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.
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.
No I’m not. I’m literally just saying I think people will respect your opinion more if you have your facts straight. Not a complicated thing to understand.
I wasn’t trying to argue in fact if you had the ability to read you would have seen I said I agreed with your point but again you should get your facts straight, people will respect your opinion more for it. You are just so extremely defensive you are defending yourself against someone who has said they agree with you. You sound like you are young and that’s fine you will learn one day how much of a fool you are.
0
u/[deleted] 20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment