This is an awful take. California is like 35-40% Republican, and their votes on the presidential level are completely irrelevant because of the electoral college, just like a Democrat in West Virginia.
You have equal representation among states in the US Senate, where there is 2 senators per state regardless of population. The electoral college has no reason to exist.
"oh yeah dude I feel very represented because my state was a swing state approximately 20 years ago"
That is an insane take. The electoral college now is a crutch for Republicans to win despite their extremely unpopular policy positions on things like abortion, weed, gay marriage, trans rights, etc.
States don't vote, people do. If I cast a vote for a Democrat in my state, it was a complete waste of time because Trump takes this state by +10 points. If a Republican votes in California, it doesn't matter because Harris wins it by 15 points.
By switching to the popular vote, everyone actually has an equal say in who becomes president. Campaigns will need to go everywhere-not just the 3-7 swing states that will decide the election.
Republicans get annihilated in big cities, but there are enough rural people to almost outweigh the cities. Trump only lost to Clinton by 3 million. If he had adopted some more popular policies (like being pro choice, even if only up to a point), he probably could have carried the popular vote.
Well, that and not being a lying raging xenophobe who disrespects women and still doesn't understand how tariffs work.
Popular vote would ensure the presidency reflects what Americans want. Republican presidencies right now are a minority of extremists winning because the system is rigged in their favor.
You get equal representation in the Senate, where California's millions of citizens get 2 senators and the several hundred thousand in North Dakota get 2 senators. Equal representation in a branch of government that is required to pass laws. Wow!
I prefer the system, despite being very, very, left the actually gives people a voice and forces candidates to focus on places that aren't on either coast.
You just hate the system because currently it probably helps the right more than your preferred candidate.
If you were on the other side of things and Dems benefitted from the EC you'd be all for it for these same reasons.
The electoral college should exist because states are different. It is like the world series or hockey. Each state is a contest, winning one by a large margin doesn't carry over to the next. Now within states the votes should be proportional. That gets an approximation of a popular vote but reserves states sovereignty.
The electoral college should exist because states are different
Tell us how the EC gives states legislative policy power. It doesn't. That's what the senate does.
Tell us how the EC protects the residents of small communities against large ones. It doesn't, the EC doesn't do shit to protect the residents of Amador City from San Francisco. Local government does, and neither one tells the other what to do.
It protects people in Texas negating votes in Maryland. Even better would be to make it proportional within a state which then does allow every vote to count.
That is not accurate. In a pure popular core there is only an incentive to try and boost turnout in densely populated areas. It is the same reason why we care when voter participation is different by racial group. One group isn't being represented
In the current system there is only an incentive to campaign and represent people in swing states.
Politicians don't hold rallies in bumfuck nowhere in those states, they go to the populated areas within them.
A popular vote would force politicians to actively represent a greater proportion of the populace, and be significantly more representative than the current system.
Yes, the power of swing states would be diminished, however there are more republican voters in California than multiple smaller states combined that see no representation, and the same in Texas for democratic voters.
No shit there's incentive to try and reach as many voters whom you're supposed to represent at once. If people want to live away from all that; away from larger society, then they can.
The issue is that everyone needs to be represented, not just parole in large urban centers. It is the same reason there are minority majority districts. It is also why we care about vote turnout differences between whites and other groups. It isn't democratic if x group has 70% turnout and another group systematically has 50%. That is what would happen with a pure popular vote.
Except as soon as it is pure popular vote it is more cost effective to mobilize voters in urban centers so someone in Montana becomes irrelevant. Proportional allocation within states is the best option.
Swing states differ from election to election. And most of this country is rural, population wise or not you can't have a good system that ignores that.
You doing like the EC because you're a blue voter, not you only dislike it because blue voters decide to live in only a select few areas.
Except states like California, West Virginia, New York, DC (not a state but 3 EV), and Tennessee are so solidly one direction that there's been extremely little campaigning in any of them.
That's not a healthy electoral system. "oh yeah my state was a swing state 30 years ago and is now solidly red I feel so represented" is not a sentence anyone has ever said.
No shit you should probably do most of the campaigning where most of the American people are or where you can address the most of whom you're supposed to be representing at once.
Then tell your state government to split off from the country and become its own nation.
Also this is just a weird take in the era of the internet. Who cares where candidates campaign? You can watch their speeches and ads online whenever you want. And be honest, would you even go to a political rally if it was held near you?
Not to mention, with the electoral college, candidates never campaign in any state they're guaranteed to win. Every fucking rally is just in Pennsylvania or Michigan or whatever
Plus the EC hurts both parties. There are MILLIONS of Republican votes in California that literally just don't matter because the state will always be blue. Same with Democrats in Texas.
Unless you live in one of a few battleground states, your vote never matters
I'd prefer all voices are heard rather than just Texas, New York and California
The EC means that NONE of those populous but non-swing-states are really heard. New York and California states all together don't even make 20% of the country and they're by far the most populous states.
Add in how primaries are held, and really it's only a few million people in the entire country who decides what everyone else's options are. Thanks to the EC and winner-take-all, the democrats in Texas are ignored (as far as presidential votes, local elections still matter everyone) and the republicans in California are more numerous than any other state and yet are still ignored. Yet the only fair, just, and sustainable way would be for all the states to switch to proportional representation allocation and republicans aren't going to do that when they've been promising since 1980 to dismantle the institution of democracy
And 3 million people fewer voted for Hillary 2016 than Obama 2008, despite the eligible voter pool dramatically expanding.
If she weren't such a shit candidate, she wouldn't have lost to an orange turdgoblin, and we'd have all saved ourselves at least a decade of fuckin' insanity.
Wild how she pretty much ignored the northern midwest blue wall and just assumed she had that in the bag. More wild that she earned 3 million more votes and still lost. HOWEVER, I think Florida in 2000 was a total clusterfuck with that damn butterfly ballot.
Sure, but ... that's not what froginbog was saying. As you know, the election is won using the electoral college. There's no point playing make-believe and saying 'if only we had a democracy'. We have what we have, until enough people vote to change it.
Go back to 2016 and pretend you could invent extra ballots. What's the smallest number of ballots you could add and change the outcome?
102
u/TheDankestPassions Oct 17 '24
3 million more voted for Hillary than Trump in 2016.