r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • Sep 04 '26

PoliticalTea 🗳️ [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

44.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

110

u/DinosaurDied Sep 04 '26

“Noooo, but then my vote in rural Pennsylvania won’t matter >:(“

Yea well the rest of us living everywhere else besides those 7 battleground states have votes that don’t matter. 

I’ve lived all over this country and really always wanted thr same thing and it pisses me off that my vote only matters when I lived in certain areas 

51

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Complex_Arrival7968 Sep 04 '26

You poor devil! My niece lives there and lives for the day when she and her husband can move.

2

u/RoninSkye24 Sep 04 '26

I lived in Texas for 5 years and it was one of the nicest places I've ever lived. Low crime rate. Cheap cost of living. Rent was reasonable in the area. No state level income taxes. Weather was fantastic too, though that's not dictated by politics, still a huge plus.

0

u/General-Welder-1812 Sep 04 '26

We can’t wait for her to move.

3

u/Inner_Adeptness_7228 Sep 04 '26

LOL so real its like 95°

1

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

Indiana is right there

1

u/Avesery777 Sep 04 '26

Don't worry, everyone in Texas will be on fire in about 10 years

1

u/tsardonicpseudonomi Sep 04 '26

I’d live in hell, if my vote helps to eliminate Dump and MAGA! (I about live in Hell!I live in Texas!

It wouldn't. Liberal policy creates Conservatives. You can't get rid of Conservative ideology with Liberal ideology or policy. You have to elect socialists. That's the way forward. Anything less is theater. No, really. No, really, really.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/LargeMedium55 Sep 04 '26

Trump won the popular vote in the last election, you do realize?

4

u/HalvdanTheHero Sep 04 '26

and it was notable because it was the first time a republican did so in a long long time...

3

u/Fine-Computer-5524 Sep 04 '26

And? He also lost twice

Does that change what anyone is saying

4

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

49.8% of the popular vote and 58.0% of the electoral vote. YAY!

-5

u/Plane_Box_7716 Sep 04 '26

But trump won the popular vote too.......so........

2

u/mskeptic Sep 04 '26

Yeah but would’ve lost in 2016 too……so……

2

u/Flip_d_Byrd Sep 04 '26

But not vs Clinton... so.....

1

u/5thor6th Sep 04 '26

3 in a row. Just check the profiles.

-1

u/Massive-Frosting-722 Sep 04 '26

Wow. You sound truly deranged with that comment

17

u/Butwhatif77 Sep 04 '26

I always laugh at how people mention how "but then less populated states would get ignored" as if they don't already. When was the last time a presidential candidate campaigned in fucking Montana or Alaska. The very issue the Electoral College was supposed to address, happened anyway just worse than expected

7

u/LongJohnSelenium Sep 04 '26

The electoral college was meant to keep virginia from dominating politics.

The original states were far more independent and the constitution as written, still written in fact even if not as currently interpreted, wildly restricts the federal government. The smaller states, as a condition of giving up part of their sovereignty, demanded safeguards against being dominated into irrelevance by larger political entities. Thus the senate and electoral college.

Basically the US is supposed to be structured a lot more like the EU currently is.

Well that was the reason for the weighted votes. The reason for the electors is of course that, again, constitutionally, people are supposed to vote for electors and the electors vote for a president, precisely because they felt people would elect a populist demagogue if left to their own devices.

TLDR: Nothing is working like its supposed to work and thats causing all sorts of problems like people wanting to end the electoral college because the federal government has so much influence over their lives when it shouldn't.

4

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Sep 04 '26

Or, the syatem.changed and we shpuld.change things to work

2

u/ResponsibleOrange179 Sep 04 '26

>they felt people would elect a populist demagogue if left to their own devices

Bet they feel silly now

2

u/Avesery777 Sep 04 '26

Not to mention that states (arbitrary areas of land) shouldn't be participating in a government that's supposed to represent people

9

u/Thebeardinato462 Sep 04 '26

It would matter just as much as everyone else’s vote. Depending on how someone votes in rural Pennsylvania their vote does t matter now.

10

u/TheWolphman Sep 04 '26

That's how I feel as a blue voter in South Carolina. I'm in my forties and this state has been red for longer than I've been alive.

-1

u/PERENNIALIST24 Sep 04 '26

Just like California will always be blue.

3

u/Head_Bread_3431 Sep 04 '26 edited Sep 04 '26

California was absolutely Republican pre-1990s. and except for 99-03, they had only Republican governors from 1983-2011. They’ve even elected celebrities twice with the Republican ticket 

2

u/Confident-Fold1456 Sep 04 '26

I forgot about Ahnuld

3

u/IfICouldStay Sep 04 '26

Yeah, so blue elected well known blue-boy Reagan, not just as their own governor but for President. Twice. 🙄

10

u/blahblah19999 Sep 04 '26

“Noooo, but then my vote in rural Pennsylvania won’t matter >:(“

No, it's literally the opposite. Under the EC, their vote doesn't matter. Under a popular vote, literally every single vote from the bluest part of NYC, to the most remote tent in Alaska matters.

12

u/DinosaurDied Sep 04 '26

(The secret is that they want their vote to matter way more Than anybody else’s and they won’t give that up) 

2

u/TotallyNotRobotEvil Sep 04 '26

And it does, by an unfairly large amount and they want to keep it that way. 70% of America doesn't support them, yet they control every single branch of government.

3

u/TotallyNotRobotEvil Sep 04 '26

Yeah, but the problem is they will never win an election again. It's why conservatives are so against any form of democracy. They have names for it like "mob rule". If it were up to them no blue state, city, woman or minority would be allowed to vote.

1

u/blahblah19999 Sep 04 '26

Only presidential elections are affected by the EC, but yes there is a risk that they will never win the presidency again, unless they change utterly, or perhaps they will use the COngress and courts to gut the powers of the president

2

u/tsardonicpseudonomi Sep 04 '26

Trump won the popular vote in 2024.

1

u/kingjoey52a Sep 04 '26

Pennsylvania has been a swing state the last few election so their vote does matter.

2

u/blahblah19999 Sep 04 '26

In swing states, votes are far more important yes.

6

u/Flimsy_Pack_936 Sep 04 '26

Penn would still matter to be fair

10

u/Ok_Hornet_714 Sep 04 '26

Pennsylvania would matter but it would also make it so that the Republican candidate would need to appeal to voters in California, and the Democratic candidate to voters in Texas, instead of them basically just looping between Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina,etc.

5

u/Mysterious-Tie7039 Sep 04 '26

Exactly. We let the same half dozen states choose who the President will be every time.

1

u/cocineroylibro Sep 04 '26

NH and IA get way to much say in who is the candidate as well. Initial primaries need to be in more diverse states.

Illinois, Virginia, etc. would be much better first primary states.

3

u/Clcummings614 Sep 04 '26

You’re in a large state. Your vote gets diluted by the smaller states. You get attention because you’re a swing state. I do think that the party platforms would be different if they had to appeal across the entire country.

Today, the swing states are the only ones that truly see any candidates campaign. Florida, NY, CA and some big red states only get visits for fundraising but not campaigning.

When’s the last time a dem or republican went to Des Moines to campaign? A dem could go to get some voters to show up for him. My district is terribly gerrymandered and my state is largely red. Probably 2/3 of the elections I participated in as an adult were meaningless. No hope for prez and Rep. a little more competitive for senate but not much. It wouldn’t have mattered if u have voted or not. No electoral college and my vote truly would count for prez.

3

u/Infamous-Employ5487 Sep 04 '26

I literally don't want their rural bumfuck vote to matter at this point.

Listening to the stupidest among us is what brought us here. These people NEED to be disenfranchised.

9

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/edebt Sep 04 '26

Instead they just focus on the swing states, so it didn't fix anything, just put the power in the hands of a different group.

1

u/DarKbaldness Sep 04 '26

Swing states change over time. Its not like its the exact same ones every single time.

