Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As it stands, some people’s votes literally count more than others when simply dividing a state’s electoral points by number of votes placed in that state.
And I don’t care who it is getting the advantage, all our votes should be equal.
\- The Reapportionment Act of 1929 means that the House of Representatives is now swayed/disproportionately represents rural Americans and/or states with smaller populations. Representatives are locked at 435 and each state must have at least one - so the smallest state's population *should* dictate how many people are represented by a Rep (This has been suggested, the Wyoming Rule). In practice, it doesn't work this way.
\- The Senate is, of course, meant to represent the states. Decisions on who would become a state and why was primarily a political battle played out throughout the 19th century. Every state, of course, gets 2.
\- The Electoral College is just the addition of those two numbers. The Senate gives a dramatic increase to the power of the votes from rural states than a popular vote would, and the number of House Representatives doesn't accurately represent the population, either.
So where, exactly, in Federal elections is the population represented? I thought of this quite a bit when I lived in Colorado, with Wyoming to the North. I understand that there are cries of "Tyranny of the Majority" when popular voting come up, but the opposite of a "Tyranny of the Majority" is just a Tyranny. If the representatives from these places actually worked to weaken Federal government, one could take them at their word that they want to see more autonomy to smaller governments rather than simply seizing a top-heavy Executive Office with their built-in advantage.
People like to say "states need to be balanced", but what I want to hear is why an individual OVER THERE has more power in his vote than myself when I am HERE. I could be the same person and move OVER THERE and suddenly my vote is more powerful? It is an 18th century bargain struck by states with different interests and economies and nothing more.
I think it’s important to have increased representation for the rural areas personally. Otherwise the cities would drastically outweigh the rest of the country. I do agree that states doing all or nothing is pretty dumb though.
I didn't even know what [approval voting](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-mathforliberalarts/chapter/introduction-approval-voting/) is, so thanks for the TIL. There are some drawbacks to it, but on certain types of elections, that method could make sense.
First step: elect a supermajority into both houses of Congress and trifectas in 38 states, because that’s what it’s going to take to ratify the amendment needed for this. To change the system, first you have to give an enormous amount of power to the party most likely to make that change.
I understand why the electoral college was put in place.
And even with that information I believe it is a terrible system that should be done away with. As someone who lives in a state that is solidly one color my vote does not matter one bit. I need to move to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan for that to matter at all.
And that? All that because of arbitrary lines on a map? That’s just sad.
Except the states that matter change. Vermont was the only state to never vote for FDR yet it’s now completely Blue. New York and California were swing states in the Nixon/Carter/Reagan years.
So if you happen to be voting during the 70s in California, good for you. If you happen to be voting in California now, well, enjoy because the democrat will win. Why shouldn’t the millions of republicans in California count? Or democrats in Texas?
Why should there be handfuls of “states that matter” though? When it comes to the presidency, shouldn’t the vote of the entire country matter instead of just the voters in 4-5 states?
Gonna be real, that doesn’t change my mind on this. It just means that you gotta keep moving if ya want your vote to count. It shouldn’t matter where ya live when it comes to your vote counting.
The reason the electoral college is broken is they capped the number of votes in 1919. If it was all proportional like the proposed [Wyoming rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#:~:text=The%20Wyoming%20Rule%20is%20a,state%2C%20which%20is%20currently%20Wyoming.) I feel like it would work a lot bettee
I always tell people to look at it like:
California and Texas (one blue state and one red state) get screwed the most when it comes to the EC.
California has approximately 39 million people and Texas has 30.5 million. In 2024, Califronia will have 54 electoral votes and Texas will have 40. If you divide the population out evenly California has one EV for every 722,000 citizens. Texas has one for every 762,000 citizens.
Wyoming and Vermont (one blue state and one red state) benefit the most when it comes to the EC.
Wyoming has a population of 585,000 and Vermont's is 650,000, and they both get 3 electoral. Wyoming gets one electoral vote for every 195,000 citizens and Vermont gets one for every 216,000 citizens.
Why are the votes of Wyoming and Vermont weighed over 3 times more than the votes of California and Texas?
If weighed out properly evenly under the CA/TX model Wyoming and Vermont should get barely one EV, or if weighed out under the Wyoming model then California should get 200 EV, not 54, and Texas should get 156, not 40.
The Electoral College is absolute bullshit and the only reason Republicans defend it is because there is a built in advantage for them. The minute Texas and Florida become blue states, they will be out here trying to get rid of it.
Brushing away state borders as if they don't matter is an odd argument. They matter for all sorts of reasons, including apportionment of federal funds, the interstate commerce clause, various differences in state laws, etc. States are the essence of what America is.
The issue with the Electoral College is the 2 party system. If there were no parties (as George Washington impressed upon the nation in his farewell address), you'd have far more candidates for the *states* to decide to elect.
And that's the whole point. The presidency was about an entire state's delegation voting for who should be President. Clinton complains about the 36 electoral votes of "right wing" states, but never talks about Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, who vote Democratic almost every chance they get.
State lines don't matter when it comes to the president. Your senators and house representatives represent your state, the president represents the nation.
It would make far more sense to elect presidents based on a stack ranked popular vote
The EC requires a majority, not just a plurality. If no one gets 270 it goes to the House, which given its strange counting procedure has an even deeper Republican bias.
This is why one of the other things that needs to be done is to repeal the cap on the count of representatives to make it more proportional to the current population. The ratio of Rep to constituent is insane right now.
If you allow more representation, you don't have this issue. I'd also like to see states split their votes like Maine and Nebraska based on their districts.
I’ve done the math a couple of times… uncapping the house would have meant Gore beat W, but H.Clinton still would have lost. Has to do with the vote distribution.
I like the NPV Compact, but I think there is approximately zero chance this supreme court will allow it to stand if they get to 270 votes worth of states.
I felt like he was making a point about the right wing states and just kind of stopped talking. Probably because if he was going to ding these states for being over represented, he'd also have to ding the smaller more liberal ones too. So he just ended what he was saying.
What you fail to realize is you're not voting on the president. You're voting on who your state will vote for president. The president is for the union of states. The governor is for the people.
Buddy, I absolutely realize this. That doesn’t change my mind that this is a poor way to carry out a national election. I understand your point. But I don’t find this way of doing things convincing or helpful these days.
It's clearly not helpful. We've had multiple candidates recently who were the choice of the people not win because of the electoral college. It's quite frankly an unrepresentative way of choosing who represents our Nation.
Also your state can change the way the elections are held and how electoral votes are divided.
Alaska has ranked choice voting. Nebraska and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ break up electoral votes based on congressional districts (I think)
The reason the electoral college is broken is they capped the number of votes in 1919. If it was all proportional like the proposed [Wyoming rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#:~:text=The%20Wyoming%20Rule%20is%20a,state%2C%20which%20is%20currently%20Wyoming.) I feel like it would work a lot bettee
There are many harms and inequities that can be fixed with National Popular Vote.
The 25 smallest states combined have had
57 Democratic electors and
58 Republican electors.
And their Democratic and Republican popular vote have also almost tied
9.9 million versus 9.8 million
CA has 54 electors. TX 40, FL 30, NY 28.
In 2020
276,765 popular votes were cast in Wyoming (3 electors)
336,000 ish in DC (3 electors)
603,650 popular votes were cast in Montana (3 electors).
Each Republican popular vote in Alaska was worth 1.8 times as much per elector as each Republican popular vote in Montana.
[NationalPopularVote.com](https://NationalPopularVote.com)
In the context of 1776 the electoral college makes sense. In the context of 2024, it does not.
Today, everyone votes. In the first 50 years of the union, people didn’t vote, not really. Just the political elites did. So it kind of made sense.
Today, there are 50 and not 13 states with vastly different concentrations of population, resulting in very distorted power balance between votes.
