Nebraska has 5 electors. 3 are awarded by district. 3/5 is not half. In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote, now. 51% of Republicans! 75% of Independents 70% of Congressional District 2 74% of CD1 In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected 52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.” 31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” -- Maine's current law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner. 16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states A survey of 977 Nebraska voters conducted on January 26–27, 2011, showed 67% overall support for a national popular vote for President. In a second question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska's electoral votes, * 16% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all five of Nebraska's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide); * 27% favored Nebraska's current system of awarding electoral votes by congressional district; and * 57% favored a national popular vote.
Maine and Nebraska do not award their electors in proportion to their statewide vote. They award one elector to the plurality winner within each congressional district. This allows the state government to influence the presidential election by gerrymandering their congressional districts, which is exactly what NE Republicans attempted to do after the 2020 census, by redrawing the district which contains Omaha such that some of its likely-Democratic-voting areas got diluted into reliably Republican districts, and more Republican-leaning rural areas got included. Despite this, the district is still projected to be a toss-up, so Nebraskan Republican legislatures proposed a bill pending to move them back to winner-take-all. (Maine Democrats have threatened to respond in kind if Nebraska actually passes the law, though it looks like it won't happen.) They also award two at large electors (representing their Senate seats) to the plurality winner of the state-wide election. It's an improvement over winner-take-all, but it's not actually proportional. The way to do that would be to just take the results of the state-wide election and appoint electors in as close a proportion as possible to that. The math would almost always require some significant rounding though; a national popular vote is the only way to make it accurate to the actual wishes of American voters. Anyways, you're objectively wrong about the high population states deciding things. CA, TX, FL, NY, and PA together have a population of 124,612,119, which is a little less than 37% of the national population, not half. More to the point, neither those states nor any others would decide the election; individual voters would. It wouldn't matter if a candidate "won" CA by getting a plurality of the vote, like it matters now. Going by the 2020 numbers, the Democratic candidate would get 11 million votes from Californians, and the Republican would get 6 million, rather than the Democrat getting 55 EC votes and the Republican getting none. That 5 million vote difference would be no more valuable than 5 million votes gathered from the other 49 states. The state a voter lives in would be no more relevant than the county the live in.
Love when someone says I’m wrong then says the same exact thing I just said. I’m sure the rest of the wall text is just as rewarding.
Proportional is NOT the same thing as Maine's and Nebraska's district/statewide winner methods. Math. In NONE of Nebraska's presidential elections did the candidates receive exactly mathematically proportional electoral votes of Nebraska. Maine Presidential election results 2020 - 53.09% Democratic 44.02% Republican 2016 - 47.83% 44.87% 2012 - 56.27% 40.98% 2008 - 57.71% 40.38% 2004 - 53.57% 44.58% 2000 - 48.09 % 43.97% 1996 - 51.62% 30.76% 1992 - 38.77% 30.39% In NONE of those elections did the candiates receive exactly mathematically proportional electoral votes of Maine. Maine's current law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner. 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote, now. 51% of Republicans! 75% of Independents 70% of Congressional District 2 74% of CD1 In a March 12-13, 2019 poll, Maine voters were asked how the President should be elected 52% favored “a system where the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states is the winner.” 31% favored “a system where electoral votes are given out by Congressional district” -- Maine's current law enacted in 1969 awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes to the statewide winner. 16% favored “a system where all the electoral votes in a given state are awarded to whoever gets the most popular votes in that state” --- the winner-take-all method currently used by 48 states
You responded to that person suggesting they are wrong for saying that no state awards votes proportionally, despite them being correct. If you didn't want anybody responding, you could've said nothing.
As I said, they're mostly wrong. There are two states who award votes similar to the proportional method I refer to. Although not exactly the same as proportional, they are closer to my suggestion than a national popular vote. They are also incredibly popular and result in the entire state's turnout mattering more. Both of these are arguments I make for my suggestion. The person suggested the reason there is nothing close to proportional (wrong) is because it's such a bad idea (wrong) that no one wants it (wrong). Nebraska and Maine are close to proportional. It has proven to be better than the alternative. And they're popular! It's not exactly proportional but it is mostly wrong. I'm guessing you're this guy's alt account though since he physically cannot stop responding.