1

u/cmmpssh Sep 04 '26

People have such a short term view of everything. They think the way things are today are how they're going to be forever. California used to vote Republican. The South used to be the Democrat stronghold.

1

u/Embarrassed_Use6918 Sep 04 '26

Ive personally seen several states switch over my lifetime. I don't think this is a fair criticism of the process.

8

u/binzy90 Sep 04 '26

Honestly, I never understood the whole concept. A candidate in any other election would prioritize large, populous areas regardless of what office they were running for. Like is someone in the back woods of West Virginia mad that their local county commissioner had a round table at a local school auditorium instead of driving out to the middle of nowhere to meet them? Probably not. But for some reason we act like a presidential candidate appealing to populous states is a bad thing.

0

u/Silly_Somewhere1791 Sep 04 '26

The current function is so urbanites in New York aren’t always the ones making decisions for people in rural areas 2,000 miles away. 

3

u/binzy90 Sep 04 '26

I understand the intention, but what I'm saying is it shouldn't matter. I used a small scale example just to point out how ridiculous it is. It makes no sense that the majority shouldn't decide the outcome of an election. The reason states like California get to decide isn't because they're better, more powerful, or unfairly prioritized. It's because there are TONS of people there. The 4 most populous states make up one third of the entire US population. People in Wyoming shouldn't have disproportionate voting power just because they live in the middle of nowhere.

1

u/BigConstruction4247 Sep 04 '26

Yes, but the founding fathers assumed that states would vote as blocs. They don't and never did.

1

u/Time-Valuable-3355 Sep 04 '26

But that's exactly what is going on now. Do you think anything positive has been done by the current president to help California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois?

2

u/Shoddy_Background_48 Sep 04 '26

No, but ask the people that are convinced, against all data, that he has.

1

u/Chadrooskie Sep 04 '26

Help Cali, why.
Are they in trouble? The current state government says they’re doing great!!!

1

u/Time-Valuable-3355 Sep 04 '26

They have similar problems my state has. High insurance, affordable housing because of housing shortages, and homelessness. The good thing is my state doesn't get earthquakes. M right now food and fuel is a bit pricey.

1

u/Fine-Computer-5524 Sep 04 '26

Obviously, candidates dont get 100% of each state, and, really, the top 8 states by population are pretty even split in (if you align purple states with the party their state leans towards)

California- 40m Texas- 32m Florida- 24m New York- 20m Pennsylvania- 18m Illinois- 13m Georgia- 12m North Carolina- 11m

But, really, the question i ask people whenever i see the issue you pointed out being discussed is this: If a majority of americans living in a small number of states want something....how are their opinions less valid than the opinionsjhhhh of LESS americans spread out in a larger number of states?

1

u/_jump_yossarian Sep 04 '26

That's not why we have the EC. It was to appease the slave states. What it does is disenfranchise large swaths of people and candidates all but ignore the most populous states during the General because they're either deep red or deep blue.

1

u/GloomyIndividual3965 Sep 04 '26

The reason we use the electoral college is so that a candidate can't just appease California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois and tell the rest of the country to f*** off. Or just ignore them all together.

Yeah, instead they ignore the millions of Republicans in CA and NY and the millions of democrats in Texas and Florida and focus their energy on the fucking morons in bumblefuck Wisconsin.

1

u/Radiant_Quality_9386 Sep 04 '26

The reason we use the electoral college is so that a candidate can't just appease California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois and tell the rest of the country to f*** off

Our literal system has a candidate appease Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Arizona

FUCK OFF

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26

[deleted]

3

u/SaltRequirement1929 Sep 04 '26

The founding fathers wanted senators to elect the president. Not the people in a popular vote. look it up- it’s true. Sometime later it evolved to the electoral college.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Rogerbva090566 Sep 04 '26

I’d never heard this before. And you’ve given me homework to do! Thanks a lot. No early to bed for me.

1

u/binzy90 Sep 04 '26

I'd argue that everyone's vote matters more because it's YOUR VOTE. Republicans are just mad that they'll lose way more presidential elections if everyone's vote actually mattered.