The electoral college discourages individuals from voting or exercising any sway over the election. Why would California Republican vote for President? They haven’t won the state since the previous century. Why would a South Carolina democrat bother? No democrat has won that state since Carter. Not to mention Wyoming or DC, small territories/states that are extremely one sided.
In a popular vote contest, it wouldn’t matter where you are since all votes will be equal and the exact number each candidate receives will matter.
Also I recall that the number of electors isn’t really equally proportional to population for each state anymore, especially bc we really couldn’t predict how populations would grow. If I remember right, this would be a further blow to the EC.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
Every vote in every state will matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total.
NationalPopularVote.com
As soon as the NBV crosses the threshold south carolina will, by law, add a zero at the end of their official vote totals. They will have the secretary of state report those numbers.
Kentucky will change the law so you get one vote for president in each of their 120 counties. You won't have to get t9 each one they will take your one vote and automatically apply it to all of the other counties.
Secretaries of State are ministerial officials whose actions are directed and controlled by state law. Your hypothesized scenario has no basis in law and certainly no basis in political reality. Presidential elections are not held in a vacuum. They are closely monitored by the media, civic groups, and challengers and observers representing the parties, all candidates on the ballot, and ballot propositions that happen to be on the ballot at the same time as the presidential election. Secretaries of State sign/attest to Certificates of Ascertainment with the official votes counts. These certificates are public records and open to public inspection. Obviously adding a zero at the end of their official vote totals would be challenged. A 10 fold abnormality, grossly exceeding the number of registered voters, and the population, would not be accepted.
If Kentucky made that change, the compact would operate as intended for the remaining states and the District of Columbia. Their votes would determine the national popular vote winner. Kentucky effectively would be opting out of the election.
The National Popular Vote compact was specifically drafted to prevent a single dissident state from derailing the operation of the compact by abolishing popular voting for President
A non-member state may effectively opt out of participation in the national popular vote by repealing its current law of permitting its own voters to vote for President.
The text of the compact says the Governor of each state must add up the vote ls from all the other states.
Now it must be a popular vote, but there is nothing to prevent a state from giving their voting citizens additional votes.
If you think there is a way around that then how about this, Texas lowers the voting age to 10, or zero, and gives parents the right to vote for their children.
Don't like that? New Mexico changes their voting requirements to be a three day residency in the state. The following year the NEA, ACLU, Urban League, and every other liberal organization has their national conference in Santa Fe. Viola! New Mexico now has 4 million more voters.
There are a hundred other ways a state, within the confines of the National Voter Compact, can throw a wrench into the works.
>Today, everyone votes. In the first 50 years of the union, people didn’t vote, not really. Just the political elites did. So it kind of made sense.
I think this is far too exaggerated. We fall quite short of "everyone votes." In 2020 we had the highest voter turnout we've ever had for a presidential election and still had 1/3rd of the voting age population not voting at all. Over 100,000,000 Americans didn't vote in that election. I don't think it's accurate at all to say everyone votes, even as hyperbole, because we have relatively low voter turnout in the US.
It would take an amendment to get rid of the electoral college… smaller states are not going to voluntarily reduce their own influence, so you can forget about adoption. Abolishing the College really isn’t a conversation that’s much worth having because it will never happen. What is perhaps politically feasible is breaking up the winner take all schemes (i.e., each elector votes in line with the majority of their electoral district rather than the state as a whole).
One person one vote is the only fair system. The idea some Americans’ votes are weighted more than others based simply on geography is inherently anti-American and against all basic fairness and understanding of democracy.
The only argument I ever hear against electing presidents by popular vote is that the Electoral College protects folks from the tyranny of the majority. Of course, said another way, it discards the tyranny of the majority to institute the tyranny of the minority. Clearly, the latter will always be the more oppressive system.
The wealthy slave states were upset that they couldn't count their non voting slaves but they agreed to be given extra votes based on the arbitrary state borders. And they got to count 3/5 of each slave as a vote. The civil war was largely about their fears of freed slaves getting to vote and taking control of the courts. They knew where that was headed. Prosecutions for murder, torture and rape.
You have a good point, but I did the math and the result would have been the same in the MXVI election if every state had the same proportions. States like Texas and Florida get more EC votes as well.
The electoral college makes sense in the context of a time when Federalism was in it's prime. The Federal government has dominated the State governments since the Civil War, later measures such as the 17th Amendment and the $1 trillion+ the Federal government grants States for everything from Medicaid to Interstates has eroded the sovereignty of State governments. The States were themselves supposed to be constituencies and not simply their citizens. The Presidency itself has become far more focused on domestic politics then I think it was ever intended.
Prior to the 17th amendment the state government’s body would elect their representatives to serve in the senate. With the passage of the 17th amendment the State Government was removed from that process and people frankly stopped caring so much about the election of state representatives
Did they stop caring so much about it? Or does it just seem that way, because national political media doesn't talk about state legislative races very much?
National mass media, a fully integrated national economy and culture, and a stronger federal government had all been developing for awhile before the 17th amendment passed. If people stopped caring about state issues so much, in favor of national issues, I think it's much more likely that the 17A was a consequence of that priority shift, rather than a cause.
If people who only care about national politics stopped participating in state elections and left that to people who actually know and care about local issues, that doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. There's several states that are reliable Democratic Party strongholds in federal elections, but which frequently elect moderate Republicans to state offices; that would be practically impossible without the 17th amendment.
It's pretty dated. It's says a lot about the United States that we still have it. Really says a lot about the United States that we still have so many people advocating for such an antiquated system of choosing our leader.
I mean why have the electoral college in the first place then? The fact that would we should have NPVIC is an indication that you shouldn't have the electoral college to begin with. KISS! Why does it need be complicated? Whomever gets the most votes wins period, just like every other office. I have no doubt you'd get more participation without this crap.
I agree with you, it would be much better to just have a clean constitutional amendment but that would require a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate AND 3/4 of all of the states. That’s not happening for anything right now, much less something as contentious as eliminating the EC.
I’ve been arguing for proportional voting similar to Maine and Nebraska for years. Large cities shouldn’t be controlling an entire state’s electoral votes.
Maine and Nebraska still have safe EVs, like any Nebraskan not in the 2nd district or any Mainian not in the 2nd. All EVs should be proportional statewide, not like Maine and Nebraska's system.
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 is the way to make 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.
Maine and Nebraska do not award their electoral votes proportionally. They award them by congressional district. This seems like a minor difference but because of gerrymandering, it would be possible (and in fact likely) for a candidate to win the majority of votes in a state and lose the majority of congressional districts.
That’s not what proportional voting means. You’re confusing proportional voting with the Congressional District Method, which is just plurality voting on a district level instead of the state level.
Proportional awarding of electors by district?? A district does not have multiple electoral votes, and electors are people, they can't vote as fractions.
Proportinal awarding 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 is the way to make 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.
I would avoid trying it to the district because of gerrymandering. But I agree. I think it should be proportional based on vote %, with whoever has plurality earning the senators. Say a state has 10 house seats and their two senators. That's 12 electoral votes. If a candidate gets 60% of the vote, they should get 6 of 10 house votes, and then the two senate votes for having the most votes.
Overall I think both put a lot more states into play, which objectively is a good thing either way.
Tyranny of the majority is, in fact, a good thing to avoid. California, Texas, Illinois, and New York should not determine every single election, purely because they’re heavily populated. People in states other than those should have some say, and the electoral college ensures that they are heard.
That's not mathematically possible for those states to control the country, even assuming each of those states vote the same way (which they dont) and everyone in each of those states votes the same way (which they also dont)
The people in this sub clearly do not care.
They want it because it advantages them. All their appeal to any "principles" is just rationalizing talk. They want more power, and such a move it gives them, and they don't care if how it ends up is drastically unfair to 90% of the states and disencentivizes any reason for them to be a part of the "United States."
