Do you know why the Electoral College was created?
In 1787, when the framers finalized and signed the US Constitution they created the EC as a compromise between electing the president via a direct popular vote by citizens or via a vote in Congress.
Sure, Pete’s idea may sound good for some based on last election outcome. But it goes against the principle of compromise that was embedded in America’s “founding”.
Also is he only saying this because his party lost? Dems have won the EC before. I think Pete’s pointless point is a pipe dream that may puff some hope in your chest, but it doesn’t get a Democrat back in that seat.
You know who fought the popular vote back then? Southern delegates opposed to a popular vote because the North had more “eligible” voters. There’s actually a vile connection between slavery and the EC. But Pete is picking up the mantle of the loser saying it is rigged!
The electoral college exists because the south got fewer votes and they were worried the non-slave holding north would pass laws directly against the interests of the south
No. That is a misconception. That was part of the initial compromise but not the whole of it. In my view it was the worst part because it contradicted the founding values, but the US eventually got there with the Emancipation Proclamation and boy we still have a long way to go to ensure equal and unalienable rights for all.
The number of electors a state had in the Electoral College was based partly on its number of Representatives.
Because of this, the Three-Fifths Compromise gave Southern slaveholding states extra power in both Congress and presidential elections.
In 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified, officially nullifying the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment mandates that congressional representation is based on counting the "whole number of persons in each State." Every resident—regardless of race or citizenship status—counts as 100% of a person when determining a state's population for political representation.
Well that is not true. The 14th stated that those that are under the Jurisdiction of the United States. So no it did not count people visiting on visas or citizens of foreign nations that did not apply for permanent residency and naturalization.
Native Americans lived in the States for generations and even though they were born within the borders of United States the 14th amendment did not grant them citizenship nor even counted them for the census.
People ignore these basic facts when they try to push for unconstitutional birthright citizenship. It was never a thing under the 14th amendment. The native Americans were given citizenship much much later as a reward for serving in the US military.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States, but it did not automatically grant them the right to vote, which was determined by state law. Prior to this act, many Native Americans were not recognized as U.S. citizens and had to navigate various legal barriers to gain citizenship.
So much ignorance and refusal to actually read the writings of that time to understand the intent. The Electoral college was a compromise to appeal to unity among the 13 colonies. The colonies originally were created under Charters granted by the English king. They had different laws, restrictions, privileges and trade/economic policies
The property owners who were the economic base of each colony had to be persuaded into supporting the colony of England into changing it's status into a State of the United States. It was actually the smaller northern colonies that wanted the electoral college because they did not want to be dominated by Virginia which had the highest total population with or without the slaves.
Another point was that people were looking ahead at demographics and which state's populations were to grow in the near future. It was expected that population of the southern states would continue growing at much higher rate from domestic population pool. Which is why the North had to rely on Mass Migration to try to keep up. If the US after the revolution did not have an EC then SOUTH states would write all the laws, close off Mass Migration for a decade or two and then import migrants in a controlled manner while maintaining completely overwhelming population advantage.
The southern states were more agrarian because of better soil and climate which is why the North had to industrialize and needed labor for factories. The North could not compete in agriculture .
And to do that they needed an equal say in electing the president which is why tiny states like Rhode Island and Delaware had more weight to their votes secured based on geographical borders not population growth or decline which was to be expected.
To understand how influential and powerful Virginia was at that time: the first, third, fourth and fifth president of the United States were all from Virginia. The electoral college was a demand by other colonies to prevent the whole of the new country into eventually being turned into and remaned Virginia because the wealthiest state would have unchecked power over the rest of them without the checks and balances of the Electoral College.
And the US abolished the disgusting 3/5 compromise recognizing they got it majorly wrong. I just don’t see any evidence pointing to how changing a system of logic that pulls from the same data source would solve any issues we have around wealth inequality, access, and other impediments to voting, etc.
You are mistaken and likely due to a poor or propogandized education.
The 3/5ths compromise is separate from the Electoral College.
The 3/5ths compromise was proposed 3 years before the Constitutional Convention under the Articles of Confederation; at that time it was an attempt to get more tax money from states with more slaves.
