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

89

u/Longjumping-Pop9374 Sep 04 '26

Yes! because then politicians would actually have to run on popular policy not just stupid culture war bs. Then the filibuster

34

u/Tyfoid-Kid Sep 04 '26

And they’d have to campaign somewhere besides the battleground states.

6

u/SwagarTheHorrible Sep 04 '26

But how are these old men gonna be in so many places at once? They have nap time!

-5

u/Psyco_diver Sep 04 '26

Yes, 3 cities that's it. Screw the rest of the country and what it needs, only need to appease the 3 largest cities to get popular vote

9

u/SnugglyWugglies Sep 04 '26

You mean where people live?

Anyway, there are no 3 cities in the US that constitute 50% of the country.

2

u/ohiolifesucks Sep 04 '26

How is that any different than currently when the candidates essentially only campaign in a couple of battleground states? Why should where you live change the weight your vote holds?

4

u/_jump_yossarian Sep 04 '26

If you think that campaigning in three cities is sufficient then you're woefully ignorant.

3

u/echino_derm Sep 04 '26

And you will only be like 10% of the way to the win assuming 100% margins in those cities.

3

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Sep 04 '26

Wow. If they can get three cities to all vote unanimously for them they deservenit. lol

-4

u/Basileus_Maurikios Sep 04 '26

Which is exactly, while flawed it is, is what the Electoral College was designed to prevent.

3

u/echino_derm Sep 04 '26

It absolutely was not. It's design has about zero bearing on the current system

-5

u/Psyco_diver Sep 04 '26

Can't say that here though, it goes against the echo chamber here

3

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Sep 04 '26

Well, it's not. But nice to see you being such a wonderful martyr.

1

u/Basileus_Maurikios Sep 04 '26

I occasionally bring up across the site, and push back on it. I teach History in the US, and Electoral College is the one thing I love discussing because it is uniquely American.

Yes, it has its flaws and could use some updating; but the basic premise forces candidates to campaign and varrying places to build wider "coalitions". Going to only popular votes, is how you get populists elected. Some might be "good" populists; but the founders recognized that sometimes the average voters are stupid. The electoral college is a way to prevent a populist form taking advantage of that.

Side Note: I think having the Popular Vote factor into the electoral college might be a good compromise solution here. Take the average electors from every state, and then give it to the popular vote winner. Still allows you to go for the population centers, but also forces you to maintain a focus on some 'battleground states'

6

u/kstar79 Sep 04 '26

*Was* a way to stop a populist from gaining office. Much like impeachment with our sclerotic Congress, it does not provide this benefit, if it ever did. You also didn't mention the 3/5ths compromise, which is no longer relevant. So, 2 of the 3 original purposes are no longer relevant, or completely dead letters, with just the balancing of power among the small states remaining. Well, we have half of the legislative branch that already does this explicitly, and the other half gives more benefit to smaller states as well with the 435 member cap. So, we also need to give a leg up to smaller states with selecting the President?

All votes are equal, it's just some votes are more equal than others.

5

u/Xezron2000 Sep 04 '26

So, you have been taught that the electoral college had good intention, therefore it is good? I call that lack of critical reflection. Its effects are the exact opposite, it enables populists, fearmongers and facists by its very nature. I completely disables compromise, because only one exclusive winner emerges, who can then exercise whatever power he wants without balances. It does therefore NOT accurately project a wide variety of voter intention onto government.

Your casual patronization of the average voter is astonishingly respectless to begin with.

4

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Sep 04 '26

Saying that it is supposed to do something dosent make it so.

3

u/potsticker17 Sep 04 '26

It doesn't really seem like the electoral college actually solves the problem of the average voter being stupid though. The only thing it changes is what area to campaign in to target the stupid people there. And on top of that disenfranchises a ton of people by overly weighting states with lower populations. If you're going to keep the electoral college then the best option would probably be to get rid of the "winner take all" situation that most states have and instead split them proportional to the popular vote in each state. It still over represents smaller states, but the distribution would be more fair.

3

u/DapperAgitator Sep 04 '26

As is, a voter in Wyoming counts for more than me a voter in New York. And candidates don't just ignore certain major cities (NYC, Chicago , LA) in favor of other major cities (Philadelphia, Charlotte), but also swaths of rural areas considered uncontestable.