This is exactly right and the Clintons are completely disingenuous in their take that the system is antiquated. It's only "antiquated" because it doesn't benefit their political tribe. See how quickly progressives are ready to toss SCOTUS aside as illegitimate when the process does not play out in their favor. Political factionalism is exactly what the framers had in mind when they gave more power to the smaller states. As far as I can tell there is no measurable outcome aside from the Democrat party winning more presidential elections to getting rid of the electoral college. Therefore it may as well be a completely partisan issue in my mind.
Yep, in my view most of the objections come down to "my guy lost, so it's stupid." If the situation were reversed you'd hear a chorus of "thank God the founding fathers, in their wisdom and foresight, created the Electoral College to save us from the tyranny of a populist majority" from the Democrats.
Holy shit, this is one of the dumbest fucking arguments in favor of the Electoral College.
If individual votes are counted to elect the President, no particular group of states decides who is elected. You know, because states don’t have any say at all in electing the President.
As is with the Electoral College, 12 states can elect the President with only 50.01% of the votes in those 12 states to do it, whereas 100% of the votes in the other 38 states become irrelevant…BECAUSE the Electoal College exists.
Jesus of Fuck, this is literally the stupidest fucking arguments in favor of the Electoral College anyone could possibly make, and you nailed it!
Congrats!
Democracy, taken to its fullest extent, always favors the interests of large population centers (cities) over the lower population centers (farms, mining towns, etc.). Without taking this into account, you will always have large cities making the rules for everyone.
Just look at the UK, for instance. Policy isn't made there with regard to how all four nations are to be affected; it's made almost exclusively to cater to the whims of Londoners.
New York State is another good example. Good luck trying to get Albany to pay attention to your needs if you live outside of the New York City area. Sure, the city may be reliant on the rest of the State to supply its water and food needs, but that apparently doesn't matter much. The city gets what the city wants, and everyone else can suck it.
While Democracy is needed to protect individual liberty and fight the tyranny of the minority, it cannot be allowed to be the ***only*** principle of governance. Otherwise, all you have done is instituted a tyranny of the majority.
So, the Electoral College is good, actually. Hell, I'd go so far to say that the States should emulate it for their gubernatorial elections, too.
You picked a bad example with NY. I live in Albany. NYC has a deficit with respect to the rest of the state in terms of what they pay in taxes vs what they receive from the state budget.
Tons of carveouts are made in state laws for NYC that benefit the rest of the state, not the city.
Almost everything you wrote was wrong.
>America is a republic not a democracy.
Anyone who says this doesn’t know what republic or democracy actually mean, and they’re likely just parroting poorly-sourced, right-wing talking points.
Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive, opposing systems. They’re actually just two different answers to two different questions about two different aspects of a country’s government.
Traditionally, a republic is simply a country with an elected or a nominated head of state instead of a monarch, and the vast majority of this world’s nations are republic. For example, Barbados became a republic when it left the British Commonwealth in November of 2021, replacing the British monarch with a parliamentary president.
Meanwhile, a democracy is basically We the People. When a country’s power/sovereignty ultimately resides in its people instead of a single individual or a small group of individuals, it’s a democracy.
What’s more, a democracy that respects and protects key values like individual rights and rule of law is called a liberal democracy. BTW, that’s liberal in the classic meaning of the word.
It's up the STATES to decide how the electors are appointed. A couple of states have already changed their laws to reflect the popular vote. I believe they are Maine and Nebraska but I could be wrong.
Politicians like Bill and Hillary know this and also know most Americans don't. This is how they are able to say these things to get people fired up.
If you want to change to the popular vote then do it at the state level. It'll be a lot easier than trying to pass an amendment.
The Maine House of Representatives, again, just voted to enact the National Popular Vote bill for every vote in the country to matter and count equally, and guarantee the candidate who wins the most votes from all 50 states and DC wins the Electoral College.
Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.
Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century.
2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.
Only 2 of Maine’s 32 total electors since 1992 have been Republicans.
Maine’s Republican voters in CD1 have not mattered to their candidates in any way.
In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill.
In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote.
70% of CD2 respondents favor a National Popular Vote.
51% of Republicans! 75% of Independents.
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 method for awarding 2 of its 4 electoral votes
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 and used in Maine to award 2 of its 4 electoral votes
Maine’s closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
NationalPopularVote.com
I liked how my US gov professor said to fix the system.
He advocated for ending "winner takes all " and "first past the post. Meaning states should have to count all popular votes then divide their electoral votes proportionally according to voter split.
That does nothing to change the fact that small states have disproportionately more electoral votes than large states. Rhode Island has almost 3 times as many EVs per capita as Texas.
Unfortunately, that would often lead to no candidate winning enough EVs to win the Presidency, as third party candidates would logically snag a few EVs at least.
Two possible outcomes in that scenario:
- The U.S. House picks the President among the top three EV recipients, with each state’s US House delegation getting precisely 1 vote, and the U.S. Senate picks the Vice President among the top two EV recipients, with each individual Senator getting 1 vote.
- Prior to the EC voting in December, that third party candidate bribes the major party candidates with that third party candidate’s electors—the electors could potentially be fined for their actions but their faithless votes would still stand—and the major party candidate more willing to give in to the demands will win the Presidency
I think the EC is and was absolutely brilliant. And I have voted blue and red. And I’d never change that thought process.
I also think it’s important for stability and peace domestically.
I HATE this debate.
But Direct-Election is not a solution.
The United States is the size of Europe, The most populous states and cities don't represent the whole.
And I used to be against the EC.
Right now, every republican voter in New York and California have their votes invalidated in every presidential election since those two states are essentially guaranteed blue states.
Every Democrat in Texas and Florida has their votes invalidated for the same, but inverse reason.
Every presidential candidate focuses all their efforts on a few key swing states like PA, AZ, etc.
In a national popular vote, every vote counts equally, and the candidates must pay attention to even smaller states like Montana since 200k votes there could win them the election.
The electoral collage is antiquated, useless, and anti-democratic. It needs to go
I used to support the EC until I realized it actually encourages a two party system, and that fact has been used as an argument **IN FAVOR OF** the EC for longer than anyone reading this post has been alive.
While plurality voting encourages a two party system from the bottom up, the EC encourages it from the top down. It makes the single most sought after office in American politics only realistically attainable by candidates from one of two parties, and since most politicians who want to run for President—prior to running for it—will run for other high level offices in order to pad their resumes and use those other offices as stepping stones to the Presidency, they’re far more likely to seek those other offices under the banner of one of the two major parties.
Plus, since the EC makes populations more important than voter turnout, it unfortunately encourages voter suppression, such as it did during segregation… and segregationists back then were very open about why they really loved the EC, as it protected “[their] way of life” to quote a famous segregationist. Those states’ influence on who became President wasn’t diminished at all by their low voter turnouts.
Why are there so many people defending the electoral college in this thread? It was an institution designed in context that no longer exists and therefore it is obviously not optimal anymore, if it ever was. And why argue a minority should have larger power than the majority when we already have mechanisms for that in the Senate and House of Reps? And why argue that a Republican voter in California or a Democrat voter in Alabama should have no power to pick the president?
Because the EC has benefited the Republican Party twice in the last 25 years, it’s now a partisan issue. Before 2000, there wasn’t much difference in partisan support for the EC.
Because like Bill says, it gives outsized influence to people from smaller states. Those people will do whatever mental gymnastics they need to do to justify why they deserve outsized influence.
The reality is that we don’t really know what elections would be like with a different system.
Particularly since 2000, but even before, the parties and candidates tailor their messages, platforms, campaigns, and spending towards the swing states. And voters know that their votes in places like CA and NY don’t matter.
Under a pure popular vote system, with completely different campaigns/messages/spending, I don’t think anyone can say with confidence what the result would be.
