Large Majority of Americans Want to End Electoral College
Large Majority of Americans Want to End Electoral College
New polling results released just weeks away from Election Day show a majority of Americans want to replace the Electoral College with popular vote system.
You're viewing a single thread.
I remember being in 3rd grade and learning about the electoral college and thinking, "that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of". Still true to this day.
I've had the same reaction learning about religion 😂
SAMESIES ❤️
Learning that it was so rich white people in the south could substitute the votes of newly freed black slaves with theirs is what got me.
All this shit is because they were too fucking nice to the slavers.
Should have solved that problem back then.
Note how racist and evil the south still is, and compare it to Germany, and they had 1/3 the time to get better.
Sherman and Brown did nothing wrong and should have had opportunity to finish their job.
Okay guys stop up voting this! Simply let me assure you that I will upvote for you!
If you upvote this comment to 100, I will upvote the way you want me to upvote.
Actually I'll do you better! Look. I know these guys who can upvote. If you upvote my comment past 100, I'll have them vote for you just the way you telepathically have told me to upvote by up voting for me....what? Why would you even need to know me or my friend who hasn't even talked to you directly? That's crazy talk! I'm an upvoter, I upvote. They. My friends who can upvote are true upvoters too. Soon you won't even need to upvote at all! You can just go read all the shit we Upvoted for you! Yey! We call our selves the "Upvotlectoral" college. We learn algebra in this college too, but we never graduate...at least you don't know if we have graduated or not.
Sounds like this clown lives in that one blip in Nebraska or whatever that can impact shit, you know what to do bois. Electoral vote this mofo out the comments section! /s (chill)
I've Upvoted you! See? Pretty simple right? Oh. Ah, you can't drive your car anymore. You're driving a Japanese car and they are destroying our jobs. Please see a ford dealership. And you'll need farmer's or the gecko. Anyway, details! Thanks for voting up!
Then how do you stop urban concerns from completely trouncing rural concerns? Voters from rural areas have valid concerns which are largely opposite of urban voters. If you get rid of electoral college, candidates will campaign in major cities and that's it. Nobody else will matter.
For anyone downvoting me- you should know I'm a liberal-libertarian registered Democrat from Connecticut, who's very much against Trump and most of the BS today's GOP is peddling. I just don't think disenfranchising anyone who doesn't live in a city is the answer.
So the people in cities should just be worth less when they vote? It's a federal vote for a federal office, everyone in the country should count the same.
The individual states already have their own powers which make sure the federal government doesn't make decisions that are bad for those states. And each county and town have their own governments that pass local laws.
I've also heard this argument so many times but I haven't heard any actual examples.
How do you stop a majority of the electoral college from completely trouncing the concerns of the other states?
and what has that gotten us? rural communities are subsidized out the wazoo as the urban centers across America are strangled and starved. as the more powerful minority of people is catered too
It's almost like many people are getting taxed w/o proper representation...
no, they ARE represented, it's just that the system is old and can't deal with modern technology, like social media, or even the radio
As opposed to now where like 10 states are tossups and the rest are locked in?
Which would be replaced with "Can the Democrat win California by a large enough margin?"
Which was literally the case when people complain about Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016 - across the 49 states that aren't California more people voted for Trump, but she won California by such a large margin that she won the popular vote because of California alone. Same thing in 2000, where Gore's popular vote lead was smaller than his margin in CA.
Oh jeeeeez, maybe republicans would have to have real policies that appeal to a majority of Americans, instead of dipshit authoritarian policies that only enrich the already rich and take rights away while mainly pandering to racists in the population at large.
The electoral college is the major reason why the republicans have gone absolutely bugfuck, because they can win with a minority of votes, allowing them to be as undemocratic as they want to be, knowing they have a barely large enough base to squeak through in all the right spots.
And considering the results of the bush and trump presidencies, you're making the argument against the electoral college, because their two picks objectively made the country worse.
FYI Hillary did not win the popular vote just because of California
Also you shouldn’t reward bad actors providing a shit place to live by making their vote count significantly more.
One citizen one vote!