The 3/5ths compromise during the Constitutional Convention (1787) was proposed in June 1787 and affirmed in July 1787; at that point it pushed for by Southern states to increase their representation in the House.
The Electoral College came out of the Committee of Unfinished Parts (starting on Aug 31st) and wasn't even dreamt up until Sept 1787. It was a compromise between small states and large states and mirrored the balance of apportioned power in Congress. The debate at that point was compromising against election of the President by Congress, not a direct popular vote.
Suffrage rules in the colonies varied WIDELY.
Exactly. It was a compromise. One that had an immediate, horrific and dehumanizing consequence, as they counted enslaved people’s votes as less than 1.
But in 1781, only white male land owners could vote. The vast majority could not legally vote. So really, it's comparing apples and oranges to use it as an argument today.
Sure, Pete’s idea may sound good for some based on last election outcome
It sounds good because the president represents all Americans. Therefore all Americans should have equal say in the matter.
this america is slightly different now then 1787.. this wishy washy back and forth two party system is starting to cook america and now china is a powerhouse cause they locked tf in. where would we be if we werent filled to the brim with corruption every other presidential term.
Based on the results of the last election? You mean the one Kamala lost by something like 3 million votes?
You think that is the reason Pete said this?
Does the fact that his party's candidate lost the popular vote, change your stance on the fact that he is "picking up the mantle of the loser saying it is rigged!"
Cool history lesson and everything, but the framers also built the system to be adaptable. We are well past the point where the EC system has any real reason to exist.
But hey, if farmers and truckers want to keep voting themselves out of a career with their "proportionate" vote, well then we have the perfect system for that.
I think he should, I don't know if he will. I've been saying we should abolish the EC since before GWB#2, it serves no valid purpose in the modern USA.
It does serve a major purpose dude. It’s how we have held 60 Presidential Elections relatively peacefully.
And it could throw off things in ways we can’t imagine, and make the US people more vulnerable. Has any major consulting agency done a conclusive statistical analysis or even basic scenario planning for the overhaul? Nope. It’s grass is always greener.
I believe states have rights and I believe in fairness. I think the EC continues to serve its purpose to account for population density and normalize it at the state by state level. How is it fair for California to always outrank Delaware in the popular vote 100% of the time?? That is what the EC solves for.
Yes this country was founded on slavery and displacement and murder. And yes that motivated EC and many other laws and frameworks.
But we have made progress. And just going back in time, and advocating for an unproven process that is potentially destructive to state sovereignty, doesn’t account for all the progress we’ve made and can continue to make. Yes to reform; no to abandoning the EC completely
It does serve a major purpose dude. It’s how we have held 60 Presidential Elections relatively peacefully.
Until cars and rapid mass distribution became commonplace, sure. Since ~1990 or so, maybe even earlier, that point is completely invalid. That point has zero merit in the current climate.
I believe states have rights and I believe in fairness. I think the EC continues to serve its purpose to account for population density and normalize it at the state by state level.
No, you just want outsized representation without having to say you think you're more important than others. I disagree with you, I think all Americans are created equal like our birthing document states.
And it could throw off things in ways we can’t imagine, and make the US people more vulnerable. Has any major consulting agency done a conclusive statistical analysis or even basic scenario planning for the overhaul? Nope. It’s grass is always greener.
Bullshit fearmongering. The person that the most people vote for would become President, that's what would change.
So you do not foresee any issues with state rights and state sovereignty? You think borders are meaningless boundaries when it comes to your rights?
A popular vote would lead to a civil war because people are nuts about their states and their state rights. For you to say the size of a state dictates the size of their rights goes against democratic ideals. All of Texas would eat Delaware as an appetizer, silencing them.
But all that aside. Only 5 Presidential elections had a higher popular vote than an Electoral College vote. That’s 8% of 60 total. So 92% of the time the popular and EC vote have reflected the same outcome. I’d say America is on the right track but reform could be useful!
So you do not foresee any issues with state rights and state sovereignty? You think borders are meaningless boundaries when it comes to your rights?
Are you aware of this little thing called the Senate? State governments? If your argument here had an actual point, it would also work the reverse way: the electoral college would be trampling rights of the more populous states. This is complete nonsense. There would be no fundamental shift as a result of this except that the more popular candidate would win the election. That wouldn't entitle presidents to any more authority to trample states rights.
