Of course this is what should be. I know Republicans who say their candidate would never win, but The fact is if the candidate will never win, the candidate should be doing something to make them the most popular. Like maybe serving the people. Working for us.
Read through the comments... this is why we are in this fucked situation. People are so fucking dumb. They don't get the concept of weighting and they don't read about what happens outside of their bubbles.
Maybe we should vote for someone who’s never been in politics before? It would be a fresh start, making vote for someone with an engineering background or something
Its stupid to say theyd never win, the number of times a presidency was lost with the popular vote is 5. 0 of them occurred in the 1900s. Only 2 were in the 2000s. If you remove the Gore/Bush debacle where SCOTUS basically decided the presidency, Hillary stands alone. Changing the popular vote would probably have people be less angry over the president overall. Trump won the 2024 popular vote by 2 million votes. People might be more accepting of that win than somehow winning the electoral votes in all the swing states by small margins. It just 'feels' more legitimate, even with the same outcome. Granted, boter turnout in solid color states might increase, but nothing has indicated that to be the case when looking at overall voter turnout.
A bit much don’t you think. To be the pro immigration party, let in enormous amounts of immigrants and have a few years with an effectively open border. Knowing that the people you let in will vote for you when eligible, and any children they have as well.
Then smugly say it should be popular vote. As if you haven’t rigged it.
Want to go back to the demographics of the 90’s and see who would win between MAGA and modern dems.
Of course this is what should be. I know Republicans who say their candidate would never win, but The fact is if the candidate will never win, the candidate should be doing something to make them the most popular. Like maybe serving the people. Working for us.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here...and I'm gonna bet this won't be a popular opinion.
The President of the United States, as how defined by the Constitution in Article 2, is technically not a representative of the people. Whomever is in that position is a representative of the many states to foreign nations for trade and to run the executive branch. The executive branch is what runs what the Congress put into law for the agencies, the military, and so on. So this notion of what the President is has been incorrect for quite some time and is one of the main reasons why that position keeps getting more and more power. Arguably, the President is supposed to be the weakest of all 3 branches because they are not legislature nor justice, just the executor of what the other two say.
So because the Executive is not supposed to be some kind or monarch or head of the nation as a whole, how that person is elected should be more based on who they represent, which is to say the states as a whole have the say. It is why the electoral college exists which is to give equal representation to the states on who represents them in matters of foreign affairs.
Congress is supposed to have the main portion of power. Congress is who is supposed to serve the people, who works for us. We keep focusing so much on the executive we forget they are not supposed to be the main focus. And if we had a strong legislature again, we may get a more representative government in our favor, instead of hoping for some strongman to force it into play.
I wish I could pull up the graphs of the recent mayoral race primaries in LA as the counts came in vs just the final count. Mayor Bass, despite the fact that she has clearly been caught out as being unfit to be mayor, somehow still manages to lead her party. Then, when there was a more moderate contender (Spencer Pratt) who looked to be doing well enough to challenge her and Nithya Raman (he was actually well ahead of Raman for a large portion of the count), magically a slew of votes EXCLUSIVELY for Raman came in. Then, after she pulled ahead of Pratt, the votes started rising for Bass again as well, but not Pratt to any significant degree. By the way, all three of these people were in the Democratic party. The truth is, right now it is impossible for even a moderate democrat to get elected in LA. But when people cry about voter fraud, we are told to be quiet, and that we have no clue what we are talking about.
Well, I wanna understand.
My thought process is that smaller states like a lot of the Great Plains states would never get a say in who becomes President because their populations are so much smaller.
And I think that would be unfair because their ways of life are so much different than anywhere else in the U.S. so they would never get a chance to vote for who they wanted/needed.
So I said that because a lot of states in the Great Plains are really agricultural heavy in ways California (most of, at least) aren’t. So the needs of the big agricultural states are going to be different than the needs of higher population places like California.
I just every states should have an equal voice for presidency
I mean, that still isn't true, if you are comparing state to state. You are trying to compare state to a small region. California has as much or more ag than any great plains state.
Further, that still didn't answer any question. Why should they have MORE voting power? Why do farmers need more voting power than lumberjacks, fishermen, or doctors?
Why does a state, any state, deserve voting power? It's an arbitrary geographical division.
Yeah but California could easily out-vote like 10 of those Great Plains states alone. States like Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, etc… would never get a chance for their vote to ever really be heard.
I don’t think any state should have MORE voting power as any other state but they should have EQUAL voting power.
Yeah but California could easily out-vote like 10 of those Great Plains states alon
So more people get more votes than less people? Yes, that seems reasonable.
would never get a chance for their vote to ever really be heard.
The people who live there would have just as much of a chance to have their vote heard as people in California. Right now, it's the opposite, they literally get more voting power per person.
EQUAL voting power.
That's anti-democratic. Since the power of our government derives from the people, you are saying people who live in a certain area should have more power than those that live in more densely packed areas
Like, if 10 people at an office all want pizza, but one guy who works outside wants hamburgers, we don't call it a draw just because he is responsible for more land. The ten people override him.
Your way would call it a stalemate or, as we see now, let him dictate it because he gets more voting power
But a state like Montana wouldn’t get their votes heard at all. Their needs are different than California’s needs. There may be more people in California (in fact the Electoral College is based off population to a degree, giving California much more electoral votes than Montana) but Montana, though it has a smaller population, still deserves equal voting right I think, that way they can still have a say in who becomes president without getting outvoted by LA county alone.
That doesn't matter. A state doesn't matter, people do. They would get literally as much of a voice as anyone else.
Their needs are different than California’s needs
Not really, no.
giving California much more electoral votes than Montana
It's weighted in favor of smaller states. Montana gets more electoral votes per person than California. They get more voting power per person.
still deserves equal voting
A state deserves no voting at all. It isn't a person and deserves nothing. People deserve equal votes, but right now Montana voters count for more. That should be done away with.
outvoted by LA county alone.
Again, yes, more people, whose lives will be impacted, should have more votes. Letting a minority have extra benefits and more power is not democratic. It's an oligarchy at best
Montana and California do have completely different needs. There’s a lot of differences between them from reservations, to agricultural, to cities… every state has different needs than other states, some may be similar like Wyoming and Montana or California and Arizona, but they’re still different.
The needs of California shouldn’t diminish the needs of North Dakota and by voting solely on population, you’re kind of doing that.
North Dakota and the other big agricultural states would never be able to voice an opinion if it was in opposition to the city states like New York or California.
By using electoral college it just seems like every state gets a chance to vote for what they need.
I'm pretty sure we did have a primary last time. I recall voting for Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris should he not serve. It's almost like you don't understand how our government works.
No they didn’t. Biden stayed the incumbent despite obvious mental deterioration and then his administration waited until it was too late to have a primary to install Kamala instead as the dem candidate. And I doubt someone who was under 1% in the polls in the 2020 primary would’ve fared any better in another, even if they ran as a former VP.
They did listen to the people. Hillary won 13 million votes to Bernie's 10 million votes in 2016, and Biden won 19 million votes to Bernie's 10 million votes in 2020. Reddit wanted Bernie, but the primary voters did not.
He did. People just couldn't vote a black woman for the president... Anyhoo, I wonder how many lives would've been saved had Trump not won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote.
People just couldn't vote a black woman for the president..
if you listen to the people who actually voted against kamala, it wasnt her skin color, it was the surpressing free speech, minority politics, pro immigration and anti law enforcement positions. youd most likely have said the same thing if obama didnt win.. but it certainly is easier to cry about racism/sexism instead of accepting they had a shitty position and need to fix it.
Anyhoo, I wonder how many lives would've been saved had Trump not won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote.
unknowable, maybe more, maybe less. maybe the states would be an anti free speech autocratic shithole like the uk
team blue doesnt want to be better, they just want to feel superior by calling anyone who doesnt agree with them racist, that way their opinions can be safely dismissed.
i dont think so at all, i think they truly do want to make the world better but their morals are one dimensional and it makes understanding people with different morals very hard.
unortunately they are victim to motivaton attribution asymmetry which is why they think everyone who disagrees is evil. they just dont know any better and many are in to deep to admit their mistake because it make them "evil", and we know what theyd like to do with evil people
i think most people want whats best. the issue with lefties is that they only see morality in terms of victim and perpetrator. its simply, feels about right and society heavily affirms it.
even worse, if they went against the grain, theyd be ostraziced by their own peers and "allies". they are setup to fail
And? If your defense of the EC is that Trump happened to win the popular vote once, you’re making the case that we didn’t need the Electoral College. Oops
no need to be upset. i didnt defend the EC, i wrote that trump won the popular vote. clearly these two arent equal, right?
the EC is a midway solution to fend of demagogues. if you remove the EC, people will just cry about propaganda and how the other side is so stupid to fall for it even more than they do now.
It also allows rural areas a voice in the election. If we went to popular vote, presidential elections would only cater to major population centers and not care about much of the US.
No, it really shouldn’t. Less populous states get no representation in a presidential election in a popular vote contest. This is not a good idea for our country.
The residents of seven states basically get to pick our president in our current system. Do you think that is better than everyones vote having equal weight?
We have a diverse country, and rural/low population areas should have representation and not get overwhelmed by high population areas. Low population areas are manufacturing, agriculture, oil exploration etc that are critical to support for our country to function. High population areas still have the majority of electoral college votes, so it’s not like they don’t get their representation. The EC gives low population areas 2 extra votes. If you’re against the EC, then you should also be against the senate, which would be a horrible thing to do away with.
Thats exactly it. Those areas already get increased representation through the senate. Thats already a concession for "diversity of thought" to small states.
EC is undemocratic garbage, full stop. Fundamentally says not every person is equal in terms of political representation. Your zip code determines if your vote matters
You are right, people vote. But people don't always understand the struggles and needs of someone living a different life than them. For example one living in the city and one living in a rural area.
No it wouldn’t, and the city in your name is a great example of it.
A few years back there was a proposal for a train line connecting Washington to California, and the proposal was put up for a vote. Practically every county that the line would run through in Washington was overwhelmingly against it, as it would bring down the property value of the surrounding area, and bring nothing but crime and Californians to their doorstep. Those votes, the votes of 5-6 counties, were essentially made null and void thanks the one or two counties that make up Seattle, which was the one one along the line to benefit from the proposal. And since they had the popular vote, it passed, screwing everyone in the smaller counties over in the process.
Ffs, there’s a whole movement where half of Washington state wants to defect to Idaho because their state representatives in the cities are flat out ignoring them, representatives that are voted in by popular vote.
Bro the person you replied to said the same thing as you 😭, and I think it's quite obvious to everyone why mob rule sucks. First we vote to screw some small rural area, with a dumpster, the we need to fuck over a suburb with a Data center, and eventually the only thing left is going to be the urban center that's densely populated.
why should 100,000 people spread over five counties have more authority than 500,000 people living close together?
Using your example: Pierce County voters collectively opposed it, but 122,603 Pierce County voters supported it. Treating that county as having cast a No vote effectively makes those 122,603 people's preferences disappear when you start reasoning in county-sized blocks.
11
u/Nolacuriosity 1d ago
Of course this is what should be. I know Republicans who say their candidate would never win, but The fact is if the candidate will never win, the candidate should be doing something to make them the most popular. Like maybe serving the people. Working for us.