FYI Hillary did not win the popular vote just because of California
Yes, she did. That there are other combinations of states that she won that combine to have a similar total margin doesn't change that her national margin was smaller than her margin in California. And that's the crux of the argument Snopes makes - she won the national popular vote by 2,833,220 and sure she won California by 4,269,978 votes but there are other states she won that if added together had a combined margin in her favor of more than 2,833,220 votes and also just her California votes alone wouldn't be enough to exceed Trump's vote count nationwide so it doesn't count.
Which is...kinda ridiculous? It's a big stretch for a frankly kinda dumb claim.
Also, what is wrong with only winning California, anyway? California represents the broad spectrum of a modern America and it has its rural areas as well. It is easy to argue that it is our most important state, too.
What people in California want should matter even if it overrides smaller red states - since they will likely only hold us back anyway.
Deleted
Which would be replaced with “Can the Democrat win California by a large enough margin?”
If it's going to be fucked either way I'd rather at least have it be fucked in a way where every vote counts the same rather then a Wyoming vote being worth like 4 times a California vote owing to the house of representatives population being limited which means Californians aren't being properly represented in the house.
California is actually about middle of the pack for the House, currently. What skews the electoral college is that eveb the smallest states still get two Senators and a representative, and thus 3 electors.
The states that are least represented in the House tend to be ones that have 1 or 2 Reps and are very close to getting one more. Like Delaware, Idaho or WV. All of which are over 895k people per Rep. Most states are somewhere in the 700s.
Okay, that's just fine with me. California is arguably our most important state and has a huge population. So of course winning there should matter. This is not hard.
Winning there matters currently. More than any other state. It's just everyone assumes the Dems are going to win it so it's less of a big deal because depending on your party it's either a given or a lost cause.
You should read what the electoral college does, because that's not what it does.
Not the previous commenter, but I'm pretty certain that the, apparently fictional book, that Leave Burton showed on either The Daily Show, or Last Week Tonight, entitled It's all Because of Racism, would cover what the EC's actual purpose is. Though in this particular case it may be fairer to say classism.
I think it was less overt racism, but still pretty racist.
But mostly because Classism and Racism were pretty intertwined back in the day, what with non-white people essentially being entirely disallowed from actually being a higher class.
In other words, racism was so overt that you don't even need to mention it.
It's a package deal, really.
Sure, then we can have another republican get elected against the will of the people. Clearly rural concerns are more important than preventing authoritarian idiots like trump from being able to undemocratically take power.
And just what are these "rural concerns", anyway?
Usually bs like "good Christian values", which are ultimately so anti-christian that it's almost humorous.
I spent my formative years in a very rural area, and that tracks with my experience.
Cities matter more. Sorry, but that's the reality.
Cities are where people live. People matter.
Cities are where culture happens. Culture matters. You're not going to have a big art/music/anything scene in bumbleweed, NE because there aren't enough people there to constitute a scene.
Cities are where economy happens. Money moving around matters. There are more transactions per day in the corner shop by me than a whole week in some country town with 700 residents.
Rural people still have the Senate and local government. Their rep in the house (which should be expanded) also should speak up for their region.
Everyone deserves some minimum respect, but the idea that nowhere-utah is just as important as Queens is insane. A minority holding the majority garbage is not good. Especially when that minority seems fixated on terrible ideas like climate change denial and xenophobia.
I say it all the time - places like California and New York are strategically more important, too. Most of the game development, the movie/tv industry, software, even a lot of our food, happens in CA. And then a great deal of finance happens in NYC. Lots of defense industry stuff is clustered around DC as well.
It's called "flyover country" for a reason. If you want to partake in what is happening, then move to those locations. Unfortunately, our backwards slave-era system gives wayyyy too much power to regions that just don't matter as much.
Ever consider where your food comes from?
The Central Valley and Hi-desert, we dont really impirt too much food in my region of California.
Yeah, a lot of it comes from California. And Mexico. Why do you ask?
With respect sir (or madam), you are personifying the 'ivory tower elite' attitude that so many conservatives make fun of. 'I matter, others don't.