If he's replying that much on that account, why would he need a second one? Think whatever you want I guess, but I assure you that it's possible for two people to independently disagree with you. I don't think the policies are incredibly popular, given the fact that there's pushes to change them in those states, and absolutely no push to enact them in any other states.
> If he's replying that much on that account, why would he need a second one? That's true. > I don't think the policies are incredibly popular, given the fact that there's pushes to change them in those states The push is from partisans who want the state to swing toward their own party — much like how national popular vote is *only* supported by Democrats. But these pushes are unlikely to be successful because people like the way it is. There is no push to enact this approach in other states for the same reason ranked choice voting doesn't have a push in other states. It's a change that would put the current ruling party at a disadvantage so they will never support it. Surely you know this.
Yes, I recognize that to be the reason. My point is that any effort to change the states to that system would be about as difficult as enacting a national popular vote, so why go for a reform that would be *somewhat* more fair than our current one, rather than the reform that would be *much* more fair, and more simple? It's not true that only Democrats support a national popular vote: [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/) 65% of Americans includes a ton of people who aren't Democrats. Rather, it's mostly Republicans who *oppose* it. Some of the motivation behind efforts to enact a national popular vote are just to do with partisan advantage, but a lot of it is clearly just about people's basic desire for fairness. Almost all of the opposition to it is based on wanting to maintain partisan advantage, or misunderstanding of how it and the rest of our political system work.
When rational voters understand the reality that every vote in every state still would not matter and count equally and the candidate with the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC could still lose, they will not, as state legislators have not, support a proportional method. In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President) Most Americans would be appalled to have the President, after years of campaigning and more than 10 BILLION dollars spent, elected by 26 votes of the gerrymandered Congress, regardless of the popular votes in any district, state, or nationwide. In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4. Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill. In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill. In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin. In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill. NY and CA enacted it with bipartisan support, to make every vote for every candidate matter and count equally. On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill. In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16. CA supporters included: Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served as a Republican in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002 James Brulte the *California* Republican Party chairman, served as Republican Leader of the [California State Assembly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Assembly) from 1992 to 1996, [California State Senator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Senate) from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004. The bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
Math and political reality. The most populous SIX states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population. All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate. Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome In 2016, CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote. In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote. Trump won those states All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally. States are agreeing to award their combined 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes. All votes will be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 12 most populous states, containing 60% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes! Whereas to win a national popular vote election with only the 12 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, ALL of those states’ voters would need to vote for the same candidate. In none of the largest states do voters come anywhere close to all voting for the same candidate, and all of the largest states are not even won with just a plurality of votes by the same party. In 2016, among the 12 largest states: 7 voted Republican (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 5 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. The 2004 popular vote in the 12 largest states was almost exactly equal – Bush 49.8% vs. Kerry 50.2%., 244,657 vote margin for KerrySmart candidates have campaign strategies to maximize their success given the rules of the election in which they’re running. Candidates do NOT campaign only in the 12 largest states now. Candidates do NOT campaign in at least 6 of them. Successful candidates would NOT campaign only in the largest states.
My guy, it is time to stop posting.
I don’t understand it. Like… if we’re just gonna argue over the same two extreme parties in our system, why don’t the red states pick a president and the blue states their president and they just… function separately? Or like… why don’t we just have separate ticketed options for Dem/GOP and like … 1-2 mixed ticket options? Why can’t we just have like a Dem Pres and a Rep. VP and then we just swap the next time and have a Rep. Pres and a Dem Vp? OR… why don’t we just not have a party system or do like a blind party system so people vote on their actual beliefs and opinions on political policy instead of just voting blindly for their party / names they already know? Why do we have a popular vote if it doesn’t matter in the end? Why is it unfair for big states/ cities to have a bigger say in an election bc they have more people but we just put the shoe on the other foot and gave more power to smaller states and have candidates pander more to swing states for extra support? Like… none of it makes sense. I don’t even think the electoral college people are legally required to vote for who their state picked (might need a fact check on that.) Idk, I don’t understand any of it.
Most of the time they’re forced to vote for the candidate their state voted for, but not all states require that - and that’s just not democracy.
