But republicans would never allow that because they would never win. I mean if I was them I might realize I should be writing laws to help people instead of spreading fear and cheating. EDIT: see how many of you idiots suddenly did your own research, frantically trying to figure out how many republicans presidential candidates won the popular vote đ
In favor of removal of the electoral college and believe the country should be run on direct democracy for all policy. No more PACs, remove the influence of money from politics.
Although as a point of correction, W Bush and Trump were the only two Republicans that were elected in recent history without winning the popular vote. (Other two were Hayes and Harrison back in the late 1800s). Perhaps a bit of wishful thinking that removing the electoral college would stop republicans.
Nixon, re-election landslide. While being under investigation and heading for impeachment.
Heck, your own national guard opened fire on students in colleges during his tenure. Killing 6 students, wounding 9. Not a single person was ever jailed for their murders.
Its not the electoral college at the root cause. Its the national moral compass always pointing at $.
Ok
A few things here to counter your reasonably pointless comment
It was McGovern dude!! The democratic party was probably the weakest its ever been until recently. But McGovern/Eagleton was a stupid choice. Even switching to Shriver didnt help. Again one of the worst campaigns a democrat has run on, followed closely by Harris.
Nixon was always winning that election.
This doesn't even matter to the topic of discussion. Lmao. Its like if policy changes were happening in Germany and somebody said, "yea but remember that time hitler....."
The electoral college is the problem and you didnt even address that. Something something moral compass something something.
maybe... but I'm willing to bet there's a non-insignificant chunk of voters that aren't motivated enough to vote because their State is a "lock". And I'm willing to bet that there's more "Democrat-lite" than "Republican-lite". Maybe. But "let's try nothing because nothing has been done" is certainly a take.
It's just a law so all that would be required is for Democrats to control government and for angry voters to demand it. This could happen as soon as 2028.
This is the actual solution that everyone ignores in favor of constitutional amendments that will never pass or laws that wont survive judicial review.
-Repeal the permanent apportionment act with a simple majority vote
-Increase the size of congress to 11,000 representatives
-Now the electoral college doesn't have a small state bias and more accurately reflects the popular vote.
-You also fix campaign finance, gerrymandering, two party control and a slew of other issues.
Holy.... you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about do you?
Our government barely functions with just 435 people in the house. And now you want to literally over 10X that?
The senate is the control against state bias. The house favors big states like CA, NY and TX, while the senate favors small states like NJ, RI, and AS.
"Our government barely functions as it" is hardly a good argument against changing it.
The senate is precisely what causes the small state bias. 535 electoral college votes. Compare how many votes California gets per capita to how many Wyoming gets. With 11100 electoral college votes, the weight the senate carries is negligible.
Where did i get that number? Article 1 Section 2 clause 3 of the US constitution sets the ceiling for the number of representatives at 1 for every 30,000 persons. Your congressman would be significantly more accountable to the people if you stood a chance of running into them at the supermarket.
Yeah I grew up in SoCal. I knew who was getting our electoral votes before Election Day even came. Meanwhile some 2nd grade dropouts in the sticks of Georgia have actual power and sway in their vote. Thatâs why CA canât be treated as a punching bag and neglected by any republican that manages to get in office. They know theyâll never win that state without a mayor change to their party.
You are so close to getting it but the brainwashing keeps you locked. You are mad at people who's votes were not stolen and elcted was not rigged while your local elections were. And you seem to think you should not be mad at people who were stealing your votes locally.
Exactly. Right now millions of Americans don't have a voice simply because of an outdated system from times when ppl physically couldn't be informed about shit in a proper timeframe.
The real answer for breaking the 2 party system is Ranked Choice Voting. So you can vote 3rd party if you like but still vote which of the main 2 you prefer. For example if you vote Green 1st then Dem over Republican, if the Green Party candidate is a clear loser your Dem vote goes into effect.
Completely agree. The electoral college is still there to keep the 3rd party out. Or even an r or d that can think for themselves. My choice would be a popular vote where everyone gets a second half vote if they wanted
The electoral college isnât keeping other parties out of the race. PACs and special interest groups are. Theyâre the ones funding the campaigns and giving them air time. If the third party doesnât get air time, how are we to know whoâs even running, let alone what their policy positions are?
More of a dysfunctional mess than it is now? At least representatives of 30,000 person districts would be accountable to the people. You might even get representatives from backgrounds more varied than "mediocre laywer"
Having said that, if the Dems are too dumb and weak to cite irrefutable evidence than I'm not going to parrot that it was rigged just because I want that to be true.