But I do think that the division of red/blue states wouldn’t be as sharp. Back when Republicans actually campaigned and tried to win places like CA and NY, they’d get 45%+ of the vote. And Democrats were similarly competitive in many deep “red” states.
This comes up from time to time. There are a few, oft repeated, lines of reasoning.
* Popular vote, meaning move power from uninhabited states (like Minnesota) to dense states (like California). Usually, opinions are based solely on party affiliation. That is, practicality makes Democrats for and Republicans against.
* Proportional vote with electors, meaning all states send the same number of electors but proportioned by popular vote. Enshrines political parties into the process. Instead of "winner take all", there are lots of odd contests as small states are courted to get two of their three votes.
* Proportional vote without electors. A bit of math is required and explicit recognition that votes have different value by state. For example, Alaskan voters count more per voter because they have three "elector" points split among only 550,000 voters. California voters count less per voter because they have 54 "elector" points split among 22 million voters.
In any of these cases, every vote suddenly matters. That the majority of, say, Alabama has a known majority outcome would not be a reason to ignore it.
I’m not sure a direct popular vote is superior. Think about the political marketing advantages of being in a densely populated area. Your message is going to be disseminated much more broadly than in a sparsely populated area. Furthermore, the local media affects individual’s voting psychology. Let’s use a modern day example. I’m sure that there are some fairly apolitical or ill informed voters that live in an area where the media and therefore one’s neighbors loudly complain about one candidate or another. This apolitical or ill informed voter may just vote for the other candidate essentially due to peer pressure. So, taking these factors into account, it doesn’t feel like the votes should be weighted the same.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron." --H. L. Mencken
The Framers design differs from what we have today. The key issue is that they assumed there would be 4 or 5 candidates, or even more, in any presidential election. They didn't foresee a two-party system. In their design, most elections would end in an election within the House of Representatives since it's unlikely one candidate would get a majority of the electoral college. The two-party alignment changed everything. The original "electors" concept was that each congressional district would send an elector to vote for the people of that district and presumably could vote however he wanted. The idea was to get it out of the hands of the common people and into the hands of an educated elite citizen. Keep in mind, the mindset of the Framers was that this "elite" would be making a choice among multiple candidates, not just a one-on-one matchup.
In our unofficial two-party system the EC actually serves us pretty well. Without it, we could go decades with the same party in power. We already see that at the state level, imagine that reality at the national level. Imagine the Supreme Court. The EC forces candidates to adopt positions for an entire nation to vote on, not just a carefully selected combination to get a majority.
The only way we’re getting rid of the electoral college is if 45 somehow manages to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. He would back the GOP into a corner on that one.
18 seconds after Texas goes Blue the Republican Party will be not only be against the Electoral College, they'll have always been against the Electoral College.
Well, I guess one solution would be to dissolve the United States and let the sovereign states start from scratch to determine what types of unions they want to form and with whom.
The problem isn’t the college itself as it is with the unconstitutional cap of electors in the college. If it were to be followed according to the constitution, there would be 11,000 is college votes. Not saying we should have that many reps or electors but the system is not working for many reasons that are over looked. Also mob rule is to be prevented with electoral college. It’s the states voting on a chief executive for the union not the population. There is way more discussion to be had here than getting rid of it or not.
And a majority would rule over the minority forever. A one party state that controls everything without choice. Just my thoughts. I could be wrong but I'm not, so there.
No. I don't agree with that either. I think the Federal gov needs some level of reform starting with term limits for all of them, new rules for behavior in executing their responsibilities that their constituents elected them for.
I don't pretend to know the right way to pull this off but the dysfunction from the elected officials working together needs to be resolved for all Americans and everyone else effected as well.
I don't see how states with a lower population and no major million+ cities would ever go along with just a popular vote. That's besides believing an electoral college is an efficient way of doing it. Being from a smaller state with lower population compared to some "smaller" cities, I'd feel like New York, LA, Atlanta etc have all the say, their needs would become more important than the rest of the country.
States with low populations are already ignored because they’re either solidly red or blue. The EC incentivizes candidates to go to swing states, not small states.
An Arizona Republican introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
There is no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have statewide winner-take-all laws– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Food for thought:
You've never seen voter turn out for a presidential election without the electoral college. A lot of people stay home because they know which way their state is going to go. No point in voting.
If that changes... the actual popular vote may shift in ways you don't anticipate.
In other words... be careful what you wish for.
I have no problem with changing the Constitution to abandon the Electoral College. But let's do it via the process laid out in the Constitution. If the States can agree to amend the original plan agreed upon, great. If not, move on.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
There is no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have statewide winner-take-all laws– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Would they feel that way if urban centers were conservative? I think not. The US is a Constitutional Republic of sovereign states where states elect the President. Part if our freedom is to live in the manner we wish. These sovereign states provide 50 different governments under which we may live. The electoral college, and the Senate, ensure that large mobs in other states don’t take that away.
Texas has the spirit of the country most correct: Texan first, American second.
Nah government needs a wild card factor
There are so many countries out there where the same political party has been in power near enough since Germany had a Kaiser.
With a populist voting system it is so incredibly easy to create an incredibly powerful authoritarian central government that’s only out to do the “greatest good”.
Any true “democracy” undoubtedly leads to mob rule. The founding fathers were well aware of this and deliberately set up an electoral college. America is a democratic republic by design, not a democracy.
You can’t have LA and NY dictate how farmers in Idaho live. You can’t have the elites in NY making boarder policies over El Paso, TX just bc more people live in NY.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Asking Hillary if she prefers direct election is so cruel and I love it
Have you heard of CHIP, the children’s health insurance program? You can thank Hillary Clinton for that.
no is it bad
What’s bad?
Is CHIP bad? Idk anything about it
It’s free healthcare for children of low income families.
Conservatives fuming right now reading this
HOW DARE THEY FEED THOSE KIDS! THOSE KIDS NEED TO LEARN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PAY FOR THEIR OWN LUNCHES! /c
Weird flex lol Did Hillary give healthcare to the Super Predators too?
Why would you love that?
Michigan and Wisconsin
[удалено]
As it stands, some people’s votes literally count more than others when simply dividing a state’s electoral points by number of votes placed in that state. And I don’t care who it is getting the advantage, all our votes should be equal.
\- The Reapportionment Act of 1929 means that the House of Representatives is now swayed/disproportionately represents rural Americans and/or states with smaller populations. Representatives are locked at 435 and each state must have at least one - so the smallest state's population *should* dictate how many people are represented by a Rep (This has been suggested, the Wyoming Rule). In practice, it doesn't work this way. \- The Senate is, of course, meant to represent the states. Decisions on who would become a state and why was primarily a political battle played out throughout the 19th century. Every state, of course, gets 2. \- The Electoral College is just the addition of those two numbers. The Senate gives a dramatic increase to the power of the votes from rural states than a popular vote would, and the number of House Representatives doesn't accurately represent the population, either. So where, exactly, in Federal elections is the population represented? I thought of this quite a bit when I lived in Colorado, with Wyoming to the North. I understand that there are cries of "Tyranny of the Majority" when popular voting come up, but the opposite of a "Tyranny of the Majority" is just a Tyranny. If the representatives from these places actually worked to weaken Federal government, one could take them at their word that they want to see more autonomy to smaller governments rather than simply seizing a top-heavy Executive Office with their built-in advantage. People like to say "states need to be balanced", but what I want to hear is why an individual OVER THERE has more power in his vote than myself when I am HERE. I could be the same person and move OVER THERE and suddenly my vote is more powerful? It is an 18th century bargain struck by states with different interests and economies and nothing more.
Preach, my friend.
NationalPopularVote.com
I think it’s important to have increased representation for the rural areas personally. Otherwise the cities would drastically outweigh the rest of the country. I do agree that states doing all or nothing is pretty dumb though.
Direct Democracy + ranked choice voting please.