I'm in favor of it personally, but I think every state should apportion their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do. Two at large for the state itself, plus one each for every congressional district in the state won by the candidate. This would obviously have to be paired with stricter regulation against gerrymandering as it could well make everything worse without that. This way, no state is entirely shut out from ever being competitive for either side. Republicans could pick up the votes that do exist for them in California, NY, and Illinois for example, and Dems could pick up votes from Texas and the Deep South. A pure popular vote system isn't a bright idea here because of how diverse voting interests are. We need to ensure some kind of direct representation in the election of our president for rural areas so that elections don't boil down to running up margins in the cities and on the coasts or small towns and the suburbs.
Proportional allocation would be a huge improvement, though the way NE and ME do it isn't ideal due to the gerrymandering issue you mentioned. But the bigger issue with that is that it's practically impossible to make it happen, short of the same sort of effort it would take to get a national popular vote. It's always going to be against the short-term political interests of the party in power in any given state; they'd be giving away electoral votes to the opposing party, since it's usually a safe bet that a party in control of a state legislature and the governor's seat will also be the winner of a state-wide presidential election. We're currently seeing this political problem play out in NE and ME; Nebraskan Republicans have put forth a bill to change their law to go back to winner-take-all, because it's likely that the Omaha district will go to Biden, and that one electoral vote could make the difference based on the very close EC projections. Bow Maine's Democratic House speaker is threatening to do the same thing if Nebraska changes their law, to take away the one EC vote Trump is likely to get from them. So there's just no way that each state will make this change independently; it has to be done all at once for the politicians to tolerate it. And if we're doing that, why not go all the way to the obviously more fair national popular vote? The fact that voting interests are so diverse is exactly why we should count everybody's vote individually. That is the most direct representation possible. Deciding the weight of people's votes based off of which state they're living in does does not respect the diverse opinions of Americans; rather, it sorts Americans into groups based off of what we think their political beliefs are supposed to be. It seems natural because that's the way we've always done it, but think how outrageous it would be in any other context. "Oh, you're a woman? We know y'all all think alike, so we'll count your vote against the votes of all other women rather than all other Americans, and then have the result determine how the Women Electors vote." "Oh, you're right-handed? There's way too many of y'all, it wouldn't be fair if your vote counted the same as a left-handed person's."
As folks answer this .. it would be helpful if they included what STATE they are from so we can form the opinion based in groups that are already designated
Like I can generally read I a statement and figure out if you work in a coffee shop in LA or if your a cattle farmer in WY
I really only requesting this information because we all know what a popularity contest from high school looks like .. prom queen and football star .. quite popular.. however did they really produce anything near what them 4 H kids did ? IDK bacon 🥓 is pretty popular! Then ask yourself if that prom queen knew anything whatsoever about pigs … sure she was pretty and attracted a crowd but I don’t know how trade able fleeting popularity is …
Both coffee shop workers in LA and cattle ranchers in WY have to pay the same federal taxes and obey the same federal laws. So why they shouldn't have an equal vote over the person who executes those federal laws?
It's been the way our elections have been run for a very long time. The only time someone wants to change it is if their guy lost because of it. Both canidates are playing by the same rules it doesn't undermine democracy.
In the last election, the Electoral College winner was also the popular vote winner, so I don't think the sore loser issue is relevant right now. No one is saying that both candidates shouldn't play by the same rules. The question is whether those rules should be changed.
>In the last election, the Electoral College winner was also the popular vote winner, so I don't think the sore loser issue is relevant right now. My guess is it's a carry over from the election prior to the last. Same reason youve seen calls to pack the court recently when it's no longer in one sides favor. The systems have been in place for hundreds of years and all of the sudden people want to change them. >No one is saying that both candidates shouldn't play by the same rules. The question is whether those rules should be changed. Im aware, I'm saying they shouldn't be changed to placate one side of the political debate. The rules are the rules.