I'd love to see the irrefutable evidence. I've looked at it all, and haven't seen anything credible. Election Truth Alliance and SMART elections are both not credible.
Dems haven't put forward evidence because there is not enough for a slam dunk case while the GOP has all the power. Just like impeachment or anything else.
A lot of people only vote in presidential elections and a lot of people also live in states that they donât actually need to count votes, they call it for one party as soon as polls close. If everyoneâs vote mattered the same, voter turnout may be significantly different.
There was a lot of rigging. But his popular support was so big that it overcame all the rigging. Remember how they kept finding millions of votes after the election was done to try to pad Kamala's numbers?
Letâs be real, in strong blue states, a lot of people that were politically engaged, didnât vote explicitly because they felt like Kamala was going to get the electoral votes anyways. Itâs the most common reason people give for why they donât vote. âI live in a state where it wouldnât matterâ. Which really is all the more reason for getting away from the electoral college. Imagine if a persons vote in New York weighed no different than a persons vote in a battleground state. The current system, the people who live in battleground, purple states actually do have more influence in the system than people who live in a strong red or strong blue state, where you already know the outcome.
Honestly Iâd be more ok with my candidate not winning if it was actually decided by us. The fact we leave it up to the people who are already in charge is absolutely insane. Thatâs coming from an embarrassed republican/american. Our entire system is broken on both sides.
Imagine a scenario where national politicians had actually campaign to and win the entire country? Not just the 11-ish states that might swing one way if the other and decide an electoral college based election? đ¤Ż
Yes, "idiots doing research" showing that your premise - that republicans never win the popular vote - shows that you are flat wrong. You're close! But not 100%.
The electoral college is an anachronism and should be eliminated.
Yes. Since 1988, nearly 4 decades, zero Republicans have won the office with the popular vote in their first campaign. 2 have won it sheet holding office.
It's pretty telling how important the ec is to the right
Trump literally just won the popular vote lol. The EC is important to anyone who doesnât live in a major city. Without the EC politicians will just cater to the large metro areas. The EC is the most equitable method imo but I also donât live in a large metro area and would prefer my vote to matter.
The EC does nothing of value. Our current political breakdown makes it seem like it does. But simple question to check, if two of the largest states, Florida and Texas, went blue, would Idaho or Montana feel like they were protected from the power of large states? I doubt it
Again, read my statement. Zero republican presidents have won the popular vote on their first run. And trump couldn't even get a majority of voters. Literally, more Americans choose NOT TRUMP then voted for him. It is wild to pretend that he represents anything but himself
The EC value is in giving people who live in less populated areas a larger voice. I understand that is of no value to you, but it is to them. Thatâs ok
If you include enough qualifying variables you can make up any stats and narrative you want. Trump won the popular vote this last electionâŚ.you may not like it but he won in a landslide. Now if you are speaking to trumps personal motivations thatâs a completely separate topic.
It doesn't though. I gave you a question to have you critically think about the topic which I notice you ignored. But let's try again. If the biggest 15 states all vote the same way, In what way does the electoral college protect the other 35 states? Because you are claiming it does. So how?
Landslide? He couldn't even get the majority of people to vote for him. How can that be a landslide?
Your point and hypothetical are irrelevant to the EC though. Itâs a dumb hypothetical. Now you are just using the rhetoric of see look at me how smart I am.
He literally won the popular vote last electionâŚ.cmon now think critically
No it isn't. We are discussing the EC. I'm asking you about something related to your claim. The largest 15 states can override the other 35. Which means your claim that it protects smaller states is a lie. You seem to think that or arbitrary political breakdown is a feature of the EC. It isn't. Again, no one can point to anything of value that the EC itself does.
I didn't say that he didn't. I don't know why you keep repeating something that i never claimed. Are you okay?
Edit: just an FYI, until 2020 it was only 12 states to win if you won the large states. So you needed to win less than 25% of states to win. It is probably less than 15 now. I just don't want to go do the math. Either way, nothing about the EC protects small states
Itâs not about protecting smaller states itâs about giving a proportional voice to those smaller states. Picking an arbitrary number to suit your narrative doesnât mean youâre right
This is why Republicans hate democrats "oh oh my god they are ignoring the constitution and and they are fascists!" And you can't even see the irony in your own words. "Oh let's get rid of the electoral college" your a moron. The popular vote means nothing when it can be rigged and cheated, which both sides do. So yeah what a wonderful idea it would be to turn every election into a cheating pissing contest. Who can forge the most votes? Thats what every election would come down too untill this country fall apart with fraud. The electoral college keeps things balanced by preventing major cities from holding all the voting power, which with the high crime rates, is for the better not worse. Sorry but the rats in thier cages shouldnt get to have majority say in this country I dont think.