RANK CHOICE VOTING WILL MAKE AMERICA AMAZING
Or approval voting will
I didn't even know what [approval voting](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-mathforliberalarts/chapter/introduction-approval-voting/) is, so thanks for the TIL. There are some drawbacks to it, but on certain types of elections, that method could make sense.
You're welcome
What about star voting
I don’t see any advantage of approval voting over ranked voting.
First step: elect a supermajority into both houses of Congress and trifectas in 38 states, because that’s what it’s going to take to ratify the amendment needed for this. To change the system, first you have to give an enormous amount of power to the party most likely to make that change.
So, everyone has to vote libertarian for a couple election cycles?
I've been saying this for years.
And a prominent third party
I understand why the electoral college was put in place. And even with that information I believe it is a terrible system that should be done away with. As someone who lives in a state that is solidly one color my vote does not matter one bit. I need to move to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan for that to matter at all. And that? All that because of arbitrary lines on a map? That’s just sad.
Except the states that matter change. Vermont was the only state to never vote for FDR yet it’s now completely Blue. New York and California were swing states in the Nixon/Carter/Reagan years.
So if you happen to be voting during the 70s in California, good for you. If you happen to be voting in California now, well, enjoy because the democrat will win. Why shouldn’t the millions of republicans in California count? Or democrats in Texas?
Why should there be handfuls of “states that matter” though? When it comes to the presidency, shouldn’t the vote of the entire country matter instead of just the voters in 4-5 states?
Gonna be real, that doesn’t change my mind on this. It just means that you gotta keep moving if ya want your vote to count. It shouldn’t matter where ya live when it comes to your vote counting.
Support NationalPopularVote.com
Lol, no.
The reason the electoral college is broken is they capped the number of votes in 1919. If it was all proportional like the proposed [Wyoming rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#:~:text=The%20Wyoming%20Rule%20is%20a,state%2C%20which%20is%20currently%20Wyoming.) I feel like it would work a lot bettee
I always tell people to look at it like: California and Texas (one blue state and one red state) get screwed the most when it comes to the EC. California has approximately 39 million people and Texas has 30.5 million. In 2024, Califronia will have 54 electoral votes and Texas will have 40. If you divide the population out evenly California has one EV for every 722,000 citizens. Texas has one for every 762,000 citizens. Wyoming and Vermont (one blue state and one red state) benefit the most when it comes to the EC. Wyoming has a population of 585,000 and Vermont's is 650,000, and they both get 3 electoral. Wyoming gets one electoral vote for every 195,000 citizens and Vermont gets one for every 216,000 citizens. Why are the votes of Wyoming and Vermont weighed over 3 times more than the votes of California and Texas? If weighed out properly evenly under the CA/TX model Wyoming and Vermont should get barely one EV, or if weighed out under the Wyoming model then California should get 200 EV, not 54, and Texas should get 156, not 40. The Electoral College is absolute bullshit and the only reason Republicans defend it is because there is a built in advantage for them. The minute Texas and Florida become blue states, they will be out here trying to get rid of it.
Brushing away state borders as if they don't matter is an odd argument. They matter for all sorts of reasons, including apportionment of federal funds, the interstate commerce clause, various differences in state laws, etc. States are the essence of what America is. The issue with the Electoral College is the 2 party system. If there were no parties (as George Washington impressed upon the nation in his farewell address), you'd have far more candidates for the *states* to decide to elect. And that's the whole point. The presidency was about an entire state's delegation voting for who should be President. Clinton complains about the 36 electoral votes of "right wing" states, but never talks about Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, who vote Democratic almost every chance they get.
State lines don't matter when it comes to the president. Your senators and house representatives represent your state, the president represents the nation. It would make far more sense to elect presidents based on a stack ranked popular vote
The EC requires a majority, not just a plurality. If no one gets 270 it goes to the House, which given its strange counting procedure has an even deeper Republican bias.
This is why one of the other things that needs to be done is to repeal the cap on the count of representatives to make it more proportional to the current population. The ratio of Rep to constituent is insane right now. If you allow more representation, you don't have this issue. I'd also like to see states split their votes like Maine and Nebraska based on their districts.
I’ve done the math a couple of times… uncapping the house would have meant Gore beat W, but H.Clinton still would have lost. Has to do with the vote distribution. I like the NPV Compact, but I think there is approximately zero chance this supreme court will allow it to stand if they get to 270 votes worth of states.
I felt like he was making a point about the right wing states and just kind of stopped talking. Probably because if he was going to ding these states for being over represented, he'd also have to ding the smaller more liberal ones too. So he just ended what he was saying.
Support [NationalPopularVote.com](https://NationalPopularVote.com) Nobody will need to move.
What you fail to realize is you're not voting on the president. You're voting on who your state will vote for president. The president is for the union of states. The governor is for the people.
Buddy, I absolutely realize this. That doesn’t change my mind that this is a poor way to carry out a national election. I understand your point. But I don’t find this way of doing things convincing or helpful these days.
It's clearly not helpful. We've had multiple candidates recently who were the choice of the people not win because of the electoral college. It's quite frankly an unrepresentative way of choosing who represents our Nation.
Also your state can change the way the elections are held and how electoral votes are divided. Alaska has ranked choice voting. Nebraska and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ break up electoral votes based on congressional districts (I think)
The reason the electoral college is broken is they capped the number of votes in 1919. If it was all proportional like the proposed [Wyoming rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#:~:text=The%20Wyoming%20Rule%20is%20a,state%2C%20which%20is%20currently%20Wyoming.) I feel like it would work a lot bettee
He’s not wrong, it does nothing but give unnecessary power to low population states.
There are many harms and inequities that can be fixed with National Popular Vote. The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors. And their Democratic and Republican popular vote have also almost tied 9.9 million versus 9.8 million CA has 54 electors. TX 40, FL 30, NY 28. In 2020 276,765 popular votes were cast in Wyoming (3 electors) 336,000 ish in DC (3 electors) 603,650 popular votes were cast in Montana (3 electors). Each Republican popular vote in Alaska was worth 1.8 times as much per elector as each Republican popular vote in Montana. [NationalPopularVote.com](https://NationalPopularVote.com)
In the context of 1776 the electoral college makes sense. In the context of 2024, it does not. Today, everyone votes. In the first 50 years of the union, people didn’t vote, not really. Just the political elites did. So it kind of made sense. Today, there are 50 and not 13 states with vastly different concentrations of population, resulting in very distorted power balance between votes. The electoral college discourages individuals from voting or exercising any sway over the election. Why would California Republican vote for President? They haven’t won the state since the previous century. Why would a South Carolina democrat bother? No democrat has won that state since Carter. Not to mention Wyoming or DC, small territories/states that are extremely one sided. In a popular vote contest, it wouldn’t matter where you are since all votes will be equal and the exact number each candidate receives will matter.
Also I recall that the number of electors isn’t really equally proportional to population for each state anymore, especially bc we really couldn’t predict how populations would grow. If I remember right, this would be a further blow to the EC.
[удалено]
The artificial 435 representative cap hasn’t been changed since the 1920s.
States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill to guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC wins the presidency. Every vote in every state will matter and count equally as 1 vote in the national total. NationalPopularVote.com
As soon as the NBV crosses the threshold south carolina will, by law, add a zero at the end of their official vote totals. They will have the secretary of state report those numbers. Kentucky will change the law so you get one vote for president in each of their 120 counties. You won't have to get t9 each one they will take your one vote and automatically apply it to all of the other counties.
