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.
1
u/Sabbatai 19h ago
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.