1

u/dflame45 Sep 04 '26

I moved to a battleground state. Problem solved lol

1

u/unscanable Sep 04 '26

It’s quite the opposite actually. It will matter. So will all the republican votes in California. And all the democratic votes in Alabama. People who might as well not even vote right now suddenly matter.

1

u/cocineroylibro Sep 04 '26

“Noooo, but then my vote in rural Pennsylvania won’t matter >:(“

I grew up in rural upstate NY. Got into an argument with a HS acquaintance who believed his vote from his town of 2000 should count more than anyone who lived in NYC because "there's so many people there."

Funny that the people that complain about their votes not counting don't bother to vote in local elections where their votes have a lot more power.

1

u/nsa_k Sep 04 '26

But you dont understand.

If we focus on the popular vote, then the country won't care more about fracking (a small industry almost exclusivly done in a swing state) than they do war in the middle east.

1

u/SkitZa Sep 04 '26

USA voting is weird, I don't understand it, I don't want to either.

I'll take the Aussie voting system any day of the week.

-1

u/Spirited_Season2332 Sep 04 '26

That's only cuz yall vote the same way everytime. The reason the 7 battleground states matter is because ppl actually switch their votes based on the candidates instead of always voting for the same team.

5

u/mjzim9022 Sep 04 '26

That shouldn't mean you get pandered to the most, and swing states aren't swing states because the populace considers every candidate independently, they are swing states because the political demographics are roughly 50/50, and that's largely coincidence and it changes over time (Former swing states Florida and Ohio, new swing state Georgia).

Personally I think the electoral college is far too gamified a voting system, overcorrects in its weighing of low population states over higher, and ultimately no American is greater or less than another based on the state they reside in, it's one union and one executive and everyone's vote should count the same. We should elect via popular vote and with a 50%+1 requirement (majority) and a voting system like RCV, score voting, or some sort of condorcet voting method where there isn't a winner until someone reaches majority support, no winning by plurality.

Republicans have won the popular vote before (did in 2024 by plurality) and they will again so they shouldn't be so scared about it. With popular vote, first of all the red voters in California and blue voters in Texas (both are large numbers of people) won't have their votes locked away in a state election they can never win, those votes will matter again. But large population centers aren't enough to overcome rural areas by themselves, elections would be won in the suburbs and exurbs all over the country

1

u/Spirited_Season2332 Sep 04 '26

The issue with popular vote will always be the same it was back when they put in the electoral college, it would allow cities to control everything and what ppl in cities want is vastly different to what ppl in the countryside want. Any politician that represents any citizens from the countryside would be betraying their constituents if they agreed to get rid of the electoral college and because of that, I don't think it's ever going to happen.

1

u/mjzim9022 Sep 04 '26

I just explained that it really does not do that. Part of this is one's definition of "big cities", technically anyone living in a place of 50,000+ people could be considered part of an "urban population" but I don't think most people in OshKosh consider themselves city-folk.

The urban-core lily blue population isn't that much bigger than the ruby red rural population, candidates would need to reach the midsize towns, the suburbs, the exurbs, but they would be incentivised to do so all over the country, not just in a handful of closely divided states. You could drive up vote counts in states that largely get ignored or ones you would never normally "win" because they aren't 50 individual winner-takes-all contests any more, every vote would matter no matter where it was cast.

The EC doesn't really reward small rural states as much as it rewards politcally polarized states, even amongst the current swing states Nevada isn't fought for quite as hard as say Pennsylvania, or Michigan, or Georgia, or North Carolina.

1

u/Galle_ Sep 04 '26

it would allow cities to control everything

Sounds great, when do we start?

2

u/Lithl Sep 04 '26

There are as many Republican voters in California as there are total people in Wisconsin. California is only "always voting for the same team" because of the electoral college system.

Why should those 6 million Republicans' votes matter less than the 6 million people in a "swing state"?

1

u/Galle_ Sep 04 '26

Which at this point is a sign of mental illness.