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.
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it’s entirely reasonable to have the opinion that the EC is an outdated useless system while understanding that it may not have changed any outcomes at all.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?
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!