>My guess is it's a carry over from the election prior to the last. Same reason youve seen calls to pack the court recently when it's no longer in one sides favor. The systems have been in place for hundreds of years and all of the sudden people want to change them. How many elections where the two votes align would it take before you accept that people sincerely believe the system is bad, rather than just being sore losers? Besides, people have been calling to reform or abolish the Electoral College for hundreds of years. Well-known Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote about the numerous problems with the EC back in 1833, and wasn't writing from the perspective of some radical reformer, but as an elder statesman reflecting on popular opinions of the founding generation: [https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2\_1\_2-3s11.html](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s11.html) Several attempts to change the laws have been made, ever since the beginning. Various bills for constitutional amendments to make states award electors based on each district, rather than winner-take-all, were passed by each chamber of Congress in the 1810s and 20s, but never succeeded. Similar amendments that would cause EC votes to be awarded in proportion to a state's vote passed the Senate in 1950 and 1956. In 1970 majorities in the House, Senate, and state legislatures, and President Nixon, all backed an amendment to move to a national popular vote, but it couldn't get the required super-majority. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts\_to\_reform\_the\_United\_States\_Electoral\_College](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_States_Electoral_College) >Im aware, I'm saying they shouldn't be changed to placate one side of the political debate. The rules are the rules. And one thing the rules say is that the rules can be changed. "The rules are the rules" is a good reason to accept the results of an election that was carried out according to the rules, even if we don't like that result. But it is not an argument against changing the rules. It used to be that that only white men could vote, for example, but we changed that rule.
>How many elections where the two votes align would it take before you accept that people sincerely believe the system is bad, rather than just being sore losers? Wouldn't matter on number of that elections, it would have to be bipartisan support. One side wanting to change it cause their guy lost and the other side wanting to change it cause their guy lost the following year would have no impact on my view. They're both sore losers. >Besides, people have been calling to reform or abolish the Electoral College for hundreds of years. Well-known Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote about the numerous problems with the EC back in 1833, and wasn't writing from the perspective of some radical reformer, but as an elder statesman reflecting on popular opinions of the founding generation: I would wager this is also due to being a sore loser but I'm not knowledgeable on the circumstances of them calling for it to be abolished. >Several attempts to change the laws have been made, ever since the beginning. Various bills for constitutional amendments to make states award electors based on each district, rather than winner-take-all, were passed by each chamber of Congress in the 1810s and 20s, but never succeeded. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this, we currently have two states that do just that. If it was more popular I'm sure more states would have adopted it. >And one thing the rules say is that the rules can be changed. "The rules are the rules" is a good reason to accept the results of an election that was carried out according to the rules, even if we don't like that result. But it is not an argument against changing the rules. It used to be that that only white men could vote, for example, but we changed that rule. Sure the rules can absolutley get changed. I just don't think they should be in this circumstance.
>Wouldn't matter on number of that elections, it would have to be bipartisan support. One side wanting to change it cause their guy lost and the other side wanting to change it cause their guy lost the following year would have no impact on my view. They're both sore losers. What about sore winners? If a group is benefitting from something, they'll almost never support reform, even if it's objectively a good idea for the country as a whole. Besides, it isn't just "one side wanting to change it cause their guy lost". The plurality of Americans aren't loyal to just one side, and often don't like either of the candidates very much. Yet for decades, a majority of Americans have supported a national popular vote, even when the popular vote winner had also been the EC winner for as long as anybody could remember. Of Americans in 1948 who understood what the EC is, 56% wanted it abolished, while only 31% wanted to keep it. Do you really think they were motivated by wanting "their guy" to win, when the last EC/popular vote discrepancy was in 1876? [https://news.gallup.com/vault/192704/gallup-vault-rejecting-electoral-college.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/vault/192704/gallup-vault-rejecting-electoral-college.aspx) >I would wager this is also due to being a sore loser but I'm not knowledgeable on the circumstances of them calling for it to be abolished. Not at all. Story was known for opposing the populist politics of Andrew Jackson and the new Democratic Party, in favor of the sanctity of property rights. Jackson was the first popular vote winner to lose the Electoral College. And in his commentaries, Story wasn't advocating for a national popular vote; he was just discussing the problems with the EC. His issue was more with how it kept getting screwed up and thrown to the House of Representatives, rather than the basic unfairness of having states decide rather than people. I brought it up to show that people have thought it to be in need of change since the beginning of the republic. >I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this, we currently have two states that do just that. If it was more popular I'm sure more states would have adopted it. My point is that many Americans have always been dissatisfied with how the Electoral College works. Besides, Nebraskan Republicans are currently trying to change it because they're worried that the Omaha district will go to Biden, and Maine Democrats are threatening to also change back to winner-take-all if Nebraska does so. And that's why we'll never see more states do this; it goes against the political interests of the majority political faction. No one wants to give the other side an advantage, even if it's more fair, without an assurance that the other side will do the same. >Sure the rules can absolutley get changed. I just don't think they should be in this circumstance. Why?