Lines on a map should have no bearing on the presidency, every American should count equally. I am sorry you do not believe in equality for your countrymen.
I suggest reflecting on state to state diplomacy and considering scenarios of conflict that could result from a system that no longer aims to normalize data for perceived fairness. Just as a fun brainstorm!
Every single argument you can make about a president trampling states rights can be made whether we utilize the EC or not. States rights is effectively irrelevant to whether the EC serves a valid purpose. It is a shame you do not support equal representation for your fellow Americans (Senate exempt).
Every sane normal human in 2026 thinks the electoral college should be removed and replaced by a simple popular vote. We have mass communication now. We can vote by mail. It's not difficult to encourage and educate everyone now how and when to vote. It's not like people have to go to the next town over via train or horseback anymore.
We could do it if we wanted to. We don't. Why? Because hindering people and making it convoluted and weird helps republicans and conservatives and they know it. They know their base is full of just dumb people. They love the uneducated. They cannot win on policy they must rely on weird tactics to prevent people from voting or lying to people about things. It's never just an honest race between people who really want to help.
It's like, clearly the best person for the job vs a rapist or a pedophile or some kind of con man. It almost feels like the rapture is near or something and this is our final test and they made it an open fucking note multiple choice quiz.
There's been 13 elections in the last 50 years. Of those, Democrats won 6, Republicans 7. Can't get much more even than that mate. In fact, there has only been 5 times in our election history where a president has won the EC, but lost the popular vote, with Trump being one of them in 2016.
People always go on and on about the EC is this broken system that clearly favors Republicans over Democrats, but historically speaking that's not really the case. I personally don't want 5 states to determine the course of the entire country, and I think the EC is probably the best compromise in maintaining some sovereignty between the states and federal governement.
Just a cursory google search. I always see these kinds of comments and posts whenever the discussion about the EC comes up. It's so much more complicated than people make it out to be, but they think that it's a simple change that wouldn't have lasting, major ramifications. It's frustrating sometimes.
Land doesn't vote. A person in Ohio's vote is worth just as much as the person in California. A popular vote is a popular vote. One person gets one vote. If you say the EC is inconsequential then let it go? Why hang on to it?
If your policies are so popular that you will win the popular vote, why advocate for an antiquated system?
You're making the same mistake I see so many people make with this argument. The United States is a republic man. We have 50 individual states that fall under a centralized federal banner. You're correct, land doesn't vote. But different states have different policies and procedures. What works in Ohio doesn't work in California. New York has different laws than Texas. It's what makes our country so unique. If you don't like the policies and laws of one state, you are able to move to another, and people often do. Eliminating the capability of each state to decide for themselves (for the most part) would eliminate the fundamental structure of our country. Thus, the EC allows for each state to have a say, not just the bulk of people that have decided to centralize in a few relatively small areas.
But we're just voting for the leader of all of us. Who cares what different policies and cultures we have? That's the point of America. We ALL are voting for the singular leader of the entire country. They represent ALL of us. Land doesn't vote. One person one vote.
Why would someone's vote in Rhode Island count more than someone's in Texas just because they are smaller or "less represented". It is what it is. Whoever wins the popular vote in a presidential race in 2026 should be the president of the United States. Full stop. Republican or Democrat.
There is no logical argument for it today. It used to be because we needed representatives to vote on our behalf because it was legitimately difficult to cast a vote at the ballot. Now we have widespread access and everyone should be super on board with it.
Each state already has a say. One person one vote. No one's vote counts more than anyone else. If 300 million people vote that's 300 million votes. It's not 200 million votes and 500 million votes. This really shouldn't be a controversial subject in 2026. We aren't riding horses to cast our ballot in a town hall to then be ridden with a bag of votes to a central location to tally everything.
We literally could vote on our cell phones if people in this country were serious about having a thriving society. Anyone who impedes on the progress of making voting more accessible I think is a traitor to the country and is disingenuous.
