Comment on Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College

Tsavo43@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• gibmiser@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So some Americans are more important than others?

  source
• kirklennon@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So leaving our elections up to L.A. and NYC.

  Combined those might round up to 4% of the population of the United States. Explain again how they'll control the outcome of a popular election?

  Implicit in your argument is the self-evidently fair notion that the country should not be controlled by a minority ... except that is precisely what the Electoral College allows and what the popular vote makes impossible. Under the EC, the president is effectively decided only by voters in a dozen or so swing states (which exact states are in play varies by year but the number is pretty consistent). Candidates literally don't even campaign for votes in the other ~38 states, just sometimes making brief fundraising stops.

  The founding fathers cobbled together a stop-gap system that placated the oh-so-varied interests of different groups of privileged white men. It wasn't fair then and it has no moral justification in the present day. It's an affront to the basic principles of self-government now that we've expanded "self" to finally mean all Americans.

  source
• blazera@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Why should your vote be worth more than someone else's?

  source
• PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So then you agree that it is a terrible idea for our votes to be weighted based on where people live, so that we can avoid things like individual cities swaying the vote?

  I think so too. Everybody’s vote should be equal, which is why we should have a popular vote instead of the electoral collage.

  source
• Primarily0617@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So Republican policy represents the population so badly that they'd never win another election if the country switched to a more democratic system?

  source
• gullible@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Land shouldn’t get a vote, much less land controlled by ineffectual leaders.

  source
• FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Should senators not be elected by the popular vote of each state? Should states develop their own state electoral colleges that give votes based on the proportional population of each county?

  source
• uis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Let’s explore limits. Given 50 states, two of which have population of 165,999,976 people each, and rest 48 states have population of 1, such country with Electoral College will be dictatorship of 26 people.

  source
• 8bitguy@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The population of Los Angeles is about 4M. NYC is 19M. 23M combined. US is 340M. Those two cities account for 6.8% of the US population. One person, one vote seems like the fairest approach to a democracy.

  source
• random65837@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  100% correct. The system isnt perfect, but the way it is for a reason. Anybody that wants it popular is just voting for a system that’s easier to overthrow.

  source

  • PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    How is it any easier to overthrow a popular vote?

    source

    • random65837@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s incredibly easy to overthrow a popular vote. How many dead people have been found voting for people? How many ballots in trunks of peoples cars last couple years? Take them out, put them in, not like federal oversight works, that was proven in PA during Trump/Biden. Having the electoral college is a layer of insulation for both that, and populous states and cities controlling everything while completely taking a voice from the rest of the country. Given that the popular has only been overridden twice in two decades, it’s hardly a bitching point.

      source

      • PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        How many dead people have been found voting for people? How many ballots in trunks of peoples cars last couple years?

        These are election security issues, none of which are unique to a popular vote.

        and populous states and cities controlling everything while completely taking a voice from the rest of the country

        That’s not how it works. All votes are counted equal regardless of who they are or where they are from under a popular vote. Neither cities or land votes, only people do and the system should reflect that.

        The rest of the country would actually get a say, whereas they don’t now because most people don’t live in a city in a swing state, which is the only place politicians cater to.

        Given that the popular has only been overridden twice in two decades, it’s hardly a bitching point.

        That’s not the point though. The point is that all votes should be counted equally.

        And if you live in a state that is solidly blue/red then your vote is essentially meaningless. Nobody should get a bigger voice from living in a swing state, it should be everyone’s voice.

        source
      • Unaware7013@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Given that the popular has only been overridden twice in two decades, it’s hardly a bitching point.

        Well yeah, if you frame an argument badly of course it sounds stupid. But to properly frame the point, 2/5 elections were won while losing the popular vote, and 3/5 presidential terms would not have happened if we voted democratically (Bush won the popular vote based on being the incumbent and war fervor, which he only had because of his fraudulent win).

        60% of all presidential terms since 2000 we're not won democraticly, but that's not a problem for the people who can only win that way.

        source
      • Unaware7013@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        . How many dead people have been found voting for people? How many ballots in trunks of peoples cars last couple years?

        Tell us, how many have been found? I'm legitimately curious if you have a real source or if this is just a bunch of Mike Pillow level claims.

        source