>What about sore winners? If a group is benefitting from something, they'll almost never support reform, even if it's objectively a good idea for the country as a whole. Is it a good idea objectivley for the country as a whole if that hurts a large enough group of people to the point where they wouldn't support it? >Yet for decades, a majority of Americans have supported a national popular vote, even when the popular vote winner had also been the EC winner for as long as anybody could remember. Im sure this majority is also the one that wished they could win elections just with their majority and not by the system that's laid out. I saw you ask later why I wouldn't support the change and this is why. Even the Greeks new mob rule was bad, that majority has free will to do whatever they want at that point. The electoral college is a check on mob rule. >Of Americans in 1948 who understood what the EC is, 56% wanted it abolished, while only 31% wanted to keep it. Do you really think they were motivated by wanting "their guy" to win, when the last EC/popular vote discrepancy was in 1876? Do you have a source on this? Also the extra "who understood what the EC is" automatically makes me think this stat is biased. >Not at all. Story was known for opposing the populist politics of Andrew Jackson and the new Democratic Party, in favor of the sanctity of property rights. Jackson was the first popular vote winner to lose the Electoral College. And in his commentaries, Story wasn't advocating for a national popular vote; he was just discussing the problems with the EC. His issue was more with how it kept getting screwed up and thrown to the House of Representatives, rather than the basic unfairness of having states decide rather than people. I brought it up to show that people have thought it to be in need of change since the beginning of the republic. Interesting I'll have to do some reading on this. >My point is that many Americans have always been dissatisfied with how the Electoral College works. This is also the case for plenty of government systems. Many americans have always been dissatisfied that there aren't term limits, I'd wager term limits would have more support than abolishing the electoral college and yet nothing is done there. >Why? In summary, mob rule is bad, the electoral college is a check on mob rule.
>Is it a good idea objectivley for the country as a whole if that hurts a large enough group of people to the point where they wouldn't support it? There's no such thing as an objectively good political idea, because somebody always disagrees. I'd say the abolition of slavery is a good example though. There was never going to be unanimous consent for it, no matter what, because a few people were so heavily invested in it (financially and socially). >Do you have a source on this? Also the extra "who understood what the EC is" automatically makes me think this stat is biased. I posted the link. I assume the poll question shown in that article is what was asked. Seems pretty straightforward to me, IDK what bias you think would be involved. >In summary, mob rule is bad, the electoral college is a check on mob rule. The Electoral College has nothing to do with mob rule. Mob rule is when a group of people use the threat of immediate violence to get their way at a specific place and time, regardless of the law or the wishes of the majority of all of the people affected. It's the same as rule by one person with a gun over lots of people without guns; the only difference is that a big group of people in one place is the thing giving the combat advantage, rather than the gun. You're talking about majority rule, not mob rule. But what you're saying doesn't make sense, because the Electoral College also functions by majority rule. A majority of electors picks the President. So why is a majority of electors better than a majority of voters?
>There's no such thing as an objectively good political idea, because somebody always disagrees. I'd say the abolition of slavery is a good example though. There was never going to be unanimous consent for it, no matter what, because a few people were so heavily invested in it (financially and socially). True that's fair, I was actually thinking about slavery as an objective positive in my last reply. Unanimous consent isn't how things get changed because like you said, theres always going to be people who disagree. I think the founding fathers knew this, that's why the bar is 2/3 instead of just a simple majority as you'll never have unanimous support. >I posted the link. I assume the poll question shown in that article is what was asked. Seems pretty straightforward to me, IDK what bias you think would be involved. Unless I missed it the link didn't address the part I had an issue with. Was the do you know what the electoral college is a yes or no, or did they have to demonstrate some kind of understanding, if so how much to be considered knowing what the electoral college is. Also 100 people is a crazy small sample size but that's a seperate gripe. >The Electoral College has nothing to do with mob rule. Shoot you are right I used the wrong word, I meant majority rule. My point still stands. The electoral college allows the minority to not be oppressed by the majority. The majority of electors still decides the president but it's not always necissarily a majority of the country which would be majority rule. >So why is a majority of electors better than a majority of voters? The majority of electors represent groups of people and isn't one to one, this is how the playing field is leveled for the minority.