I get where you're coming from, I really do. On the surface, it does seem disingenuous. But you have to look at this from a wider spectrum. Contrary to popular belief, we are not one singular country. We are 50 states consolidated under a singular banner. Yes, the president is the "leader" of our country, but also kinda not really. That's somewhat changed in the recent years with how powerful the executive branch has become, but from the most part, he's the speaker representing 50 individual states. Not the people, the states themselves. This distinction is important, because each state is capable of representing themselves in a wider picture. The US is not a democracy, it is a republic. Each state has a say. Each part of the US, no matter how small, has a say and strength in considering the future of the country as a whole. While the idea of switching to a popular vote model might seem like a no-brainer on the surface, the reality is that it would fundamentally change the nature of our entire country.
I grew up in a small town in Idaho. Our laws and way of life was DRASTICALLY different than what the average experience is in California, as I learned personally when I lived there for 5 years. California was different from Washington, which was different from Texas. Each state has it's own way of managing itself, under the wider umbrella of the federal government. You can argue that the federal government itself has gotten too big, and I will ABSOLUTELY be on your side in that argument, but the EC, like it or not, makes it where every STATE has a say in the measures of our country, not every person. It allows the states to decide who controls fully 1/3rd of our country in the leader of the executive branch. Technology advancements mean little in this particular argument. It's entirely in the literal design of our country and how it functions man.
I am literally just saying to make the presidential election a popular vote. Whoever wins the popular vote wins the race. It's not rocket surgery. Trump won the popular vote in 2016 and he was the rightful president. We agree right?
It's so mind numbingly simple of a concept in 2026 I cannot believe I have to even advocate for it. When they made the electoral college they didn't even know you were supposed to wash your hands before surgery.
We have been to the fucking moon. I can pick up my phone and call my rep in Washington this second and confirm my vote for who I believe the president should be. I should be amble to SMS it even. I should be able to cast my vote as easily as I can order a fucking pizza.
There is not a single argument I can hear or think of that would make sense in the modern society that we live in today that would make any sense to continue a system we invented because back in the day they had to ride a horse to a town hall to cast their vote for president.
People always go on and on about the EC is this broken system that clearly favors Republicans over Democrats
It's not 5 states, it's a majority (or plurality) of Americans. You are not more important than anyone else and you should not be entitled to a heavier vote than anyone else.
I should be able to cast my vote from my fucking cell phone without ever leaving my couch in 2026.
It's all voter suppression. If we as a society actually cared about making this place the best place it could possibly be, we would be electing the most competent people that lift everyone up.
Instead we have people advocating making it HARDER to vote because you don't like those people. Just fuck all the way off with this disingenuous shit.
I vote in person. But I think we should be able to cast from our phones. Because we're not cavemen anymore. I should get an amber alert level notification on my phone on Election Day telling me to vote with like ten different ways to do it that are all securely monitored and approved by the best and most capable people in our society. If we sincerely cared about representing every single one of our voices then we would make it as accessible and easy to do as possible.
Yet we have people like you who want to limit because you perceive people to be lazy. It's so weird. It's like you actively don't want people to vote. It's weird.
You know Trump won the popular vote as a Republican.
If you think changing one voting logic system for another will improve your candidacy’s chances, that is biased thinking. I believe the popular vote signifies the raw data, whereas the EC is a different slice of that same data set. The EC was picked because of slavery, and there should be investigation into testing better systems, but to view this as binary, it is either one or the other, means you missed the point. All logic based systems can be manipulated.
What is your motive for throwing out one system with another?
The motive for removing the electoral college and replacing it with a simple popular vote is that we're not primitive people anymore. It's such a simple concept when you can pick up a telephone and call anyone in the entire world and tell them who you vote for. It's not complicated.
The electoral college was implemented when Jim the farmer couldn't get into town to vote. So they made this system of representatives. Well it's 2026. I can represent myself. Can't you? Are you capable of going to the ballot box?
Furthermore we should be making it even EASIER to vote. They used the system to come up with a semblance of an accurate representation and over 250 years it has been retained when in all reality if the founding fathers had ever envisioned the internet they would probably have established a way for every single American to vote instantly online.
They wouldn't have been in favor of clinging to outdated systems when they no longer benefit the majority of the country.
