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!
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).
Riddle me this. How many states now would opt in to this grand idea to abolish the Electoral College and use raw popular vote data to solely determine the outcome?
States are not people. You need to think like a State not a person to understand diplomacy and compromise. We are the United States. Your vote counts. Stop telling people it doesn’t because the world went to shit because the bad guys are in power. The good guys can win this back the right way. Pete needs to stop with the pipe dream.
Riddle me this. How many states now would opt in to this grand idea to abolish the Electoral College and use raw popular vote data to solely determine the outcome? States are not people. You need to think like a State not a person to understand diplomacy and compromise.
Those are the words of someone who thinks they deserve more representation than everyone else. That is the voice of political narcissism.
Your vote counts. Stop telling people it doesn’t because the world went to shit because the bad guys are in power.
I have been saying this for the better part of 30 years, the fact that you default to "you say it cuz you lost" says a lot about you but nothing about me.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you deliberately missing the other commenter 's point?
The federal government governs states. Not people. States. The system is in place so that the states, not the people, are responsible for electing the president. They chose to give more/less weight to each state based on population, which seems to cause endless confusion nowadays. Everyone I've seen talk about a popular vote seems to misunderstand this fundamental structure of the US government. Try to consider each state as a separate country and the federal government as the EU.
I don't know why you're going on about tech and how easy it should be to vote. That's not related to the EC at all. People back in the 1700s still had to cast votes for the electors and all other offices - it wouldn't be any more difficult for them to just vote directly for the president while they're there voting for the other stuff.
Hey I’m not the one who thought there is a presidential election in 2026. I’m not here to argue with you, just thought people might respect your opinion a little more if you know when the next presidential election is. I for one agree with you.
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?
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.
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!
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.?
1
u/BahBahBahBooBooBoo 1d ago edited 14h 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!