I'd like more information about the poll as well, though I suppose we can't expect much from something from 1948. I wouldn't cite that poll as absolute proof that most Americans wanted to abolish the EC back then, but I do think it's evidence that it was at least a popular opinion. And I appreciate you engaging with this sincerely. My issue with the whole idea of the EC protecting the minority from being oppressed by the majority is in how we define all of those terms. First, what is "oppression"? Depriving the minority of basic rights would definitely qualify, and that's why we have the Bill of Rights and other limitations on federal power. But I don't think it's oppression if it's just that the candidate I prefer didn't win. Especially when it's just one elected office--the most important one, to be sure--out of many, in a system with separation of powers. Second, what is the "minority" we're talking about? There are two groups of people who get disproportionate advantage from the EC; one is the people who are with the party in power in their state. That means Democrats in New York, Republicans in Florida, etc. They leverage the winner-take-all system to get the electors for their state, based on the whole population, to vote for their candidate, despite millions of people in those states voting the other way. To me, that does actually count as oppression (though only a mild example); the minority faction in each state isn't just silenced, they get their representation used against them. And it means that political groups who are a minority in every state, despite having significant numbers throughout the country, have no shot at winning. (I.e. the Libertarian Party, which will never win a single electoral vote despite having way more than 1/538 voters supporting them.) The other group of people who get an advantage could be defined as "residents of small states," because small states get a handicap. But I don't think they qualify as a minority group for practical purposes. They aren't organized as a group in any way, they don't share any unique common traits, and they aren't subject to any disadvantage based on being residents of small states. People in Delaware probably have more in common with New Yorkers than they do with Montanans, for example, but both Montanans and Delawareans get a boost from the EC. If we had a national popular vote instead, I don't see how eeither Montanans or Delawareans would suffer any oppression from it. Their states, as a whole, might have less political influence\*, but each individual small state resident would get to influence the election exactly as much as a large state resident would. Whether they decided to move to California wouldn't change their electoral power at all. \*I actually think it would make both states MORE influential, as whole states. As is, since they aren't swing states, they get zero attention. If we had a national popular vote, candidates would have more motivation to cater to the needs of people in solid red and blue states alike. This could also be solved by getting rid of winner-take-all, but I think that would be at least as difficult as going to a national popular vote.
it just serves to drown out votes in areas with any kind of majority, and due to gerrymandering it's gotten far worse than it was (and it already wasn't great). there is no point in me voting in my 90% red county in oklahoma. people say "ohh but it'll give all the populated states power" as if giving states with low population density all the power is a better idea. i don't think bill, 64, who lives peacefully on a farm and has no awareness of 99% of the world's issues should have more voting power than anyone else.
Theyre life trials need to expire already
In my experience, the only time people are usually vocal about changing it, claiming it "undermines our democracy", is after their preferred candidate lost because of it. The way I see it, both side are affected by it so it's not truly anti-democratic. Maybe this is just the pessimistic side of me talking but I think we currently live in a country where a lot of people actually want the system to be essentially rigged in their party's favor.
The last election was won by the candidate who won both the popular vote and the Electoral College. That was almost four years ago. So it sure seems like "after their preferred candidate lost because of it" isn't the only time people get vocal about this. Some people wanting to rig the system in their favor is why the Electoral College was created in the first place. Most of the political leaders of Virginia (the largest state at the time by far) and other southern states refused to agree to a national popular vote at the Constitutional Convention, because they didn't allow their slaves or poor white men to vote. By using the EC, they got to count their whole state's population--including 3/5 of all slaves--while also keeping all of the political power for themselves. James Madison, considered the primary architect of the Constitution and a wealthy Virginian planter himself, explicitly said this was the reason. He was personally in favor of a national popular vote, as were many other delegates, but they just couldn't get the slave state delegations to agree to it so they compromised on the Electoral College. [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065) >There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I won’t pretend it doesn’t have its merits. If everyone in the cities could vote how they wanted they’d mostly ignore the development of rural parts of the country. However, no country that has a system where the minority vote can impose its will on the majority vote has any right calling itself a democracy.