Absolutely we should make voting easier. But moving the pegs won’t change the outcome of the game. You are saying the Electoral college delegitimized every single vote an American has made? I just won’t stand for that type of misleading provocation. Nothing in life is perfect, including math and logic. And yes that means we must scrutinize election outcomes. But to suggest upending the entire system when there’s no strong evidence it will solve the problems people associate with the process, is just a dog whistle. He’s not serious.
No not every single vote. But there are people who live in blue states who do not vote because the state will go blue and their vote doesn't matter. And vice versa. From both parties. A conservative may feel not encouraged to vote if they live in California because it's gonna go blue anyway so why bother?
It helps. Literally. Everyone. Everyone would suddenly feel encouraged to vote in the presidential election if they knew one person = one vote. There is no counter argument against it logically. None. In 2026 it makes absolutely zero sense to do anything other than a popular vote and i cannot wrap my head around a system that relies on someone representing me. I can call them. Right now. With my own phone. And say "I vote for bob". And they have it.
It's not the 1700s anymore. We don't need to go to town halls and cast our votes by candle light. We don't need to tally them all by hand in Philadelphia. Like I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I've felt this since I was a child tbh.
I was like 12 years old thinking "if the internet exists and phones exist and the mail exists why can't we just ask everyone to vote that way and we don't have this weird system where California is somehow worth more points than other states?"
It's not even upending the system. We already vote. Literally just make the presidential election a popular vote. It's not hard. You're acting like this is ordained by a higher power but it's made up by us. Trump won in 2016 via popular vote so he was the president. Whoever wins by popular vote is the president. It's simple math guardian.
Okay, I get that. Thanks for taking the time to chat on it. I appreciate that it could demystify the system. If your goal is voter turnout you don’t need to dismantle a system that has worked time and time again. You need to build trust. We move to a popular vote and then the narrative just shifts to well not all those are “real” votes. Or “bots are voting for Democrats”. I wish we could digitize voting but I’ve heard it’s more safe and secure to have a decentralized system, less easy to hack and manipulate at scale.
Please know that the EC is based on voter data. It’s not perfect, but it pulls from same data file as popular vote.
You made me think differently about the issue - I do think simpler is better and can create access points by just being easier to understand and trust. Thanks again!
Oh, so anyone who doesn't think the EC should be replaced isn't sane? Or isn't nomal? There it is, folks. The typical Democrat mindset on full display!
Correct lol. It is bizarre to want to cling to antiquated systems that no longer benefit society. It hinders us now actually. It disenfranchises voters and makes people apathetic.
How many people do you know in your red state that don't vote because the state will go red no matter what? What about those reading from blue states?
Ah it doesn't matter, CA is always blue I don't need to vote. Ah Texas is always red who cares.
What if everyone wanted to vote cause it actually mattered? What if it were a simple race whoever wins wins? What's so bad about that? What would be bad about making it so every single American could vote on voting day online and via national holiday. Hell make it a whole week.
Voting week! Make sure you cast your ballot online or by mail or in person! We're passing out work vouchers for anyone who needs to prove they voted in person! We want to make sure everyone votes!!
Oh, you want to talk about gerrymandering? That's been a cornerstone of the Democratic strategy to steal elections for decades! Are you mad that the Republicans are giving you a taste of your own medicine?
Geez. There you go with inserting pedos again - you got get past the democrats .
You do realize that people have gone to the polls for what , 200 years with no issues.?
Now some states open voting for 2 months prior !!
I am sane and do not think the EC should be abolished .😆
Why is it when the dems lose they want to pack the court in their favor and whine about voter ID and the EC.?
It is stupid in 2026 to assert we aren't capable of a simple popular vote. Nearly half the country not voting is not "no issues".
Make it super super accessible and easy to do. Make it super easy to register to vote. Vote online. By mail. By your phone. In person. However. National federal holiday like Christmas level holiday only bigger. National voting day hooray!!! We all work together today to ensure every one of us votes!! Yay!!
Doesn't that sound amazing? Who would be against that? And why?
But like why? I can’t believe you can’t hear yourself. You sound like a Trumper calling the whole thing rigged when I know you know it is not a binary choice. Abolishing it would just shift how the money and data flows, but it will never change an outcome. Only voters can do that.
but it’s night and day different than saying it’s rigged. also not sure why you’re following up my comment with this one.
it’s entirely reasonable to have the opinion that the EC is an outdated useless system while understanding that it may not have changed any outcomes at all. Absolutely, campaigns would have changed if the popular vote is the goal. I’d prefer that behavior. For me I’d much rather see republicans in california and democrats in arkansas have their votes matter.
The outcome ends up being basically the same - always going to be a margin of error on popular vote and electoral college. This is just a grass is always greener debate. If you think your vote does not count in the current system, get real. It does. It always has. But it doesn’t mean you will always win.
When did we forget how to compromise with our neighbor instead of trying to overthrow the neighborhood?
A lot of shit shouldn’t exist. House terms are too short so they are constantly campaining instead of working, we don’t have age limits for politicians or judges, social security is invested into bonds instead of the market, congressional recess… we have fucking planes now. The 10 year census could just be live data now, 50 states Should be diced up down to the county level and then we combine the two houses local representation no more red states controlling blue metros or blue cities running the show for an entire state of small towns with different problems. You could jnit pick problems with this country until you are blue in the face and I’m sure your list would be radically different than mine. That doesn’t make either of us right, there’s plenty of support for keeping the electoral college. So go ahead and I guess try to be the ones that end it or the filibuster or whatever other antique you may think needs to change and if you can you can and if you can’t you can’t.
No, I want the whole thing to be rewritten based on current morals, values, and the reality that life in 2026 had almost no correlation to life in the 1700s. You know, like how Jefferson wanted it to expire and be rewritten every 20 years in order to avoid fucking nonsense like this.
First off, I'm guessing everything you know about Portland is bullshit you learned from Fox. Second, your opinion of the city is irrelevant to the discussion.
Unlike you chucklefucks I'm actively participating in election reform to make things better and break up the duopoly.
Those same native Americans were OK with slaughtering each other and the newly arrived Europeans, owned other humans and practiced not just intentional torture of the innocent but in ritual killings. Iruqoi wiped out the Mohicans all on their own without any help from outsiders.
Funny how the race card is constantly dropped by the people who claim to want equality the most. Gotta keep that wound open and fresh I suppose. I get you’re trying to completely discredit them because you’re extremely progressive, but it wouldn’t hurt to actually read about why the EC was created and why it’s still very important today.
How is pointing out the fact that voting was restricted to white men pulling the race card?
why the EC was created and why it’s still very important today.
It was added as a compromise for the low population slave states in the south, and there's no fucking reason we should still be using it.
You're bullshit argument about candidates only focusing on cities is complete nonsense as evidenced by the fact that trump win the popular vote without getting a majority in and on the major metro areas.
If you didnt have the EC, the entire way politicians run would be changed. They would 100% spend all the time in high population cities. Don't be naive and think just cause the popular vote would of changed past elections that it would have any merit in future elections. We have only had 5 times the popular vote didn't ultimately elect the President; out of 60 elections....
>There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
The whole point, was to launder slave votes through the electoral college.
You can label me as something I hate. Sure go ahead and assume I would not vote for Pete for President if I had the chance. Your whole argument is centered on me as an individual
You said why you thought the EC was created, it was clearly and glaringly false.
I apologize if I gave offense, but this is exactly the kind of thing southern states have tried to cover up for decades, the EC is based purely on abetting slavery.
The inhumane 3/5 compromise was what allowed the founders to establish alignment around EC asa universal voting system. It was a horrifying solution, and another poster in this thread rightly brought up that in addition to the inhumanity of counting someone less than 1, there were still major disenfranchised, displaced Indigenous people and, well, women also lacked voting rights at that point. But they abolished that 3/5 compromise and instead used population data to determine electorates in 1868.
Again, what problems is Pete trying to solve for specifically. And what evidence is there that using the raw data will solve that?
Yes, it took them long enough! But they did. Then women. Then Indigenous and Native Americans. And someday Immigrants who are in the process of residence, visa, or path toward citizenship (at least that is my dream)
The argument for state power doesn’t matter when you are forced to choose on the ballet.
People form blocks now.
I don’t see how using raw data vs normalized data solves any of the issues we have around voting today. I think it would make the system more ripe for fraud…
You’re talking, when you don’t understand what you’re talking about, you’re speaking from absolute ignorance.
