49 votes

The Electoral College is bad

69 comments

  1. [37]
    koopa
    Link
    The electoral college will exist until the day Texas turns blue and suddenly the “EC stops big states from dominating small states” talking point will disappear. I’d be happy if we could at least...

    The electoral college will exist until the day Texas turns blue and suddenly the “EC stops big states from dominating small states” talking point will disappear.

    I’d be happy if we could at least turn the EC into a proportional allocation of votes for each state instead of winner take all. It makes improvement in any state matter. Rather than 7 winner take all swing states that should just have their votes split 50/50 to represent the actual opinion of their populations.

    28 votes
    1. [29]
      stu2b50
      Link Parent
      I wouldn't say that. Obama actually had an EC edge over Romney in 2012 - that's right, Democrats benefited from the EC, a little more than a decade ago. It's not like Republicans removed the EC...

      I wouldn't say that. Obama actually had an EC edge over Romney in 2012 - that's right, Democrats benefited from the EC, a little more than a decade ago. It's not like Republicans removed the EC right there and then either.

      In the end, it's hard to change things so entrenched.

      11 votes
      1. [28]
        Phynman
        Link Parent
        Obama still won the popular vote. Edge or not. If we’re really getting into electoral reform let’s revisit the number of congressional districts per state and the distribution based on population.

        Obama still won the popular vote. Edge or not.

        If we’re really getting into electoral reform let’s revisit the number of congressional districts per state and the distribution based on population.

        23 votes
        1. [27]
          koopa
          Link Parent
          Expanding the number of seats in the House of Representatives to a number that actually makes sense for our large population is probably the easiest (aka doesn’t require a constitutional...

          Expanding the number of seats in the House of Representatives to a number that actually makes sense for our large population is probably the easiest (aka doesn’t require a constitutional amendment) path to a better EC and competitive elections generally.

          Since EC votes per state are determined by the number of representatives + senators, adding more representatives automatically also improves the representation of the electoral college.

          11 votes
          1. [26]
            vord
            Link Parent
            We do re-allocate house representitives with every census. California and New York both lost a rep. However, its not exactly easy to get better proportions,because the last time I remember going...

            We do re-allocate house representitives with every census. California and New York both lost a rep. However, its not exactly easy to get better proportions,because the last time I remember going down this rabbithole, in order to still allow Wyoming to have a representative proportionally, we'd need to expand to something like 1000 house representatives. This becomes a logistical nightmare unless we want to move the physical location of Congress.

            11 votes
            1. [19]
              skybrian
              Link Parent
              Imagine taking this further. Why not have 10,000 representatives who vote remotely? It would not be much like the House of Representatives as it exists today. Each of those people would still...

              Imagine taking this further. Why not have 10,000 representatives who vote remotely?

              It would not be much like the House of Representatives as it exists today. Each of those people would still represent thirty thousand voters. They would probably still be divided up by party. But I wonder how well it would work?

              Lobbying them by talking to each of them one-on-one would not work, because they'd be scattered across the country and there are too many of them. It would be more like a mini-campaign.

              It won't happen, but it seems like an interesting thought experiment.

              15 votes
              1. [2]
                Minori
                Link Parent
                Because this would make the current committee structures nearly impossible to manage. While Congress should be expanded, imagine trying to get 3000+ people to agree on which bills to advance...

                Why not have 10,000 representatives who vote remotely?

                Because this would make the current committee structures nearly impossible to manage. While Congress should be expanded, imagine trying to get 3000+ people to agree on which bills to advance through committees. The actual meat and potatoes of legislating would be unmanageable with our current systems.

                If you're aware of any countries with that many legislators which haven't devolved into the executive setting policy, I'd be curious to learn.

                11 votes
                1. skybrian
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  With a radical change like that, you can't change just one thing. I imagine that the committee structure would get blown up too. Whoever decides which bills to vote on has a lot of power, and it's...

                  With a radical change like that, you can't change just one thing. I imagine that the committee structure would get blown up too. Whoever decides which bills to vote on has a lot of power, and it's probably going to be a smaller number of people.

                  Maybe it could work something like getting a referendum on the ballot, where you need a certain number of signatures from other members before it gets voted on, and some kind of limits on proposals per member?

                  At this point we're imagining a very different form of government. Though, with enough party discipline, maybe it works out to be the same thing in the end?

                  9 votes
              2. [16]
                vord
                Link Parent
                At that point you might as well go to direct democracy, with all the advantages and pitfalls that entails.

                At that point you might as well go to direct democracy, with all the advantages and pitfalls that entails.

                4 votes
                1. [15]
                  skybrian
                  Link Parent
                  I think having one person in 30,000 thinking about legislation all day is better than all of us doing it. But it would be easier to get your representative's attention.

                  I think having one person in 30,000 thinking about legislation all day is better than all of us doing it. But it would be easier to get your representative's attention.

                  12 votes
                  1. [14]
                    vord
                    Link Parent
                    Much like now, most people would probably tune out unless an issue was particularily important to them. I like the idea of a direct democracy with a transferable (and overridable) representation...

                    Much like now, most people would probably tune out unless an issue was particularily important to them.

                    I like the idea of a direct democracy with a transferable (and overridable) representation system. 'I trust John to represent my interests' means John's vote weighs double, but since that representative could be anyone, there is a lot more room for involvement. Especially if there were a way to split vote weights among different representatives.

                    Maybe you get paid and mandated to politic full-time ala Jury duty if your representation weighs over a certain threshold.

                    7 votes
                    1. [2]
                      TemulentTeatotaler
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      That paired with mandatory voting (or investment of your vote) is a system I'd be most interested in seeing play out. Another, that would probably have catastrophic growing pains, would be...

                      That paired with mandatory voting (or investment of your vote) is a system I'd be most interested in seeing play out.

                      Another, that would probably have catastrophic growing pains, would be something like how my brother described WoW DKP points. Politicians are given some sort of voting currency which they spend (possibly blind/anonymously) over the course of the term to determine whether actions pass or not.

                      Some legal mechanism for enforcing campaign promises would also be interesting, including things like "I will vote in alignment with the majority of participating constituents on bills related to issue Y".

                      8 votes
                      1. vord
                        Link Parent
                        I'm all for it! Love me a good DKP system.

                        I'm all for it! Love me a good DKP system.

                        2 votes
                    2. [11]
                      skybrian
                      Link Parent
                      I’ve sometimes thought about how such a system might work. Maybe something like you need to get 25k votes to be a representative and representing more people doesn’t give you more formal power...

                      I’ve sometimes thought about how such a system might work. Maybe something like you need to get 25k votes to be a representative and representing more people doesn’t give you more formal power above 100k or so, which discourages too much centralization.

                      It’s all fantasy though.

                      2 votes
                      1. [10]
                        vord
                        Link Parent
                        Depends how politically stable we are in the next 8 years. Nothing like a constitutional crisis to re-evaluate.

                        Depends how politically stable we are in the next 8 years. Nothing like a constitutional crisis to re-evaluate.

                        3 votes
                        1. [9]
                          skybrian
                          Link Parent
                          It seems like this tends to result in smaller changes, not blowing things up and starting over. For example, one result of the crisis leading up to the Capitol Hill riots was the Electoral Count...

                          It seems like this tends to result in smaller changes, not blowing things up and starting over. For example, one result of the crisis leading up to the Capitol Hill riots was the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022.

                          I could see setting a maximum age to be elected to federal office, depending on how things turn out.

                          2 votes
                          1. [8]
                            vord
                            Link Parent
                            While I agree that's more likely if stability holds, if Trump wins and we have US military being deployed internally, or Trump loses and he convinces a sizable portion to start armed uprisings, my...

                            While I agree that's more likely if stability holds, if Trump wins and we have US military being deployed internally, or Trump loses and he convinces a sizable portion to start armed uprisings, my money is on big (albeit not neccessarily better) changes.

                            1 vote
                            1. [7]
                              skybrian
                              Link Parent
                              I think if Trump wins he's too old to do much, but let's hope we don't find out.

                              I think if Trump wins he's too old to do much, but let's hope we don't find out.

                              1 vote
                              1. [6]
                                nukeman
                                Link Parent
                                Ultimately he doesn’t need to do much. He’s got a lot of loyal supporters who are willing to do just about anything for him. The one saving grace is that Trumpism is a charismatic movement, highly...

                                Ultimately he doesn’t need to do much. He’s got a lot of loyal supporters who are willing to do just about anything for him.

                                The one saving grace is that Trumpism is a charismatic movement, highly dependent on Trump the man. Once he passes (he is 78 after all), I suspect it loses a lot of steam because of infighting and lack of him as a central figure.

                                3 votes
                                1. [5]
                                  vord
                                  Link Parent
                                  I don't have that kind of faith. While Trump is uniquely bad for a variety of well-documented reasons, he's just the end result of decades of propagandizing and radicalizing a base. They've been...

                                  I don't have that kind of faith.

                                  While Trump is uniquely bad for a variety of well-documented reasons, he's just the end result of decades of propagandizing and radicalizing a base.

                                  They've been beating the anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-woman drum for some time now. The tune isn't gonna change just because their guest lead singer went off the rails for a few shows.

                                  Most of the rhetoric about dangerous woke "enemy within" liberals will still remain. The Republicans will certainly not stop voter suppression efforts or further peeling back civil rights. Or trying to revert course on climate change.

                                  Sure, there won't be a narcissistic maniac at the helm, but the march towards evil moves onward. If anything, it'll be worse because all the 'moderates' will flock back to business as usual.

                                  That ship quite obviously sailed in 2008, when Republicans fully dug in their heels and went full into 'deny Democratic policy at all costs.' They weaponize government shutdowns for gods sake... a thing that only happens when Congress is completely shitfucked and refuses to do one of their most basic primary duties.

                                  That's how Trump got the Supreme Court so stacked. And if Democrats don't do something big to fix it before 2028, we're fucked.

                                  6 votes
                                  1. sparksbet
                                    Link Parent
                                    Yeah, the reason Trump is dangerous isn't some sort of unique thing to him. It's because he's popular enough with certain swaths of the population to get elected and he'll sign off on all the...

                                    Yeah, the reason Trump is dangerous isn't some sort of unique thing to him. It's because he's popular enough with certain swaths of the population to get elected and he'll sign off on all the horrifying legislation that the generally vile and disgusting Republican party wants him to. Trump dying before getting a second term would be useful because it denies them that opportunity, not because Trump himself is some particularly egregious brand of evil. He's just useful.

                                    4 votes
                                  2. [3]
                                    nukeman
                                    Link Parent
                                    Trump got big initially on low-propensity voters (the “I last voted for Ross Perot in 1992”). While there’s plenty of true-believer NatCons who love him, those low-propensity voters are still...

                                    Trump got big initially on low-propensity voters (the “I last voted for Ross Perot in 1992”). While there’s plenty of true-believer NatCons who love him, those low-propensity voters are still important to his margin of victory. Take them away, and whoever his successor is loses. And none of the proposed replacements (DeSantis, Vance, Ramaswamey) have proven to have the same level of charisma.

                                    2 votes
                                    1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                                      Link Parent
                                      I'm not convinced they need the same level of charisma. All those people failed because Trump is still around and in opposition. I'm not sure someone like DeSantis fails or does so poorly without...

                                      I'm not convinced they need the same level of charisma. All those people failed because Trump is still around and in opposition. I'm not sure someone like DeSantis fails or does so poorly without Trump to contrast or even with Trump's backing. The fact that Trump can't share a stage metaphorically or literally with any sort of grace is a sort of protective factor.

                                      2 votes
                                    2. vord
                                      Link Parent
                                      The only evidence I need is that Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Mike Pence, and Ted Cruz were all elected well before Trump. They all support most of the vile platform, if not the more outwardly...

                                      The only evidence I need is that Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Mike Pence, and Ted Cruz were all elected well before Trump. They all support most of the vile platform, if not the more outwardly visible lawbreaking. A lawful evil more than a chaotic evil if you will.

                                      While the downward slide will be slower, it's not gonna change course. The policy agenda has been laid bare, and most...if not all of it will remain. We will hopefully avoid the full-blown "end democracy" badness, but the general erosion of civil rights will be main.

            2. [7]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. [6]
                vord
                Link Parent
                TBH the Senate is exponentially worse of a problem, and why it makes a lot of sense to merge pretty much any state with less than 3 house reps into their nearest neighbors. Merge Wyoming, Montana,...

                TBH the Senate is exponentially worse of a problem, and why it makes a lot of sense to merge pretty much any state with less than 3 house reps into their nearest neighbors.

                Merge Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Delaware into Maryland. Merge Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Conneticut. West Virginia into Virginia. Merge Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico (giving them proper citizenship) into the 'Remote States'.

                By lopping off that bottom tier of population, you've improved representation in both the house and senate for everyone (except for those people that had far excessive representation).

                If Wyoming deserves 2 Senators, Philadelphia alone deserves 6.

                6 votes
                1. [5]
                  public
                  Link Parent
                  At that point, why bother having a senate?

                  At that point, why bother having a senate?

                  2 votes
                  1. [4]
                    vord
                    Link Parent
                    Because there still will be a pretty vast difference between the largest states and the smaller states. California still has 50+ house reps, wheras Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico would be on the...

                    Because there still will be a pretty vast difference between the largest states and the smaller states. California still has 50+ house reps, wheras Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico would be on the order of < 10. But it would allow for a better distribution as populations continue to flock to urban centers. Having the Senate still provides a check against full 'tyranny of the majority', while not having the thumb on the scale quite so hard.

                    Also, having Senators elected every 4 years and House reps every 2 means that there's a different dynamic, and kind of functions as a Senior/Junior level filter.

                    1 vote
                    1. [3]
                      public
                      Link Parent
                      6 years for Senate, but the point still stands. You do have me wondering how some hypothetical at large Congress-like body would work. As of now, I can’t think of a way to feasibility elect 100...

                      6 years for Senate, but the point still stands.

                      You do have me wondering how some hypothetical at large Congress-like body would work. As of now, I can’t think of a way to feasibility elect 100 positions in the same nationwide race. Not unless we vote for parties and the parties then select the actual representatives. I preemptively reject that. Party influence should be minimized in the election process in whatever small ways we can.

                      2 votes
                      1. [2]
                        vord
                        Link Parent
                        Doh, yea I forgot that. To be fair to party selection, how many people know more than a cursory understanding of what politician they're voting for when they pull the D or R lever for every...

                        Doh, yea I forgot that. To be fair to party selection, how many people know more than a cursory understanding of what politician they're voting for when they pull the D or R lever for every position other than President? Could they pick them out of a lineup?

                        Voting for party then letting the party decide for national positions (ideally if not limited at the state level).

                        1. public
                          Link Parent
                          That's also why most state and local elections aren't meaningfully competitive, or the "real" election is the primary. I'd definitely become a voter of extremely niche and joke parties under such...

                          To be fair to party selection, how many people know more than a cursory understanding of what politician they're voting for when they pull the D or R lever for every position other than President? Could they pick them out of a lineup?

                          That's also why most state and local elections aren't meaningfully competitive, or the "real" election is the primary.

                          I'd definitely become a voter of extremely niche and joke parties under such a system. I neither trust nor respect party committees to pick the right people for legislating (I do expect they'd do a marginally better job than primary elections at choosing who can win the general election). At least with a primary election, one can say, "The people have spoken , the morons" when they pick a losing candidate or one that fails to excite the mildly apathetic voters.

                          1 vote
    2. [7]
      scherlock
      Link Parent
      The EC benefits the political parties. It means they only need to worry about the purple states.

      The EC benefits the political parties. It means they only need to worry about the purple states.

      7 votes
      1. [6]
        conception
        Link Parent
        With out it they’d only need to worry about populous areas.

        With out it they’d only need to worry about populous areas.

        4 votes
        1. koopa
          Link Parent
          Compared to now where they only care about populous areas in swing states

          Compared to now where they only care about populous areas in swing states

          13 votes
        2. hungariantoast
          Link Parent
          So I was curious about this, and looked at some numbers. According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans living in urban areas was 80% in 2020. With a total 2020 Census population of...

          So I was curious about this, and looked at some numbers.

          According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of Americans living in urban areas was 80% in 2020. With a total 2020 Census population of 331,449,281 that means rural Americans numbered approximately 66,289,856.

          If you look at the (as best as I can tell) swing states for the 2024 US presidential election, they and their populations are:

          State Population
          Arizona 7,151,502
          Georgia 10,711,908
          Michigan 10,077,331
          Nevada 3,104,614
          North Carolina 10,439,388
          Pennsylvania 13,002,700
          Wisconsin 5,893,718
          Total 60,381,161

          I think it's funny that the rural population (20% of total population) and the swing state population (18.22%) are so close.

          Now, obviously a normal electoral-college-election will necessitate different priorities for candidates than a pure popular-vote-election would. So the swing state population coincidentally being so close to the rural population doesn't mean anything (probably).

          However, 20% of the population is a lot. I don't think rural voters would be totally ignored by candidates. (This is pretty much the end of my response to your comment. You can stop reading here if you aren't interested in my ramblings)


          I also wondered, how many people lived in the ten most-populous cities in the United States according to the 2020 Census:

          City Population State
          New York 8,772,978 New York
          Los Angeles 3,889,834 California
          Chicago 2,741,730 Illinois
          Houston 2,300,027 Texas
          Phoenix 1,611,345 Arizona
          Philadelphia 1,601,005 Pennsylvania
          San Antonio 1,438,227 Texas
          San Diego 1,385,394 California
          Dallas 1,303,234 Texas
          San Jose 1,010,908 California
          Total 26,054,682

          So that's six different states, with two states, California and Texas, represented three times, with a total population of 26 million people, or 7.86% of the total population of the United States.


          How many cities, in how many different states, would it take to reach the same population count as rural America (about 66-ish million people)?

          I stopped counting after 100 cities:

          City Population State
          New York 8,772,978 New York
          Los Angeles 3,889,834 California
          Chicago 2,741,730 Illinois
          Houston 2,300,027 Texas
          Phoenix 1,611,345 Arizona
          Philadelphia 1,601,005 Pennsylvania
          San Antonio 1,438,227 Texas
          San Diego 1,385,394 California
          Dallas 1,303,234 Texas
          San Jose 1,010,908 California
          Austin 963,121 Texas
          Jacksonville 950,463 Florida
          Fort Worth 922,592 Texas
          Columbus 905,860 Ohio
          Indianapolis 887,382 Indiana
          Charlotte 876,747 North Carolina
          San Francisco 870,014 California
          Seattle 738,172 Washington
          Denver 717,630 Colorado
          Washington 690,093 District of Columbia
          Nashville 689,248 Tennessee
          Oklahoma City 682,760 Oklahoma
          El Paso 678,598 Texas
          Boston 674,272 Massachusetts
          Portland 652,388 Oregon
          Las Vegas 643,292 Nevada
          Detroit 638,176 Michigan
          Louisville 632,037 Kentucky
          Memphis 631,326 Tennessee
          Baltimore 583,132 Maryland
          Milwaukee 576,301 Wisconsin
          Albuquerque 564,648 New Mexico
          Fresno 542,159 California
          Tucson 541,859 Arizona
          Sacramento 523,416 California
          Kansas City 507,932 Missouri
          Mesa 505,860 Arizona
          Atlanta 499,586 Georgia
          Omaha 491,168 Nebraska
          Colorado Springs 480,213 Colorado
          Raleigh 467,425 North Carolina
          Long Beach 464,759 California
          Virginia Beach 459,373 Virginia
          Miami 441,889 Florida
          Oakland 439,341 California
          Minneapolis 429,014 Minnesota
          Tulsa 412,629 Oklahoma
          Bakersfield 403,401 California
          Wichita 397,117 Kansas
          Arlington 393,985 Texas
          Aurora 386,580 Colorado
          Tampa 383,980 Florida
          New Orleans 383,282 Louisiana
          Cleveland 372,032 Ohio
          Honolulu 349,800 Hawaii
          Anaheim 347,089 California
          Lexington 322,403 Kentucky
          Stockton 320,745 California
          Henderson 319,055 Nevada
          Corpus Christi 317,852 Texas
          Riverside 314,655 California
          St. Paul 310,942 Minnesota
          Newark 310,350 New Jersey
          Cincinnati 310,113 Ohio
          Santa Ana 309,888 California
          Orlando 307,603 Florida
          Irvine 306,389 California
          Pittsburgh 302,777 Pennsylvania
          St. Louis 300,528 Missouri
          Greensboro 297,808 North Carolina
          Jersey City 291,927 New Jersey
          Lincoln 291,383 Nebraska
          Anchorage 290,637 Alaska
          Plano 286,668 Texas
          Durham 284,400 North Carolina
          Buffalo 277,908 New York
          Chandler 277,556 Arizona
          Chula Vista 276,466 California
          Toledo 270,041 Ohio
          Gilbert 269,206 Arizona
          Madison 268,846 Wisconsin
          North Las Vegas 264,216 Nevada
          Fort Wayne 264,169 Indiana
          Reno 264,116 Nevada
          St. Petersburg 258,658 Florida
          Lubbock 257,882 Texas
          Irving 256,873 Texas
          Laredo 255,336 Texas
          Chesapeake 249,679 Virginia
          Winston-Salem 249,349 North Carolina
          Glendale 248,797 Arizona
          Garland 245,478 Texas
          Scottsdale 241,933 Arizona
          Norfolk 237,591 Virginia
          Boise City 235,829 Idaho
          Fremont 231,673 California
          Spokane 228,850 Washington
          Santa Clarita 228,487 California
          Richmond 226,670 Virginia
          Baton Rouge 224,480 Louisiana
          Total 64,953,035

          So we're still short about 1.3 million people, but I think it's good enough.

          This is the spread of states represented in that list:

          Count State Place
          17 California 1
          13 Texas 2
          7 Arizona 3
          5 North Carolina 4
          5 Florida 5
          4 Virginia 6
          4 Ohio 7
          4 Nevada 8
          3 Colorado 9
          2 Wisconsin 10
          2 Washington 11
          2 Tennessee 12
          2 Pennsylvania 13
          2 Oklahoma 14
          2 New York 15
          2 New Jersey 16
          2 Nebraska 17
          2 Missouri 18
          2 Minnesota 19
          2 Louisiana 20
          2 Kentucky 21
          2 Indiana 22
          1 Oregon 23
          1 New Mexico 24
          1 Michigan 25
          1 Massachusetts 26
          1 Maryland 27
          1 Kansas 28
          1 Illinois 29
          1 Idaho 30
          1 Hawaii 31
          1 Georgia 32
          1 District of Columbia 33
          1 Alaska 34

          So that's 34 total "states" represented in the list, counting Washington D.C.

          I don't think this data proves that presidential candidates would have to campaign in more states, and more diverse settings, to be elected in a popular-vote-election. However, I certainly don't think this data helps the opposite argument either (that campaign priorities would somehow stay the same, or even be less diverse).

          I think to make a strong case either way, you would need to tie this data in with recent political party election trends.

          For example, New York is the most populous city in the country, but if (for example) it leans super heavily towards Democrats, then maybe their presidential candidate wouldn't need to bother campaigning there much, if at all. Is that a correct assumption to make? I don't know.

          I do think, in a popular-vote-election, the political leaning of any given location matters less, since every single vote has the same 1:1 "power" as every other, anywhere else (versus the electoral college system).

          This is where I approach the limits of my "election knowledge" though, so I'll let someone else ride off this comment to provide their own insight if they wish.


          Tagging @Eji1700, because I originally started putting this comment together a few days ago as a response to your comment on another topic. Specifically, this part:

          I don't see how it's going to be any better when they only focus their time on a couple of cities.

          9 votes
        3. [3]
          vord
          Link Parent
          Thats why we should just merge all the tiny states until they have enough population to equal a medium-sized state.

          Thats why we should just merge all the tiny states until they have enough population to equal a medium-sized state.

          1 vote
          1. [2]
            public
            Link Parent
            The problem there is it may create incoherent states with internal partisan conflict because the components are too different to be stable.

            The problem there is it may create incoherent states with internal partisan conflict because the components are too different to be stable.

            8 votes
            1. vord
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              You mean like Pennsylvania? Highly divergent interests are nothing new...basically every single city in a red state. At the end of the day, you just have a phase-in plan where initially all the...

              You mean like Pennsylvania?

              Highly divergent interests are nothing new...basically every single city in a red state.

              At the end of the day, you just have a phase-in plan where initially all the state laws become county laws, give a bit of grandfathering in, form a new state constitution, and let all the overlap between state laws 'bubble up' to the new state. Once you unify the tax code it'll become pretty manageable.

              It's not like there isn't any process to create a new state....just one we haven't used in several decades. Our traditional method is to throw away the old laws of the people who lived there, but since we have a more robust federal government, there's no reason that merging states would need to be an impossible task....they would just fallback to a default 'federal-only' jurisdiction ala Washington DC until they sort out the details.

              4 votes
  2. [15]
    heraplem
    (edited )
    Link
    I don't know anyone who supports the Electoral College, but I find the racism angle a little suspect. Not that there's definitely no one for whom racism is a motivator, but that there's another...

    I don't know anyone who supports the Electoral College, but I find the racism angle a little suspect. Not that there's definitely no one for whom racism is a motivator, but that there's another explanation: cognitive dissonance. The Electoral College (currently) benefits Republicans, so, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, Republican voters are motivated to believe that it is a good thing. So they start with that position and then find reasons to believe it.

    13 votes
    1. [14]
      jackson
      Link Parent
      It's more of a historic thing: EC votes are assigned based on population, not vote counts. Since enslaved people were counted in population ("the three-fifths compromise") but were unable to vote,...

      but I find the racism angle a little suspect

      It's more of a historic thing: EC votes are assigned based on population, not vote counts. Since enslaved people were counted in population ("the three-fifths compromise") but were unable to vote, slave states had an advantage in elections.

      14 votes
      1. [13]
        heraplem
        Link Parent
        I understand that historical racism is part of why the Electoral College exists in the first place, and I agree that its continued existence is a form of systemic racism, but the piece...

        I understand that historical racism is part of why the Electoral College exists in the first place, and I agree that its continued existence is a form of systemic racism, but the piece specifically says that personal racial animus is the reason why people still support it today.

        7 votes
        1. [12]
          DefinitelyNotAFae
          Link Parent
          I do believe that much of the "the cities aren't real America" and the way that "urban" is basically a synonym for "black" are built from that same racial animus. Chicago is talked about as a...

          I do believe that much of the "the cities aren't real America" and the way that "urban" is basically a synonym for "black" are built from that same racial animus. Chicago is talked about as a hellscape of violence and during a recent incident in my general area, it was absolutely a case of locals saying "they" needed to stay in "the city" (and many other comments were explicitly racist rather than just implicitly).

          There is deep racism embedded in these former sundown towns.

          21 votes
          1. [11]
            ButteredToast
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            I also get the sense that some number of invididuals living in rural, semi-rural, and suburban parts of the country, even parts that have traditionally been less racist, consider citydwellers to...

            I also get the sense that some number of invididuals living in rural, semi-rural, and suburban parts of the country, even parts that have traditionally been less racist, consider citydwellers to be incomprehisible and borderline an entirely different species. It might sound ridiculous but I've seen it myself, having grown up and/or lived in those areas.

            12 votes
            1. [10]
              DefinitelyNotAFae
              Link Parent
              I've spent most of my life in the small city/ suburban Midwest, hours from any major city, lots of corn. Believe me I've heard it all. But I've learned over time how often "go back to Chicago" is...

              I've spent most of my life in the small city/ suburban Midwest, hours from any major city, lots of corn. Believe me I've heard it all.

              But I've learned over time how often "go back to Chicago" is said alongside references to the jungle, animals, savages, and all but the N word. (Usually.) The city of STL is much the same, vs the county. Not sure about Indy or the cities that get smaller from there, but mostly because Chicago takes up so much of the local attention.

              8 votes
              1. [9]
                updawg
                Link Parent
                It really is crazy in Illinois how many rural people don't seem to (consciously) understand how (proportionally) insignificant they are. I'm sure part of the problem is that they do get it, but...

                It really is crazy in Illinois how many rural people don't seem to (consciously) understand how (proportionally) insignificant they are. I'm sure part of the problem is that they do get it, but refuse to consciously wrap their minds around it because when you read comments on news articles or Facebook posts, the hot takes are absurd.

                They act like it's unfair how much focus Chicago gets and how those city folk are a bunch of idiots who [insert complete nonsense]. But Illinois is one of the most urbanized states and Chicagoland alone makes up, I believe, over ⅔ of the state population and something like 80% of the state's wages.

                Now, I won't say the rest of the state isn't ignored and that certain areas, especially in the south and west of the state aren't even deprived, but man, they act like they make up a majority of the state just because there's a lot of empty land. It's really baffling if you're from the city.

                But realizing that a lot of people in the state really have no context to wrap their head around how huge the population of Chicagoland is starts to explain it. It can be hard to admit how insignificant you are, but it's a lot easier when you know you live around 9 million other people than when you know all 400 people in your town and constantly hear about how those city folk are doing things you've been raised your whole life to know are wrong because the Bible says so (even though it doesn't).

                7 votes
                1. [2]
                  DefinitelyNotAFae
                  Link Parent
                  Well and I'm talking cities of 50-150k, not even tiny towns though I live in a village technically now I think (idk there's townships and villages and it's weird). Even there there's an...

                  Well and I'm talking cities of 50-150k, not even tiny towns though I live in a village technically now I think (idk there's townships and villages and it's weird).

                  Even there there's an anti-Chicago angle that's at least 50 percent racism and at least 50 percent because they're Dem leaning and maybe 10 percent about corruption. Even in Springfield. (These cities themselves tend to turn their county's blue in elections but there's still a large amount of this and the racism is not limited to one side.)

                  Meanwhile I have a couple of siblings in Chicago now, and their neighborhoods are safe, I use city rules for parking (no valuables visible in the car) and never feel unsafe. But my hometown has a "omg you'll get shot there" reputation too and I've lived in a bigger city for college so I just don't feel so phased or intimidated by the propaganda.

                  6 votes
                  1. updawg
                    Link Parent
                    Yeah I'm from Chicagoland originally and where I live now it's insane what the people believe about the City. They are absolutely astonished when I tell them how pleasant and safe it is and how...

                    Yeah I'm from Chicagoland originally and where I live now it's insane what the people believe about the City. They are absolutely astonished when I tell them how pleasant and safe it is and how often I go there. They legitimately think it's burning and falling apart. It's so close they could visit literally every single weekend. I just don't get it!

                    8 votes
                2. [6]
                  public
                  Link Parent
                  This urban/rural divide is the easiest example of what I had in mind when I made my earlier reply saying that “just combine small states” won’t work. It’s how you get local elections where all...

                  This urban/rural divide is the easiest example of what I had in mind when I made my earlier reply saying that “just combine small states” won’t work. It’s how you get local elections where all viable candidates promise “we will not enforce the new law here”—because said law was passed by the urban majority to address city problems.

                  I keep toying with the idea that the strip along Lake Michigan between Gary and Milwaukee ought to be sectioned off from Wisconsin & Illinois and become an independent federal district (if not outright new state).

                  3 votes
                  1. [5]
                    DefinitelyNotAFae
                    Link Parent
                    No thank you, please do not remove the financial backbone of my state and leave me alone with reps like Mary Miller. This has been proposed by a bunch of conservative assholes around here, once...

                    No thank you, please do not remove the financial backbone of my state and leave me alone with reps like Mary Miller.

                    This has been proposed by a bunch of conservative assholes around here, once again due to racism and the like, and No Thanks.

                    6 votes
                    1. [4]
                      updawg
                      Link Parent
                      Also, all the corn farmers depend on Chicago financially, not just because of the tax money, but because Chicago is the center of the global derivatives and commodities market. The prices of their...

                      Also, all the corn farmers depend on Chicago financially, not just because of the tax money, but because Chicago is the center of the global derivatives and commodities market. The prices of their corn and soybeans are literally set in Chicago. Why would they want to lose their only link to that???