You think there's no culture in rural areas? That you need a giant festival to have culture?
That corner shop that has 100 transactions an hour... where do you think the bread they sell comes from? The flour? The avocadoes on the avocado toast? (sorry, I had to :P ) Sure as fuck doesn't come from the city. You can write the rest of the nation off as unimportant and then see how unimportant they are when your fridge is empty. They matter.the idea that nowhere-utah is just as important as Queens is insane.
And the idea that Queens should be able to dictate policy that applies nationally including Nowhere, UT is just as insane.
Especially when that minority seems fixated on terrible ideas like climate change denial and xenophobia.
I'll give you that- most of the conservative platform these days is a bit on the batshit side.
But there's other parts that make sense. Take guns for example. A liberal in NYC has the 11th largest army in the world 3 digits away. Police response time is seconds or minutes. So 'nobody needs a gun' is a common urban liberal position.
Go out in rural areas, there might be two deputies for an entire county with police response time in the range of 30-120 minutes if at all. And that county may have 4-legged predators like bears, wolves, etc that can threaten humans. So that guy wants a GOOD gun to defend himself and his family, because if there is a problem nobody else is gonna arrive until it's too late.
The urban liberal doesn't consider the rural conservative POV, and they want to apply their position nationally. Should the rural conservative have no useful defense against that?Guns are just an example, but that overall is why I think the electoral college has a place. House is based on population, Senate based on statehood, Presidency is in the middle with influences both from statehood and population. That's a good way to go.
And FWIW, I also support INCREASING the population representative in the House. The current cap of 437 has not served us well with the expanding US population, and there's now over 700k citizens per representative. That's far too many to get voices heard, and one rep covers far too many disparate people. And it also in the House increases influence of smaller states (to a minimum of 1/437th).
I believe the cap should be raised to a very large number, perhaps several thousand. It may no longer be possible to have the entire House convene in one building, but technology has solved that problem. If you have one representative for every say 10,000-25,000 citizens, it becomes much easier for a representative to truly represent their citizens in detail and gives a citizen much greater access to his or her representatives.You think there’s no culture in rural areas?
There is less cultural output because there are fewer people. There's probably a thousand new bands that started in Brooklyn this month. You just can't have those numbers out in the sticks because you don't have the people. There literally aren't enough singers.
Culture matters. People interacting and inspiring each other matters. It's not that there's nothing happening out in Wisconsin or wherever, but there's less. There are fewer people to be doing stuff!
I almost wrote a preemptive response about "where does your food come from". I don't think most of the people living outside of cities are farmers.
A quick search says
The Midwest rounds out the top five states with the most farmers: Missouri (162,345, or 5% of the labor force) Iowa (145,432 or 9% of the labor force) Ohio (130,439 or 2% of the labor force) Oklahoma (130,434 or 7% of the labor force)I don't know if https://usafacts.org/articles/farmer-demographics/ is a real site but it would be awkward for someone to make up these numbers.
That's a lot of people in the sense of like "I couldn't have that many people at my birthday party" but not a lot of people compared to like, who lives in major cities. Bushwick, Brooklyn is one neighborhood and has like 130k people.
Food is important but probably not a justification for holding everyone else hostage. Especially when most people living in those areas aren't even growing food. (Some are second order involved, like the guy who works the Laundromat helps the farmer or whatever). Also especially when the efforts being stymied would help people, like student loan forgiveness or federally funded school meals.
The urban liberal doesn’t consider the rural conservative POV, and they want to apply their position nationally. Should the rural conservative have no useful defense against that?
The rural conservative POV is utterly poisoned by decades of racial violence and regressive policies. There's like a mass shooting every day. Climate change is going to fuck us. Conservatism is not an okay world view.
That said, the answer is probably local government for things that are actually local. Environmental issues cannot be local. You can't have this town dumping mercury into the water and pretending that's just fine. But for something like "we want a bike lane here" or "we want a library that's open weekends" that's doesn't need to be federal. But if "local" means "no queers allowed to get married here" then the locals can fuck themselves.