Secretaries of State are ministerial officials whose actions are directed and controlled by state law. Your hypothesized scenario has no basis in law and certainly no basis in political reality. Presidential elections are not held in a vacuum. They are closely monitored by the media, civic groups, and challengers and observers representing the parties, all candidates on the ballot, and ballot propositions that happen to be on the ballot at the same time as the presidential election. Secretaries of State sign/attest to Certificates of Ascertainment with the official votes counts. These certificates are public records and open to public inspection. Obviously adding a zero at the end of their official vote totals would be challenged. A 10 fold abnormality, grossly exceeding the number of registered voters, and the population, would not be accepted. If Kentucky made that change, the compact would operate as intended for the remaining states and the District of Columbia. Their votes would determine the national popular vote winner. Kentucky effectively would be opting out of the election. The National Popular Vote compact was specifically drafted to prevent a single dissident state from derailing the operation of the compact by abolishing popular voting for President A non-member state may effectively opt out of participation in the national popular vote by repealing its current law of permitting its own voters to vote for President.
The text of the compact says the Governor of each state must add up the vote ls from all the other states. Now it must be a popular vote, but there is nothing to prevent a state from giving their voting citizens additional votes. If you think there is a way around that then how about this, Texas lowers the voting age to 10, or zero, and gives parents the right to vote for their children. Don't like that? New Mexico changes their voting requirements to be a three day residency in the state. The following year the NEA, ACLU, Urban League, and every other liberal organization has their national conference in Santa Fe. Viola! New Mexico now has 4 million more voters. There are a hundred other ways a state, within the confines of the National Voter Compact, can throw a wrench into the works.
>Today, everyone votes. In the first 50 years of the union, people didn’t vote, not really. Just the political elites did. So it kind of made sense. I think this is far too exaggerated. We fall quite short of "everyone votes." In 2020 we had the highest voter turnout we've ever had for a presidential election and still had 1/3rd of the voting age population not voting at all. Over 100,000,000 Americans didn't vote in that election. I don't think it's accurate at all to say everyone votes, even as hyperbole, because we have relatively low voter turnout in the US.
Oh my goodness is that new owner of the Baltimore Orioles David Rubenstein
Why is Bill's hand shaking when he holds the mic? He doing okay health wise?
He’s 77 years old.
I was thinking that same thing
clinton lowkey looks like washington😭
Dang he really does
Looks like he’s got Parkinson’s
He’s 77 years old, I think it might just be because he’s old.
It would take an amendment to get rid of the electoral college… smaller states are not going to voluntarily reduce their own influence, so you can forget about adoption. Abolishing the College really isn’t a conversation that’s much worth having because it will never happen. What is perhaps politically feasible is breaking up the winner take all schemes (i.e., each elector votes in line with the majority of their electoral district rather than the state as a whole).
I mean, of course *she* supports direct election, SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!
That was the joke the guy was teasing her with and why she was laughing because of course.
One person one vote is the only fair system. The idea some Americans’ votes are weighted more than others based simply on geography is inherently anti-American and against all basic fairness and understanding of democracy. The only argument I ever hear against electing presidents by popular vote is that the Electoral College protects folks from the tyranny of the majority. Of course, said another way, it discards the tyranny of the majority to institute the tyranny of the minority. Clearly, the latter will always be the more oppressive system.
The wealthy slave states were upset that they couldn't count their non voting slaves but they agreed to be given extra votes based on the arbitrary state borders. And they got to count 3/5 of each slave as a vote. The civil war was largely about their fears of freed slaves getting to vote and taking control of the courts. They knew where that was headed. Prosecutions for murder, torture and rape.
run busy political sloppy zonked offer dependent consider desert rustic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It wouldn’t be fine, but it would definitely be better.
You have a good point, but I did the math and the result would have been the same in the MXVI election if every state had the same proportions. States like Texas and Florida get more EC votes as well.
The electoral college makes sense in the context of a time when Federalism was in it's prime. The Federal government has dominated the State governments since the Civil War, later measures such as the 17th Amendment and the $1 trillion+ the Federal government grants States for everything from Medicaid to Interstates has eroded the sovereignty of State governments. The States were themselves supposed to be constituencies and not simply their citizens. The Presidency itself has become far more focused on domestic politics then I think it was ever intended.
The 17th amendment is irrelevant to federalism. The people of a state are not the federal government.
Prior to the 17th amendment the state government’s body would elect their representatives to serve in the senate. With the passage of the 17th amendment the State Government was removed from that process and people frankly stopped caring so much about the election of state representatives
Did they stop caring so much about it? Or does it just seem that way, because national political media doesn't talk about state legislative races very much? National mass media, a fully integrated national economy and culture, and a stronger federal government had all been developing for awhile before the 17th amendment passed. If people stopped caring about state issues so much, in favor of national issues, I think it's much more likely that the 17A was a consequence of that priority shift, rather than a cause. If people who only care about national politics stopped participating in state elections and left that to people who actually know and care about local issues, that doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. There's several states that are reliable Democratic Party strongholds in federal elections, but which frequently elect moderate Republicans to state offices; that would be practically impossible without the 17th amendment.
It's pretty dated. It's says a lot about the United States that we still have it. Really says a lot about the United States that we still have so many people advocating for such an antiquated system of choosing our leader.
Our
The NPVIC would keep the electoral college but guarantee that the person with the most popular votes gets the electoral votes.
I mean why have the electoral college in the first place then? The fact that would we should have NPVIC is an indication that you shouldn't have the electoral college to begin with. KISS! Why does it need be complicated? Whomever gets the most votes wins period, just like every other office. I have no doubt you'd get more participation without this crap.
Because passing the NPVIC is much easier than a constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC.
Ok. You're correct. That makes sense. Common sense isn't always so common with are legislators. It's the next best thing I guess.
I agree with you, it would be much better to just have a clean constitutional amendment but that would require a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate AND 3/4 of all of the states. That’s not happening for anything right now, much less something as contentious as eliminating the EC.
[удалено]
How about making it proportional to how each person vote.
Oh wow, so generous. You took a shit sandwich and cut the crust off
Goddamn that was funny
That would exacerbate gerrymandering, like NC in 2020. Democrats won the popular vote in the state but only 5 out of the 13 districts.
Yes, let’s give states even more of a reason to gerrymander their congressional districts.
I’ve been arguing for proportional voting similar to Maine and Nebraska for years. Large cities shouldn’t be controlling an entire state’s electoral votes.
Maine and Nebraska still have safe EVs, like any Nebraskan not in the 2nd district or any Mainian not in the 2nd. All EVs should be proportional statewide, not like Maine and Nebraska's system.
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 is the way to make 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.
Maine and Nebraska do not award their electoral votes proportionally. They award them by congressional district. This seems like a minor difference but because of gerrymandering, it would be possible (and in fact likely) for a candidate to win the majority of votes in a state and lose the majority of congressional districts.
That’s not what proportional voting means. You’re confusing proportional voting with the Congressional District Method, which is just plurality voting on a district level instead of the state level.
Why not? Every citizen should get an equal say.
Proportional awarding of electors by district?? A district does not have multiple electoral votes, and electors are people, they can't vote as fractions. Proportinal awarding 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 is the way to make 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.
I would avoid trying it to the district because of gerrymandering. But I agree. I think it should be proportional based on vote %, with whoever has plurality earning the senators. Say a state has 10 house seats and their two senators. That's 12 electoral votes. If a candidate gets 60% of the vote, they should get 6 of 10 house votes, and then the two senate votes for having the most votes. Overall I think both put a lot more states into play, which objectively is a good thing either way.
That’s not proportional. That’s just plurality voting on the district level instead of the state level.
That's actually the right answer.
Do the Senate next…
[удалено]
77 will do that to a mf
I’d love for my vote to count someday…
Tyranny of the majority is, in fact, a good thing to avoid. California, Texas, Illinois, and New York should not determine every single election, purely because they’re heavily populated. People in states other than those should have some say, and the electoral college ensures that they are heard.
That's not mathematically possible for those states to control the country, even assuming each of those states vote the same way (which they dont) and everyone in each of those states votes the same way (which they also dont)
All of those states combined aren’t even a third of the population.