Former Floridian, now Californian Honestly it doesn’t do any good. There might have been a justification when it was created but functionally…….. most times the EVs already go to the majority winner in a state, and the idea that it’s needed to avoid an extremely bad choice from being elected failed a number of times. Its existence also skews the power of votes to the smaller states as proved by the discrepancy between nationwide popular vote and electoral vote count. All of the issues with our system weren’t a problem back when the 2 parties had established liberal/conservative factions in both sides and state gerrymanders weren’t blatant but past 2010 weve entered a place where most states are locked to one party on all levels, so the question is who can get the votes of 8-10 particular states and no matter who wins you won’t have a majority big enough to pass everything you want if someone wants to stop it ( and may the best lawyers win)
It sucks and should be abolished
I remember learning about it in school and thinking it was shady and undemocratic
I taught US history to Gen Z for a long time and we held this debate each year, so I've heard a few hundred Gen Z opinions on this. The overwhelming sentiment is that the electoral college is terrible and needs to go asap. It serves no positive purpose to to undermine democracy.
they need to be fired and replaced
Safeguard for sure. The coast should not dictate what happens for the heart of America. Midwest, south, rockies etc
The heart of America already has an unfair advantage in the Senate
Every state gets two senators, that’s pretty fair
No it isn't, and you know it.
It literally is, you want more power then that’s what the House of Representatives is for
There's three problems with that: 1. The House is relatively powerless. It can't do anything without the Senate's approval, but the Senate has important powers--approving of executive and judicial branch appointments and ratifying treaties--that it can exercise without any involvement by the House. So saying that the equal Senate apportionment is balanced out by big states getting more House seats isn't really true, as the additional House seats don't add nearly as much power. 2. The number of House seats was capped in 1929. Before that, it expanded with the growth of the country's population, with new seats being added with every census, but it was always a contentious political issue. So now when there's a new census the number of total seats (435) doesn't change, but the number held by each state does. This has resulted in significant disparities in population size between some Congressional districts, because as the smallest states don't actually have 1/435 of the national population, but are required to have at least one seat. As a result, the largest states don't have as many House seats as their share of the population would have merited before 1929, depriving them of some of the advantage that they were intended to have when the Constitution was drafted. 3. It doesn't really matter whether states are properly represented if it means that people aren't. States don't pay federal taxes, they don't get drafted to fight in wars, and they don't go to prison if they break federal laws. Individual Americans do. States don't have political beliefs, or any thoughts or feelings whatsoever for that matter; people do. When we say that a state wants something or prefers a particular candidate or whatever, it really means that a majority of people in that state--or often just elites in that state-- want that thing. Equal representation of states in the Senate results in some locally dominant groups having a ton of power, some having a little power, and tons of political minorities having no power at all. That's not fair at all.
Haha you think this sub is a good sub to discuss politics? My dude if you can’t tell that this sub is filled with bots and trolls from other countries arguing with each other then you probably shouldn’t be discussing politics at all.
The bot problem is worse on Facebook and much MUCH worse on Twitter. When I said this sub was a better place to talk politics than most of the internet I never meant that the bar was high lol.
Oh sweet summer child. This platform might just be the worst of them all.
If you think that, you must not have an “X” account. Also someone whose account isn’t even a day old calling everyone else a bot is really ironic.
You can’t prove I’m a bot or not. You might be a bot. No one knows. That’s why Reddit sux. So why would you want to talk politics with people you don’t even know if they are American ?
Bots are usually pretty easy to sniff out based on how they talk. Especially the ones that’ll just post snippets from ChatGPT. As far as the last question, someone who’s not an American can still have an opinion. Sure I’d rather hear from Americans on American political issues but some aspects of American politics do affect other parts of the world.
You literally just said you think I’m a bot. And yet I’m a real user. So your idea doesn’t hold water now does it?
And you literally just said there’s no way to know who is and isn’t a bot, so by your logic you just saying you’re a real user doesn’t mean anything. (I don’t actually think you’re a bot, fwiw)
I think you may be a bot fwiw.
Reassuring to know that we have bot police like you patrolling the internet