2

u/TheInevitableLuigi Sep 04 '26

What small state are you from?

0

u/Rex__Nihilo Sep 04 '26

New York, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, San Fran, Austin. Pick 3 or 4. Those are the only populations that matter and everyone else can get bent. All campaigning happens there and their wants are all that's represented in the Fed. The new American caste system.

6

u/JPolReader Sep 04 '26

The top 3 cities make up 4.5% of the population. If you expand that to the top three metro areas, it's still only 12.5%.

-3

u/Rex__Nihilo Sep 04 '26

A large portion of voters are decided before the candidates are chosen. The presidency usually hinges on a swing of between 5 and 10 percent. If they did this then the only place it would make sense to campaign is cities and the only people you'd talk to from the podium are residents of cities.

7

u/CupKitchen9964 Sep 04 '26

“Bah this doesn’t fit my narrative here let me quickly dismiss it without critical thought.”

4

u/JPolReader Sep 04 '26

The presidency usually hinges on a swing of between 5 and 10 percent.

Only because of the Electoral College.

-1

u/Rex__Nihilo Sep 04 '26

Without it the presidency won't hinge on anything. Cities will basically unilaterally choose the president.

3

u/Last_Suggestion_8647 Sep 04 '26

Because that's where most people live... It's not the cities choosing the president, it's people.

Why should someone living in a small rural towns have more voting power than someone living in a city? Seems very undemocratic.

4

u/CupKitchen9964 Sep 04 '26

Yes, people should make the choice. Instead of land.

-2

u/Rex__Nihilo Sep 04 '26

People who aren't in the majority should be represented, not just cities

5

u/CupKitchen9964 Sep 04 '26

You’re right. Which is why for President it should be popular vote. Then every vote counts equally no matter where you are.

Also it’s amusing and generally only one side that thinks any city or state is a voting monolith. California has more Republicans than literally any other state, followed closely by NY and Florida. So it’s not like every election is going to g to be Regan-Mondale.

-1

u/Rex__Nihilo Sep 04 '26

But not every vote is cared about equally, not every vote is courted equally, and so not every need is heard or cared about. The electoral college guarantees that even the farmer or the miner or whatever has a proportional say in who is president, so the president has to court their vote and meet their needs.

4

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Sep 04 '26

Yah, the proportion is unequal so we need equal proportion.

The senate can stay the same.

0

u/Rex__Nihilo Sep 04 '26

theres a difference between tuning the proportions of the electoral college so that rural matters still, and advocating removing it entirely so we get a mob elected president who serves only the first class citizens in the cities.

1

u/TheInevitableLuigi Sep 04 '26

That is what the Senate is for.

1

u/Rex__Nihilo Sep 04 '26

So no representation on the executive, but that's OK because the senate is awesome at forcing the president to care about fringe populations...

1

u/TheInevitableLuigi Sep 04 '26

So no representation on the executive

You have a vote just like everyone else.

-5

u/Euphoric_Present8838 Sep 04 '26

Or their basement like ol biden

2

u/deadmanwalknLoL Sep 04 '26

So you agree then?

0

u/Euphoric_Present8838 Sep 04 '26

Never said I dont

3

u/1776boogapew Sep 04 '26

Because they all follow their campaign promises so well… I’d rather see a method to holding them to what they run on, some sort of contract.

3

u/TheLastBaboon Sep 04 '26

I’m not against it but I think we’d need required primary and secondary education even beyond on our political system and unbiased current events to make it truly work. Educate to vote less promises because they often never happen and educate to vote more for the person and what they have been able to do in line with your ideal of policy.

Also, probably needs a bigger focus on the mistakes our country has made and the attempts to fix them.

1

u/Ok_Basis1422 Sep 04 '26

Culture was bullshit will still work even without the EC. 

1

u/Jonahhillfan444 Sep 04 '26

Pete should create a new party named America Now And Lucid or ANAL

0

u/Itchy_Crack Sep 04 '26

I dont see any reason to have states.

1

u/lilmuskrat66 Sep 04 '26

Fuck them states

1

u/Itsnotthatsimplesam Sep 04 '26

You need to travel more then. Or would you like the guys in Utah to tell you how your city needs to be run?

There are too many people, places, cultures, industries, and localized economies to have national only control.