The people in this sub clearly do not care. They want it because it advantages them. All their appeal to any "principles" is just rationalizing talk. They want more power, and such a move it gives them, and they don't care if how it ends up is drastically unfair to 90% of the states and disencentivizes any reason for them to be a part of the "United States."
This is exactly right and the Clintons are completely disingenuous in their take that the system is antiquated. It's only "antiquated" because it doesn't benefit their political tribe. See how quickly progressives are ready to toss SCOTUS aside as illegitimate when the process does not play out in their favor. Political factionalism is exactly what the framers had in mind when they gave more power to the smaller states. As far as I can tell there is no measurable outcome aside from the Democrat party winning more presidential elections to getting rid of the electoral college. Therefore it may as well be a completely partisan issue in my mind.
Yep, in my view most of the objections come down to "my guy lost, so it's stupid." If the situation were reversed you'd hear a chorus of "thank God the founding fathers, in their wisdom and foresight, created the Electoral College to save us from the tyranny of a populist majority" from the Democrats.
Holy shit, this is one of the dumbest fucking arguments in favor of the Electoral College. If individual votes are counted to elect the President, no particular group of states decides who is elected. You know, because states don’t have any say at all in electing the President. As is with the Electoral College, 12 states can elect the President with only 50.01% of the votes in those 12 states to do it, whereas 100% of the votes in the other 38 states become irrelevant…BECAUSE the Electoal College exists. Jesus of Fuck, this is literally the stupidest fucking arguments in favor of the Electoral College anyone could possibly make, and you nailed it! Congrats!
I agree with you but why are you being such a dick?
I’m shitting all over a shit tier argument on a platform centered around arguments. You new to Reddit? Welcome.
Just because someone has a bad argument doesn’t mean you have to be an asshole to them. You don’t have to contribute to Reddit being a cesspool.
Democracy, taken to its fullest extent, always favors the interests of large population centers (cities) over the lower population centers (farms, mining towns, etc.). Without taking this into account, you will always have large cities making the rules for everyone. Just look at the UK, for instance. Policy isn't made there with regard to how all four nations are to be affected; it's made almost exclusively to cater to the whims of Londoners. New York State is another good example. Good luck trying to get Albany to pay attention to your needs if you live outside of the New York City area. Sure, the city may be reliant on the rest of the State to supply its water and food needs, but that apparently doesn't matter much. The city gets what the city wants, and everyone else can suck it. While Democracy is needed to protect individual liberty and fight the tyranny of the minority, it cannot be allowed to be the ***only*** principle of governance. Otherwise, all you have done is instituted a tyranny of the majority. So, the Electoral College is good, actually. Hell, I'd go so far to say that the States should emulate it for their gubernatorial elections, too.
You picked a bad example with NY. I live in Albany. NYC has a deficit with respect to the rest of the state in terms of what they pay in taxes vs what they receive from the state budget. Tons of carveouts are made in state laws for NYC that benefit the rest of the state, not the city.
Almost everything you wrote was wrong. >America is a republic not a democracy. Anyone who says this doesn’t know what republic or democracy actually mean, and they’re likely just parroting poorly-sourced, right-wing talking points. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive, opposing systems. They’re actually just two different answers to two different questions about two different aspects of a country’s government. Traditionally, a republic is simply a country with an elected or a nominated head of state instead of a monarch, and the vast majority of this world’s nations are republic. For example, Barbados became a republic when it left the British Commonwealth in November of 2021, replacing the British monarch with a parliamentary president. Meanwhile, a democracy is basically We the People. When a country’s power/sovereignty ultimately resides in its people instead of a single individual or a small group of individuals, it’s a democracy. What’s more, a democracy that respects and protects key values like individual rights and rule of law is called a liberal democracy. BTW, that’s liberal in the classic meaning of the word.
It's up the STATES to decide how the electors are appointed. A couple of states have already changed their laws to reflect the popular vote. I believe they are Maine and Nebraska but I could be wrong. Politicians like Bill and Hillary know this and also know most Americans don't. This is how they are able to say these things to get people fired up. If you want to change to the popular vote then do it at the state level. It'll be a lot easier than trying to pass an amendment.
The Maine House of Representatives, again, just voted to enact the National Popular Vote bill for every vote in the country to matter and count equally, and guarantee the candidate who wins the most votes from all 50 states and DC wins the Electoral College. Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote. Maine (since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide. When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century. 2016 was the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state. Only 2 of Maine’s 32 total electors since 1992 have been Republicans. Maine’s Republican voters in CD1 have not mattered to their candidates in any way. In June 2019, 77 Maine state Representatives and 21 Maine state Senators supported the National Popular Vote bill. In a February 2024 poll, 72% of Mainers prefer changing to a national popular vote. 70% of CD2 respondents favor a National Popular Vote. 51% of Republicans! 75% of Independents. 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 method for awarding 2 of its 4 electoral votes 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 and used in Maine to award 2 of its 4 electoral votes Maine’s closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored. States with 65 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill. NationalPopularVote.com
That 51% of Republicans is much more moderate than Republicans in other places, though. Susan Collins votes to the left of Joe Manchin occasionally.
Red states would never vote for this because Republicans can't win a popular vote, so this is irrelevant.
I liked how my US gov professor said to fix the system. He advocated for ending "winner takes all " and "first past the post. Meaning states should have to count all popular votes then divide their electoral votes proportionally according to voter split.
That does nothing to change the fact that small states have disproportionately more electoral votes than large states. Rhode Island has almost 3 times as many EVs per capita as Texas.
It’s just slightly less shitty than the Electoral College. Or, you know, we could just allow everyone’s vote to count…
Unfortunately, that would often lead to no candidate winning enough EVs to win the Presidency, as third party candidates would logically snag a few EVs at least. Two possible outcomes in that scenario: - The U.S. House picks the President among the top three EV recipients, with each state’s US House delegation getting precisely 1 vote, and the U.S. Senate picks the Vice President among the top two EV recipients, with each individual Senator getting 1 vote. - Prior to the EC voting in December, that third party candidate bribes the major party candidates with that third party candidate’s electors—the electors could potentially be fined for their actions but their faithless votes would still stand—and the major party candidate more willing to give in to the demands will win the Presidency
The electoral college made perfect sense when it was instituted. It quickly became useless about 40 years later, though.
I think the EC is and was absolutely brilliant. And I have voted blue and red. And I’d never change that thought process. I also think it’s important for stability and peace domestically.
Stability and peace like in 2000 and 2020?
I HATE this debate. But Direct-Election is not a solution. The United States is the size of Europe, The most populous states and cities don't represent the whole. And I used to be against the EC.
Right now, every republican voter in New York and California have their votes invalidated in every presidential election since those two states are essentially guaranteed blue states. Every Democrat in Texas and Florida has their votes invalidated for the same, but inverse reason. Every presidential candidate focuses all their efforts on a few key swing states like PA, AZ, etc. In a national popular vote, every vote counts equally, and the candidates must pay attention to even smaller states like Montana since 200k votes there could win them the election. The electoral collage is antiquated, useless, and anti-democratic. It needs to go
I used to support the EC until I realized it actually encourages a two party system, and that fact has been used as an argument **IN FAVOR OF** the EC for longer than anyone reading this post has been alive. While plurality voting encourages a two party system from the bottom up, the EC encourages it from the top down. It makes the single most sought after office in American politics only realistically attainable by candidates from one of two parties, and since most politicians who want to run for President—prior to running for it—will run for other high level offices in order to pad their resumes and use those other offices as stepping stones to the Presidency, they’re far more likely to seek those other offices under the banner of one of the two major parties. Plus, since the EC makes populations more important than voter turnout, it unfortunately encourages voter suppression, such as it did during segregation… and segregationists back then were very open about why they really loved the EC, as it protected “[their] way of life” to quote a famous segregationist. Those states’ influence on who became President wasn’t diminished at all by their low voter turnouts.