Guns are a whole separate wedge issue. I think they should at least be treated the same as cars- license, registration, insurance, mechanisms to remove the license like DUI. I don't know how close to reality that is.
I wrote this on my phone so it's not my best work.
For guns, I've recently run into a point of view that I think is valid: the above structure (insurance/license) disproportionately favors the wealthy. Ultimately it just adds a barrier for the poor.
I fully understand that the stats show that gun control laws DO indeed decrease GUN violence. However violent crime in general doesn't really change. The ONLY statistically effective way that guarantees a reduction of violence on the whole is lifting people out of poverty. The less poor we have, the less violent crime. Social programs can lift us out of so many issues.
This is true. The same problem applies to transportation, health care, food security, etc. Poverty is terrible. Unfortunately, the right wing also seems to hate any effective programs to deal with it. No school lunches, no basic income, no nationalized insurance, etc etc.
Right, it's especially rich because that the demographic that's overwhelmingly "Christian" despite consistently voting against policies that align with "Christ's" teachings.
The Southern Baptist Convention schismed from the Triennial Convention (the National Baptist group) because the national Baptists weren't pro-slavery enough.
The SBC is based fundamentally around racism, it was founded on racism, one of the beliefs I was exposed to in the south was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
They taught themselves that their brand of Christianity was their only defense against brown people and their Northern masters who want to destroy the "Southern Way of Life", and now it's just a siege mentality with whichever conman comes around.
That's what the Senate is for. Two senators per state regardless of population. Wyoming has as much of a say as California does.
In all honesty, that should change as well. I don't think that's doing any good, either. It gives people with completely backward and insane ideas the impression that their positions should be on equal footing with normal people's ideas.
I am not trying to invalidate anyone's ideas.
But rural voters and urban voters have different needs. Neither is 'wrong'.
For example- the urban voter might have a lot of gangland gun violence, so they push for strong gun control.
The rural voter OTOH has a police response time of 20+ minutes or more, and real threats to life and property from four-legged predators so they want real useful guns to defend themselves.Neither is wrong for pushing their particular needs. They just don't acknowledge the other exists.
Quite frankly if you're going to say urban people are 'normal people' and rural people are 'backward and insane', then I'm quite in favor of reducing your own influence (and I say that as a liberal voter and registered Democrat). Good government recognizes that one size doesn't fit all.
I don't know of anyone considering getting rid of guns that would be used for pest control in a rural area. Beyond slogans and bumper stickers, is anyone seriously proposing that?
I think that the people in the places where nearly all the people live (urban centers and their suburban surroundings) surely can arrive at sane guns laws, taking into account the (valid) concerns of the few remote rural people.
So that covers gun laws. Is there anything that the majority of voters cannot grasp about how to govern rural areas?
Actually I'm not sure we agree on that.
What sort of guns do you feel would be appropriate for pest control in rural areas?
And what of the House? It's largely based on population. If the White House and the House of Representatives are both population heavy then the Senate is entirely outnumbered.
The point is supposed to be that the House is population based, the Senate is state based, and the Presidency is somewhere in the middle.
The cities is where all the people are. What are these "concerns" that rural areas have that should override most of the concerns of the majority of people?
There are simple and solid answers to this. First of all, dozens of other countries make it work. So there's nothing magical that needs to be done. Second, the Bill of Rights is there to protect the minority from the majority. It's also there to protect the people from the government, which is partly synonymous. Third, right now everyone in the minority in a winner-take-all state is being disenfranchised. My vote never mattered, not once in my entire life. I think that's far more important than rural voters having cool voting power. At least they would still have some voting power, whereas I have none.
Almost like they could be represented in the house or the Senate, right
Even if the 10 largest cities all voted Democrat that would only account for 8% of the vote. And not everyone votes the same way in a city either. There are plenty of republicans voting in major cities but their vote doesn't matter because of the college. Long Island went to Trump. NYC still got 400,000 votes for Trump. All this means is more people get a voice.
Pretty sure the rural concerns trumped the urban ones in the last elections in the Netherlands.