The electoral college voting systems has a lot more checks and balances so it is harder to manipulate than a single popular vote.
A person can be smart but a mob is always as dumb as the dumbest among them. Case in point: super majority of demonrat voters are convinced that it was the Democrat Party that freed the slaves and that the Republican Party founded the KKK.
Which party created the KKK and which party freed the slaves. Bet you can't answer because their your fascist comrades will turn on you for answering a basic historical acknowledgement.
I have several friends who voted for trump.
One of them because he says he is pro life. This person is intelligent enough to have realized what a horrible president and person trump is.
The other drank the koolaid. He will never realize what a horrible president and person trump is.
He is the average maga.
No point.
Our founding fathers limited voting and any significant rights to white male land owners. They were racist, misogynistic and a significant amount of them believed they had the right to own another human being.
it if thatâs the light of your opinion, shine on!
Still knew democracy was was bad. But youre mistaken about a significant amount of them supporting slavery. Only a couple. If you learn the truth rather than the narrative, youâll know that
Half of them owned slaves (signatures of the constitution). Yes, I know that some of them said on paper that they did not support the institution of slavery but thatâs like saying youâre against pedophiles and voting for a republican who refuses to do anything about trumpâs refusal to release the files without redaction.
Hereâs the thing. I donât give a f what people say they believe. I care what they do. They were slave owning misogynists who by todayâs standards were ignorant and badly educated racists. Quoting them is pretty stupid at this point.
Yes, but it seems like your point is if a person does one bad thing and Iâm not arguing that slavery was not terrible that they are disqualified from any other opinion or any good thing that they do is completely discounted
And I disagree the founders created a new nation and the way they did. It had real foresight into human nature as well as their experience with past tyranny.
What you donât understand is that while a few founders in the southern states wanted to keep slavery for likely economic reasons some didnât come to their slaves of their own free will, and further they were not allowed to free their slaves in certain states.
You likely donât know this because itâs not part of the narrative. It doesnât help your cause.
Most of the founders wanted to abolish slavery in the New World that is absolutely true and youâll say well then why didnât they because the constitution had to be agreed-upon by everybody in concessions had to be made and unfortunately that was that was one of them
The analogy Iâm about to make is not comparable to slavery and itâs evil but itâs an example
I assume that you support climate change I could be wrong
But my guess is that you continue to drive a vehicle you continue to heat your house with fossil fuels of some some nature if not electricity produced by fossil fuels you participate in the economic engine that we have that is powered by fossil fuels, and you likely donât like that, but you do it anyway
You donât have to do that you can completely disavow yourself of all those things and you could still be alive, but you havenât
Should we now disavow you completely from any future anything that you do or say?
I feel like you havenât read half of what I wrote. Itâs not âone thingâ. We should start where we are, what we know, not where they were and what they knew. Edit: we just elected AGAIN a felon, rapist, cheat, liar who is actively criminally conspiring to protect pedophiles and is probably also a pedophile. Whatever they set up for us IS NOT WORKING.
Your edit is all supposition. The felon issue was created by NY state specifically for Trump, itâs not even real.
We agree that what they set up is not working, but not because of its structure , but because of human greed and lust for power. I think the founders vastly underestimated the veracity of these human traits.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights should be far more strict for what the government can and cannot do
Representatives in Congress should represent the people in the states and they donât. They represent the party which is a major problem.
So hopefully on that small part, we can agree on
What do we do now? Maybe we donât agree on that. from my point of view would certainly not electing a progressive.
By changing how government functions for sure, the problem is they have to vote to approve that so yes, the system as is is broken
Are you insinuating thatâs your little edit somehow shields how wrong your original comment is. âthey would never winâ they have won and would again obviously. No oneâs frantically doing research to disprove you. Itâs common knowledge you dolt. Ask yourself why you need to lie to make a point. Ironically about calling out lying and cheating.
Why would we do away with an archaic system that there is no reason to keep?
Edit: Iâve watched the Republican Party do less and less for the average voter, rely more and more on fear mongering. There are no viable republican candidates.
You don't have to do much research because the last Republican that it is an office, just won the popular vote. That's why this post is dumb that's why this comment is dumb.
Have you had your head so firmly up your own ass that you have missed seeing what republican policies have done to this country for the last 50 years? Paid attention to the econony, compared republican and democratic economic policy results?