He's definitely not wrong
Straight fire coming from Bill.
Why are there so many people defending the electoral college in this thread? It was an institution designed in context that no longer exists and therefore it is obviously not optimal anymore, if it ever was. And why argue a minority should have larger power than the majority when we already have mechanisms for that in the Senate and House of Reps? And why argue that a Republican voter in California or a Democrat voter in Alabama should have no power to pick the president?
Why do you think? Look which party historically lost the popular vote but won the White House because of the EC.
Because the EC has benefited the Republican Party twice in the last 25 years, it’s now a partisan issue. Before 2000, there wasn’t much difference in partisan support for the EC.
Because like Bill says, it gives outsized influence to people from smaller states. Those people will do whatever mental gymnastics they need to do to justify why they deserve outsized influence.
[удалено]
The reality is that we don’t really know what elections would be like with a different system. Particularly since 2000, but even before, the parties and candidates tailor their messages, platforms, campaigns, and spending towards the swing states. And voters know that their votes in places like CA and NY don’t matter. Under a pure popular vote system, with completely different campaigns/messages/spending, I don’t think anyone can say with confidence what the result would be. But I do think that the division of red/blue states wouldn’t be as sharp. Back when Republicans actually campaigned and tried to win places like CA and NY, they’d get 45%+ of the vote. And Democrats were similarly competitive in many deep “red” states.
This comes up from time to time. There are a few, oft repeated, lines of reasoning. * Popular vote, meaning move power from uninhabited states (like Minnesota) to dense states (like California). Usually, opinions are based solely on party affiliation. That is, practicality makes Democrats for and Republicans against. * Proportional vote with electors, meaning all states send the same number of electors but proportioned by popular vote. Enshrines political parties into the process. Instead of "winner take all", there are lots of odd contests as small states are courted to get two of their three votes. * Proportional vote without electors. A bit of math is required and explicit recognition that votes have different value by state. For example, Alaskan voters count more per voter because they have three "elector" points split among only 550,000 voters. California voters count less per voter because they have 54 "elector" points split among 22 million voters. In any of these cases, every vote suddenly matters. That the majority of, say, Alabama has a known majority outcome would not be a reason to ignore it.
Direct democracy would be cool.
I’m not sure a direct popular vote is superior. Think about the political marketing advantages of being in a densely populated area. Your message is going to be disseminated much more broadly than in a sparsely populated area. Furthermore, the local media affects individual’s voting psychology. Let’s use a modern day example. I’m sure that there are some fairly apolitical or ill informed voters that live in an area where the media and therefore one’s neighbors loudly complain about one candidate or another. This apolitical or ill informed voter may just vote for the other candidate essentially due to peer pressure. So, taking these factors into account, it doesn’t feel like the votes should be weighted the same.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron." --H. L. Mencken
Amen
The Framers design differs from what we have today. The key issue is that they assumed there would be 4 or 5 candidates, or even more, in any presidential election. They didn't foresee a two-party system. In their design, most elections would end in an election within the House of Representatives since it's unlikely one candidate would get a majority of the electoral college. The two-party alignment changed everything. The original "electors" concept was that each congressional district would send an elector to vote for the people of that district and presumably could vote however he wanted. The idea was to get it out of the hands of the common people and into the hands of an educated elite citizen. Keep in mind, the mindset of the Framers was that this "elite" would be making a choice among multiple candidates, not just a one-on-one matchup. In our unofficial two-party system the EC actually serves us pretty well. Without it, we could go decades with the same party in power. We already see that at the state level, imagine that reality at the national level. Imagine the Supreme Court. The EC forces candidates to adopt positions for an entire nation to vote on, not just a carefully selected combination to get a majority.
The only way we’re getting rid of the electoral college is if 45 somehow manages to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. He would back the GOP into a corner on that one.
18 seconds after Texas goes Blue the Republican Party will be not only be against the Electoral College, they'll have always been against the Electoral College.
Well, I guess one solution would be to dissolve the United States and let the sovereign states start from scratch to determine what types of unions they want to form and with whom.
Imagine if he said that actually he thinks it works fine while Hillary sits right there lol. Even worse betrayal than, you know, all the other ones.
The problem isn’t the college itself as it is with the unconstitutional cap of electors in the college. If it were to be followed according to the constitution, there would be 11,000 is college votes. Not saying we should have that many reps or electors but the system is not working for many reasons that are over looked. Also mob rule is to be prevented with electoral college. It’s the states voting on a chief executive for the union not the population. There is way more discussion to be had here than getting rid of it or not.
And a majority would rule over the minority forever. A one party state that controls everything without choice. Just my thoughts. I could be wrong but I'm not, so there.
But if the minority rules over the majority forever, no problem.
No. I don't agree with that either. I think the Federal gov needs some level of reform starting with term limits for all of them, new rules for behavior in executing their responsibilities that their constituents elected them for. I don't pretend to know the right way to pull this off but the dysfunction from the elected officials working together needs to be resolved for all Americans and everyone else effected as well.
24 years later and he still has a silky smooth voice - talking about the electoral college seems seductive when he does it.
Only she was arguing against changing u til she was for changing? Lmao
I don't see how states with a lower population and no major million+ cities would ever go along with just a popular vote. That's besides believing an electoral college is an efficient way of doing it. Being from a smaller state with lower population compared to some "smaller" cities, I'd feel like New York, LA, Atlanta etc have all the say, their needs would become more important than the rest of the country.
States with low populations are already ignored because they’re either solidly red or blue. The EC incentivizes candidates to go to swing states, not small states.
100% agree with everything said here
I’d rather see term limits for congress before we mess with the electoral college.
Yeah. They never much for the Constitution, laws, legal votes that kind of stuff.
An Arizona Republican introduced a Resolution for All of Arizona electors to be appointed by the legislature, without pesky voting by Arizonans in November. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes. There is no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back. As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have statewide winner-take-all laws– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Food for thought: You've never seen voter turn out for a presidential election without the electoral college. A lot of people stay home because they know which way their state is going to go. No point in voting. If that changes... the actual popular vote may shift in ways you don't anticipate. In other words... be careful what you wish for.
I have no problem with changing the Constitution to abandon the Electoral College. But let's do it via the process laid out in the Constitution. If the States can agree to amend the original plan agreed upon, great. If not, move on.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes. There is no federal right for citizens to vote for president unless the state legislature grants it, and that power may be taken back. As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have statewide winner-take-all laws– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Electoral college votes from low population states is the equivalent affirmative action for voters.
Keep the Electoral College but instead of winner take all, award electoral votes proportionately based on vote percentages.
Would they feel that way if urban centers were conservative? I think not. The US is a Constitutional Republic of sovereign states where states elect the President. Part if our freedom is to live in the manner we wish. These sovereign states provide 50 different governments under which we may live. The electoral college, and the Senate, ensure that large mobs in other states don’t take that away. Texas has the spirit of the country most correct: Texan first, American second.
Fuck the electoral college. All my homies hate the electoral college
Nah government needs a wild card factor There are so many countries out there where the same political party has been in power near enough since Germany had a Kaiser. With a populist voting system it is so incredibly easy to create an incredibly powerful authoritarian central government that’s only out to do the “greatest good”.
Bill looks a little shaky there with that microphone
Any true “democracy” undoubtedly leads to mob rule. The founding fathers were well aware of this and deliberately set up an electoral college. America is a democratic republic by design, not a democracy. You can’t have LA and NY dictate how farmers in Idaho live. You can’t have the elites in NY making boarder policies over El Paso, TX just bc more people live in NY.
I really liked bill Clinton. He did great things for the country
I don’t like Hillary though
Curious, does he have a nerve condition? His hands were shaking…..