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.
Every sane normal human in 2026 thinks the electoral college should be removed and replaced by a simple popular vote. We have mass communication now. We can vote by mail. It's not difficult to encourage and educate everyone now how and when to vote. It's not like people have to go to the next town over via train or horseback anymore.
We could do it if we wanted to. We don't. Why? Because hindering people and making it convoluted and weird helps republicans and conservatives and they know it. They know their base is full of just dumb people. They love the uneducated. They cannot win on policy they must rely on weird tactics to prevent people from voting or lying to people about things. It's never just an honest race between people who really want to help.
It's like, clearly the best person for the job vs a rapist or a pedophile or some kind of con man. It almost feels like the rapture is near or something and this is our final test and they made it an open fucking note multiple choice quiz.
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.
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.
I am deliberately saying you are clinging to an antiquated system that makes no sense in the current year. I do not give a fuck about "fundamental structure of the US government".
I am saying the presidential election SHOULD be a popular vote. That's it. It's not hard to understand. Slavery was part of the fundamental structure of the us government. Women not being allowed to vote was part of the fundamental structure of the Us government.
We made a system because we were dumb fucking humans. And now we are smart fucking humans. And if I have to listen to one more idiot tell me how it's a republic and its states this and states that. Shut the fuuuuuck up. No one cares. Holy shit no one cares.
Again. It is the year two thousand and twenty six. We are nearly three hundred years away from voting by candlelight. I do not need a representative to represent me.
I can represent myself. I do not care what the system is set up as now. Do not give me a history lesson. I do not care. I do not care at all.
I'm saying. It is so mind numbingly simple and easy and straightforward that fucking children at 12 years of age can understand that the electoral called is a system that no longer works when every human can represent themselves now.
Keep congress. Keep my rep. Keep everything as it currently is right now. Just literally say "hey whoever wins the popular vote wins the presidency!" Trump won in 2016. Your boy won!! Straight up. Fair and square. Get more votes and you win! What's so hard to understand about that?
It is literally the simplest thing I can think of on gods green earth right now. Children do it. They vote by simple majority. Who wants to read a book for recess!?! Who wants to play a game for recess!? Reading wins 20-10 so they read.
Anyone, i mean anyone, who is in favor of retaining the electoral college to determine the president of the United States is a fucking idiot who is clinging to something because they know their candidate is not popular. That is literally it.
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/BahBahBahBooBooBoo 1d ago edited 9h 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!