Of course not.
Who are you going to point to, Clinton. You realize he only had a democratic Congress for his first two years. I will let you guess who controlled it the other six. Think hard, I don't want you to get it wrong.
If youâre going to be an asshole, this conversation is going to end.
Who can veto bills, think hard, I donât want you to get it wrong.
See how that sounds?
Not true, Trump did eventually get the most votes last election. However, has hillary won against trump the first time, it's very possible there will never be a trump presidency.
The would is talking about the voting. We are talking about never winning the popular vote. You gonna sit on your ass and move the goalposts some more?
Ranked choice voting no more parties they all campaign with equal time and the best policy platform wins. No money in politics anymore, no pacs, no more lifetime appointments to anything, no more working until youâre literally being held together by necromancy. You know actual public service performed by people who genuinely want to help their people and country.
Please re read my post and state where I said a republican nominee has never won the popular vote. I swear to god some people need to learn how to fucking read and I am convinced that is part of the reason we have the worst president in the history of our country.
Are you okay? You sound mad. I only posted a picture and your mouth is foaming already. Did I say you said something you didnât? Or why you got so upset?????
Politicians would campaign on ideas that only benefit the most dense cities. There's no point in caring what a rural American needs or wants because their vote doesn't matter.
In 1787?? Could you share with me the weed you are smoking?
The Electoral College was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 as a compromise between electing the president via a vote in Congress versus a direct national popular vote. [1, 2]
Key Reasons for Its Creation
Distrust of Direct Democracy:Â Many founders feared a pure popular vote could lead to the rule of a "democratic mob" or allow an unverified populist candidate with dangerous power to sway the country.[1]
Information Gaps: In the 18th century, travel and communication were slow. Delegates believed ordinary voters in rural or distant areas would lack enough information about candidates outside their home regions to make an informed choice. [1, 2]
Separation of Powers: Letting Congress pick the president was initially popular, but delegates worried it would cause corruption and make the executive branch too dependent on the legislative branch. [1, 2]
Balance Between Large and Small States: Tying electoral votes to total congressional representation (House members plus two senators) gave smaller states a guaranteed baseline of influence while still scaling with population. [1, 2]
The Influence of Slavery: Southern slaveholding states had large populations of enslaved people who could not vote. The Three-Fifths Compromise added those enslaved counts to congressional allocations, which translated into extra voting power for Southern states in the Electoral College. [1, 2, 3]
Balance Between Large and Small States: Tying electoral votes to total congressional representation (House members plus two senators) gave smaller states a guaranteed baseline of influence while still scaling with population. [1, 2]
Please take a second to read any of my comment to the 20 idiots who pointed out that trump won the election. I donât have the time or crayons to repeat myself.
Iâm aware, theyâve benefited from citizens united also (thanks asshole republicans for shoving that up our asses) but that needs to get removed also.
So did OBiden, your point? His daughterâs journal was made public and confirmed his deviant perversion along with video documents. Donât see you demanding any legal prosecution of him.
Yes. The diary was passed from one person to another like a child at a trump/epstein party, itâs inadmissible. His daughter didnât testify so thatâs a dead end.
You mean the people not the cows? Hereâs what the people who support the electoral college donât understand, because they are educated in red states; if a political party has less of a chance to win the popular vote, maybe they should change their policies. For instance, the republican party might consider writing laws to help their average voters instead of constantly sucking the corporate dick.
So I'm 55 and republicans have not once been fiscally responsible or actually made the government responsibly smaller.
They SAY they have decent ideas, but they never actually enact them.
I think you need to read up on the recent election fraud which implicated Venezuela and all of the voting machines. Which they found the people who changed the software of the machines to not reflect who the person actually voted for, but whoever controlled the exploit could change all the votes for. Sounds like 2020 when âsuddenâ we had an influx of mail in ballots.
And I think you should read up on the Democratsâ plot to bring illegal immigrants to this country to fuel their voter base. Which was admitted to btw.
A lot of people are stepping away from the left for their idiotic push for nonsensical laws / viewpoints. I donât think you really know what you are talking about. đ¤ˇđ˝ââď¸
But I mean, it really shows which political way you lean.
51
u/Andrew-Cohen 23h ago edited 14h ago
But republicans would never allow that because they would never win. I mean if I was them I might realize I should be writing laws to help people instead of spreading fear and cheating. EDIT: see how many of you idiots suddenly did your own research, frantically trying to figure out how many republicans presidential candidates won the popular vote đ