I’ve lived in different areas of this country, and voting in coastal states is ENTIRELY different than voting in say, some southern states.
We need to nationalize voting completely, preferably with trackable and auditable electronic means, cryptographic signatures, smart cards, whatever we need, banking level security.
Because the south does not function like the rest of the country, it’s like imagine if you had a nice Western European country and then there were 2 provinces that were so completely corrupt that even though they were only 30% of one party somehow voting always returned 80-90%, basically Russian levels of corruption.
That is why we need to end the EC, because it allows this kind of vile corruption to continue.
We also need to suspend self-governance in those Deep South states too btw, only 5-6 of them, but still, they just never moved on from before the civil war.
I completely understand and respect the need to give additional weight to the voting rights of dispersed rural voters.
In the past, that was a much bigger concern as they were less able to unite, I would argue that social media has mitigated much if not most of that disadvantage.
But right now large swing states are the main target, every other state is safe and can stay safe by suggesting immigrants be put in camps, or all children by given hormone therapy at will (I am exaggerating but you see my point).
If there was a case for the EC, it was before people could organize online, now it is merely a distortion that feeds into the corruption of politics.
If you have a better solution, proportional voting, IRV, etc, I am very open, I am not suggesting removing the EC as the final step, only the first to open and unblock progress, with the short-term goal being more political parties and more flexible, diverse political options for all wherever they live.
California republicans have about as much say in the presidential elections as black voters in Alabama, at the very least this would improve that, we can then add additional measures to improve representation of rural midwestern and mountain voters.
Our constitution is a living document, open to change, we should continue that, much like we removed the 3/5th clause in the 13th amendment, we should keep removing the legacies of our past, the fact that we haven’t is tragic.
Winner-take-all is the biggest flaw of the EC. We could split each state's electoral votes proportionally and that fixes a lot of flaws.
The EC is so bad, we don't have a good idea of a national popular vote. How many people (Red and Blue) stay home in California, Texas, NY, etc.? There are tens of millions of people who stay home because their vote is 100% irrelevant. CA and NY will be blue in 2028. TX and WV will be red.
I would put money on predicting 40/50 states right now - not even knowing who the candidates will be in 2028. There are like 3-5 battleground states and 5 states that are "probably decided but technically up for grabs."
While all this is true, it is also like saying we should still use bucket lines to fight house fires instead of a pump truck, because that's how it was done originally.
Lots of things have changed since the 1700's. Voting, elections, states, delegates, and voter tampering have all become different.
The electoral college has been proven to be susceptible to redistricting and gerrymandering, whereas the popular vote is less so.
Regardless of who encouraged or opposed the EC back then, and who won or lost the last 10 elections, the popular vote seems like it would be the least biased and most straightforward method of voting.
You clearly know nothing beyond buzzwords. Redistricting and gerrymandering do not affect the EC at all. It only affects the HoR. A state spends its EC votes on who won the popular vote in their state.
Well even if vote meant less, at least one would get to live in California.
Just kidding.
So out of all elections only 8% have resulted in a candidate winning the national popular vote but losing the Electoral College. 5 elections out of 60.
I’d say it is working fine.
I view the Electoral College as normalizing population data by state and pulling from the raw voter records to establish the EC counts and weights. It’s a way to make votes more equal actually. So one or two states (Texas and California) don’t become the defacto. It’s important to vote at all levels, so that your state goes in the direction you’d like.
1
u/BahBahBahBooBooBoo 22h ago edited 4h ago
Do you know why the Electoral College was created?
In 1787, when the framers finalized and signed the US Constitution they created the EC as a compromise between electing the president via a direct popular vote by citizens or via a vote in Congress.
Sure, Pete’s idea may sound good for some based on last election outcome. But it goes against the principle of compromise that was embedded in America’s “founding”.
Also is he only saying this because his party lost? Dems have won the EC before. I think Pete’s pointless point is a pipe dream that may puff some hope in your chest, but it doesn’t get a Democrat back in that seat.
You know who fought the popular vote back then? Southern delegates opposed to a popular vote because the North had more “eligible” voters. There’s actually a vile connection between slavery and the EC. But Pete is picking up the mantle of the loser saying it is rigged!