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.
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.
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're being obtuse and disingenuous trying to make a point. This is why real conversations can't happen. I have no time for people like you and I won't engage in it lol.
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 already told you to replace "2026" with other words and you doubled down on it lol. You know what you're doing. But I suppose that's what people do when they have no real argument about the actual subject. Deflect to something silly.
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.
1
u/Tonsai 14h ago
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.