                      3 votes
                      1. [3]
                        DefinitelyNotAFae
                        Link Parent
                        I mean they'd definitely expect interstate Chicago trade to have zero negative outcomes to them whatsoever. This isn't logical, racism isn't really based on logic, but a lot of anti-city attitude...

                        I mean they'd definitely expect interstate Chicago trade to have zero negative outcomes to them whatsoever.

                        This isn't logical, racism isn't really based on logic, but a lot of anti-city attitude is based on racism

                        5 votes
                        1. [2]
                          vord
                          Link Parent
                          All those damn urbanites with their inferior violent culture preventing them from succeeding and tainting our women and children with their rap music and the devil's weed. ...I'm betting almost...

                          All those damn urbanites with their inferior violent culture preventing them from succeeding and tainting our women and children with their jazz rap music and the devil's weed.

                          ...I'm betting almost all of that city hate is racism, if not intentionally, definitely via the lens of white privilege and "colorblindness."

                          The only exceptions being noise, pollution, and lack of privacy. Those are the main legitimate reasons to hate city life (that are not direct result of bad policy).

                          2 votes
                          1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                            Link Parent
                            There's a difference between hating living in a huge city (I wouldn't love it, personally, there's just a lot of people and they're so horribly inaccessible in so many ways), and hating the city....

                            There's a difference between hating living in a huge city (I wouldn't love it, personally, there's just a lot of people and they're so horribly inaccessible in so many ways), and hating the city.

                            But yeah at the least since the Great Migration, I'd say the urban v rural divide is a lot about racism. (Probably before that with immigration and free Black folks and just New Orleans being New Orleans probably too).

                            3 votes
  3. [12]
    TreeFiddyFiddy
    Link
    I guess I'm one of the few people online who would still advocate for the electoral college. Most of the problems people associate with the electoral college today have to do with winner take all...

    I guess I'm one of the few people online who would still advocate for the electoral college. Most of the problems people associate with the electoral college today have to do with winner take all systems, plural intentional. The constitution dictates that states will send electors proportional to their congressional representation but that is all, the rest is left up to the states themselves as far as how the run elections, count votes, and allocate electors. In fact, two states still currently divide their electors by the proportion of votes the candidates receive. The solution doesn't need to be to abolish the electoral college but rather to reinstate proportional elector allocation, abolish winner-takes-all systems.

    I look back on the intentions set forth by the creation of the electoral college and largely agree with them:

    • Forming a deliberative body of experts to elect the best candidate in line with the will of the general populace

    • Slower and less reactive systems are generally a good balance for governments and while not optimal are arguable better than more reactive systems. A properly administered electoral college could add deliberateness and contemplativeness to elections

    • Giving smaller states a larger voice in the governing of the country as a whole (often derided but I find this is often a misunderstanding of what a federal system is and why it's a good thing)

    • I wish that we could walk back the party ticket system, there is rational as to why the runner up to the election should be the presiding officer of the senate and have the tie-breaking vote

    • The electoral college has been confirmed to have overrode the popular vote only four times in the existence of the US and all of them are attributable to the winner-takes-all systems in place, again the problem does not lie directly with the electoral college

    • Decisive political environments are exactly the times when direct elections are more dangerous and not as desirable

    In short, no electoral system is or will be perfect but the long stability of the US does lend credence to the arguments that government systems which are slower acting, more balanced with power sharing, and with circuit breakers in place (separation of powers) to calm the populace and stop any one faction from usurping power are better for the country in the long-term. Of course there are disadvantages to the electoral college but I would argue they are outweighed by the advantages, if the system were correctly administrated and later reforms were reconsidered and repealed

    13 votes
    1. [10]
      heraplem
      Link Parent
      Aren't those two things contradictory? Faithless electors are incompatible with proportional representation. And if we're going to have proportional representation, why not just cut out the middle...

      The solution doesn't need to be to abolish the electoral college but rather to reinstate proportional elector allocation, abolish winner-takes-all systems.

      Forming a deliberative body of experts to elect the best candidate in line with the will of the general populace

      Aren't those two things contradictory? Faithless electors are incompatible with proportional representation.

      And if we're going to have proportional representation, why not just cut out the middle people?

      8 votes
      1. [9]
        TreeFiddyFiddy
        Link Parent
        Yes, they're contradictory but deliberately so. Direct democracy can be dangerous (i.e. tyranny of majorities or the election of demagogues) so the system was designed that the will of the people...

        Yes, they're contradictory but deliberately so. Direct democracy can be dangerous (i.e. tyranny of majorities or the election of demagogues) so the system was designed that the will of the people should generally be followed but the electors can override their choice when necessary and after great internal deliberation. I wouldn't choose to use the word contradictory in this case, rather, complimentary.

        3 votes
        1. [5]
          psi
          Link Parent
          But weakening democracy risks creating a tyranny of the minority, a.k.a. plain 'ol tyranny. Ultimately I find safeguarding our democracy against populism by making it less democratic to be a...

          But weakening democracy risks creating a tyranny of the minority, a.k.a. plain 'ol tyranny. Ultimately I find safeguarding our democracy against populism by making it less democratic to be a losing proposition, as that allows populist policies to be implemented without even having a bare majority.

          At any rate, consider me dubious that the electoral college will save us from populism or tyranny when it is currently being exploited by the populist tyrant-aspirant.

          10 votes
          1. [4]
            TreeFiddyFiddy
            Link Parent
            I think that's a hard position for me to accept as the entire United States government was created on the basis explicitly not to be democratic. It's a cliche at this point but...the United States...

            I think that's a hard position for me to accept as the entire United States government was created on the basis explicitly not to be democratic. It's a cliche at this point but...the United States is an elected representational republic, not a democracy and this system was explicitly chosen as another link in the checks and balances system. Reducing democratic action certainly does limit populism when slim majorities are unable to use governmental force for tyrannical or other populist purposes. Stopping a slim majority from doing something is not the same as forcing the same constituency to do something, so I'm not seeing how are system as it currently exists is leading to widespread force as you allude to. Can you please give me some examples of positive action i.e. the government forcing people through law where a majority wasn't present?

            when it is currently being exploited by the populist tyrant-aspirant

            Please explain this, I don't understand how anyone is currently "exploiting" the electoral college system. I've already argued against winner-takes-all but even in that case, either you have the votes or you don't. What exploitation are you referencing?

            3 votes
            1. [3]
              psi
              Link Parent
              America is also referred to as the "American experiment", as it was the first modern attempt at a democracy. We shouldn't treat everything that the founders did as sacrosanct; otherwise there...

              I think that's a hard position for me to accept as the entire United States government was created on the basis explicitly not to be democratic. It's a cliche at this point but...the United States is an elected representational republic, not a democracy and this system was explicitly chosen as another link in the checks and balances system.

              America is also referred to as the "American experiment", as it was the first modern attempt at a democracy. We shouldn't treat everything that the founders did as sacrosanct; otherwise there wouldn't be 16 Amendments to the Constitution beyond the Bill of Rights. Indeed, a few of those Constitutional Amendments exactly undermine your contention that the United States is better off as a republic: the 17th Amendment ensured that Senators are elected by popular vote; the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments expanded the right to vote beyond the white, wealthy, and landed gentry, who at the country's founding considered themselves the "deliberative and contemplative" electorate, to borrow your words. With respect to the electoral college, in the majority of states it is required that electors vote for the candidate for whom they pledged to vote [1]. So with respect to your claim that the electorate college

              Form[s] a deliberative body of experts to elect the best candidate in line with the will of the general populace

              that is explicitly not how the electorate college works. If the electoral college were to elect a candidate other than the one they'd been selected to elect, a Constitutional crisis would surely follow.

              Can you please give me some examples of positive action i.e. the government forcing people through law where a majority wasn't present?

              Sure, 1825-29, 1977-81, 1889-93, 2001-05, and 2017-21 -- the five Presidencies in American history where the majority of the population voted for someone other than the President-elect, and yet that person still took the Presidency. We could also include every election prior to 1971, that is, before the 26th Amendment was ratified and every American adult was given the right to vote.

              And this is before considering how Senate Republicans have disproportionate representation in the government despite representing a significantly smaller portion of the population (in the 2022 election, 36% less [1]), as well as how that disproportionality propagates to a disproportionality in the composition of the federal judiciary.

              Please explain this, I don't understand how anyone is currently "exploiting" the electoral college system.

              In your words, the electoral college is a "deliberative" and "contemplative" body meant to protect us. Yet the electoral college does not contemplate; it merely votes as it is pledged, with a few exceptions that have had no bearing on the eventual outcome. Nevertheless, the electoral college has in the past 2 out of 6 elections allowed a minority voice to ascend to the highest office in the United States, and in 2016 elected the least qualified candidate in American history. That is the exploitation I am referring to -- a body meant to prevent populism and tyranny has done nothing to prevent that but instead made it easier for a populist authoritarian sympathizer to seize power.


              1. "Faithless Elector." Wikipedia
              2. "The 2023–2024 U.S. Senate Is Exceedingly Unrepresentative in Multiple Ways." Medium.
              4 votes
              1. [2]
                TreeFiddyFiddy
                Link Parent
                I think we've both made our points but there are a few inaccuracies I'd like to address, since they partially misconstrue what I said. A republic is a form of government where the people or their...

                I think we've both made our points but there are a few inaccuracies I'd like to address, since they partially misconstrue what I said.

                Indeed, a few of those Constitutional Amendments exactly undermine your contention that the United States is better off as a republic.

                A republic is a form of government where the people or their elected representatives control power and not an autocrat or king. Nothing in the constitution undermines that the US is a republic, this must either be a fatal misunderstanding of the amendments cited or a misunderstanding of what a republic is. Either way I never said the US was a Republic period, I stated that the US is an elected representational republic. Nothing about who was allowed to vote when or who elects senators changes that fact, which is a fact while America being referred to as an "experiment," while being true is not a fact. There is a difference.

                17th Amendment ensured that Senators are elected by popular vote

                Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with my argument so I don't see why it's brought up but without digressing too far, the 17th amendment was a big mistake and caused more problems than the one it was trying to fix

                Form[s] a deliberative body of experts to elect the best candidate in line with the will of the general populace

                I never said this and you've even marked where you edited the quote itself. The actual quote is:

                I look back on the intentions set forth by the creation of the electoral college and largely agree with them: ... Forming a deliberative body

                I never claimed our current Electoral College system is a deliberative and contemplative body. In fact, I don't believe it is. I'm going to assume that you misread what I wrote and that it was not intentional.

                With respect to the electoral college, in the majority of states it is required that electors vote for the candidate for whom they pledged to vote

                Most states impose mere fines for being a faithless elector and in fact there have already been a few examples of this happening within recent memory, there is no actual force that can compel the electors to vote a certain way. At the end of the day, an elector can still vote his or her conscience regardless of what the state law says.

                Can you please give me some examples of positive action i.e. the government forcing people through law where a majority wasn't present?

                This question was speaking on government majorities and force in general and not about the Electoral College or elections. It was in response to your previous comment as well as mine having widened the field of question beyond the scope of the electoral system in the US. In any case, even if we narrow it to elections: Only four elections were confirmed to have ever been overridden by the Electoral College, not five, and bringing up votes previous to when we had universal suffrage has nothing to do with the fact that the electorate was the electorate despite who was allowed to vote. It changes the argument 0% when discussing how the electoral college functions.

                And this is before considering how Senate Republicans have disproportionate representation in the government despite representing a significantly smaller portion of the population (in the 2022 election, 36% less [1]), as well as how that disproportionality propagates to a disproportionality in the composition of the federal judiciary.

                This is a very telling statement that reveals a deep misunderstanding on constitutionality and the federal government as a whole. Attacking the equal representation of the senate, while a worthy debate, cannot be separated from the existence of the US itself. The entire basis of the creation of the US is that states would receive equal representation, without that there would be no US today. So important was this that the constitution specifically forbids any amendment that would change the equal representation of the Senate, you can literally amend anything in the US constitution except for that one thing. To even talk about reforming the senate we're discussing drafting an entirely new constitution and form of government. While you are correct that the senate is not representational population-wise it is fully fairly representational state-wise and the senate itself is made to represent state governments, not the people, so any claim that there is a lack of majority in the senate is not only offset by the fact that the senate does not work unilaterally but also that the senate by definition is equally weighted - as it should be.

                In your words, the electoral college is a "deliberative" and "contemplative" body meant to protect us

                Again, I never said this

                That is the exploitation I am referring to

                That is not exploitation. The electorate is the electorate, and the electoral college is the system it is. Taking a wholly neutral stance on the issue: the system works completely as intended and subsequently modified, either you have the votes to win in the Electoral College or not. No one is exploiting the system, they are simply acting within it. The system sucks, I agree, but I find most fault with the winner-takes-all provisions and think that the immediate conclusion to eliminate the system rather than reform it are shortsighted but even as much as the system sucks as it currently is, no one is exploiting it

                2 votes
                1. psi
                  Link Parent
                  To be honest, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think my point is clear enough: if the Electoral College is meant to protect us against populism and tyrannical forces (i.e. act...

