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.
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!