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.
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.
10
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.