                  I never claimed our current Electoral College system is a deliberative and contemplative body. In fact, I don't believe it is. I'm going to assume that you misread what I wrote and that it was not intentional.

                  To be honest, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think my point is clear enough: if the Electoral College is meant to protect us against populism and tyrannical forces (i.e. act as "a deliberative body"), then it has clearly failed; instead it appears to aggravate these forces by allowing a bare minority to impose their unpopular, undemocratic mandate on others.

                  You seem to be defending the Electoral College based on some idealization of it rather than how it actually functions. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but it seems to me that your argument boils down to: We are a democratic republic; therefore the Electoral College is good. But this strikes me as a non-sequitur. How does the Electoral College provide better outcomes than direct democracy for Presidential elections? If we already elect members of Congress by popular vote, why should we not elect the President that way, too? What republican duty does the Electoral College actually serve?

                  So let me recenter the conversation by returning to your original post.

                  Forming a deliberative body of experts to elect the best candidate in line with the will of the general populace

                  As we have both acknowledged, the Electoral College does not do this.

                  Slower and less reactive systems are generally a good balance for governments and while not optimal are arguable better than more reactive systems. A properly administered electoral college could add deliberateness and contemplativeness to elections

                  Again, the Electoral College does not do this.

                  Giving smaller states a larger voice in the governing of the country as a whole (often derided but I find this is often a misunderstanding of what a federal system is and why it's a good thing)

                  I agree that the Electoral College serves this purpose.

                  I wish that we could walk back the party ticket system, there is rational as to why the runner up to the election should be the presiding officer of the senate and have the tie-breaking vote

                  I don't agree, but this point is irrelevant with respect to the Electoral College.

                  The electoral college has been confirmed to have overrode the popular vote only four times in the existence of the US and all of them are attributable to the winner-takes-all systems in place, again the problem does not lie directly with the electoral college

                  This appears to undermine your own argument: if the popular vote is the benchmark, then we should consider some of those incidents in which the results diverged, for example the 2016 election which gave the Presidency to Trump. How did the Electoral College yield a better result than the popular vote in this particular case?

                  I agree that winner-takes-all is an issue, but from my perspective the Electoral College exacerbates it.

                  Decisive political environments are exactly the times when direct elections are more dangerous and not as desirable

                  Hard disagree. Divisive political environments are exactly when you want power to be diffuse, not concentrated in the hands of a few people; that's how democracies becomes dictatorships, as evidenced throughout history from Caesar to Hitler to Putin.

                  1 vote
        2. [3]
          PuddleOfKittens
          Link Parent
          Tyranny of the majority is dangerous, but tyranny of unelected electors can be even more so.

          Tyranny of the majority is dangerous, but tyranny of unelected electors can be even more so.

          4 votes
          1. [2]
            TreeFiddyFiddy
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Most, if not all, of the electors are popularly elected.... That's part of the problem with reactionary opinions on the electoral college, a fundamental lack of understanding by the general people...

            Most, if not all, of the electors are popularly elected....

            That's part of the problem with reactionary opinions on the electoral college, a fundamental lack of understanding by the general people on how it actually works.

            Also, no election has ever been decided by faithless electors and in the whole history of the United States 99% of electors have voted as pledged.

            3 votes
            1. public
              Link Parent
              My favorite faithless elector was the guy who accidentally voted for John Ewards.

              My favorite faithless elector was the guy who accidentally voted for John Ewards.

              1 vote
    2. timo
      Link Parent
      I see you mostly describing the intentions of the Electoral College. In reality, these intentions have little to no positive effect. I do agree that winner-takes-all has the biggest effect, but...

      I see you mostly describing the intentions of the Electoral College. In reality, these intentions have little to no positive effect. I do agree that winner-takes-all has the biggest effect, but both need to go to have fair elections.

      4 votes
  4. [3]
    Eji1700
    Link
    I tried taking this at a line by line serious breakdown of the discussion and then just realized I was wasting my time. There's so much that's wrong with this but quite frankly i'm tired of it....

    I tried taking this at a line by line serious breakdown of the discussion and then just realized I was wasting my time.

    There's so much that's wrong with this but quite frankly i'm tired of it. The Electoral college is not a great system. It's not even a good system. Pure popular vote for the president likely will be just as bad if not worse in 4-10 years after passing, and yes it is never going to happen anyways for both good and bad reasons.

    There are LOTS of sane ways we could do elections, but pure popular vote isn't one of them, and "well i refuted a bunch of MAGA voters points" doesn't really make the argument.

    I've still found very few people who would advocate for the removal of the electoral college with popular vote if it didn't benefit their side/candidates, and if you're coming at it from that perspective, you're already looking at it wrong. I'm just so tired of people assuming that because you dare to defend what idiots are in favor of that you must also be a racist maga voting shithead, so what's the point of even discussing it.

    9 votes
    1. Kind_of_Ben
      Link Parent
      Wait what? Why?

      Pure popular vote for the president likely will be just as bad if not worse in 4-10 years

      Wait what? Why?

      19 votes
    2. Minori
      Link Parent
      What would you rather have than a popular vote for president? I'm struggling to think of issues with the president being a popular vote. Rurals already get outsized representation in the Senate....

      What would you rather have than a popular vote for president? I'm struggling to think of issues with the president being a popular vote. Rurals already get outsized representation in the Senate.

      I'm in favour of democracy, and I view the electoral college as antidemocratic, simple as.

      16 votes
  5. public
    Link
    If we’re keeping the EC, the first necessary reform is to ban states from allocating their electors in a winner-take-all manner, but that’s already been discussed here. However, what I would like...

    If we’re keeping the EC, the first necessary reform is to ban states from allocating their electors in a winner-take-all manner, but that’s already been discussed here.

    However, what I would like to propose is an alternative option for states with 5 or more electors to allocate their votes. This option must be on the ballot and voted in referendum in the same election as the presidential vote. Yes, this timing is deliberate to make it harder to strategize campaigns.

    The option is to assign one vote for the winner of each House district, plus the two “Senate” votes for the overall winner of the state’s popular vote. Ideally, ranked choice or approval would be used—the choice between those two is fine to be mostly set & forget, perhaps have a referendum every 10 years during redistricting whether elections for the next decade use approval or ranked choice.

    Also, uncap the House. That would lessen the distortions of empty states.

    3 votes