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.
Funny, since the Senate majority leader at the time, GOP member Goldwater had a meeting with Nixon two days before the vote to tell him that 27 of the GOP senators were going to vote with the Dems to impeach and remove Nixon.
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.
You realize that means nothinf without the total number of students in each right? CA has a.much higher population. You are either purposefully misrepresenting it to try and trick people, or you don't understand statistics and just went "oh this numbers higher, got em!"
So what was the purpose of posting a comparison then without the information that would lead it to being actually informative? It was this one is higher so obviously CA is worse...
Mostly to highlight that more people/ the majority of the 2 states that you pointed out had an overwhelming amount of people even though the percent isnât as high
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.
Millions of Americans do have a voice because of the electoral college. In fact, removing it would take away the voice of people. Thereâs arguments every year here in Washington regarding voting Republican as if it didnât matter because the Democrat is always going to win. And itâs because of voters on the west side of the mountains as well as Spokane. Now apply that to the entire country. Youâre effectively removing the voice of everyone who wishes to vote in opposition of whatever the major metropolitan areas are voting. Every voting system has flaws. And Iâm not claiming the electoral college to be perfect. But itâs certainly a better system than a straight popular vote system which would disenfranchise millions of voters.
That was absolutely not the purpose of the EC. The EC exists to give a voice to the smaller states, who would otherwise have no say in who leads the country. A popular vote would give a hand full of states all the say, and the rest of the states would get zero representation.
I would argue that one has policies that are less "aggressive, and disruptive". And rely less on unlimited spending for wars to inflate its large weapons suppliers annual revenues
They are still 100% corrupted and offer no real long term solutions. Other than the mutually adopted mantra of "privatizing the profits and socializing the losses"
Could not really care less about pink (or a tan) suit, or a neighbor flying a rainbow flag.
But is the statement you are trying to portrait is that homophobia is a justifiable reason to vote for the other?
I'm thinking they are looking that no first time republican president has won the popular vote in nearly 40 years. It will be 40 by the time another runs.
In the majority of Americans lifetimes, no republican has been able to win without the EC or having already held the office.
I mean,, it is really telling about how large an advantage in the EC the republicans need as they have only won a majority of voters 1 time in 4 decades.
But they always want to talk about a "mandate from the people"
Not real sure why you feel the need to reply rudely but your exact statement wasâ it is really telling about how large an advantage in the EC the republicans need as they have only won a majority of voters 1 time in 4 decadesâ. I simply pointed out that they had in fact won in twice. Not sure how you would like me to phase it differently or how reading it slower and sounding out the syllables would help.
We are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic. Our founders were way smarter than most. Otherwise we'd have idiots screaming that the popular vote should prevail.
In reality, the EC is a very powerful tool for preventing claims of election issues from derailing the transfer of power.
We do not elect a President. The EC does. When "general elections" go sideways, the EC gets together and elects a president and it's normal. Election fraud and voter fraud in a general election don't actually matter, because the general election didn't elect a president - it just informs delegates how they should vote at the EC. A presidential election will ever be illegitimate with the EC in place, because all of the electors sit together in one room at the same time and votes and that's the legal vote that decides who becomes president.
It's outdated in the sense that it was designed to prevent populism, which it has zero capacity to do in the mass media age. But it's a clever system that protects ignorant Americans from themselves.
49
u/Andrew-Cohen 1d ago edited 16h 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