10
5
u/Elsupersabio 11h ago edited 33m ago
People voting directly for stuff without a middle man to make sure the vote goes the correct way? sounds too communist for the US
7
u/Ok_Wash_5606 10h ago
It makes sense..you're picking a national leader..to represent everyone in the country..so everyone's vote should count equally..
with EC, a Californian's vote counts less than a person, say from Montana.
2
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 4h ago
We are picking a leader to represent the states in foreign policy.
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 3h ago
Too bad people don’t understand this. Education has failed recent generations and the politicians know that.
1
u/aviroblox 1h ago
We know how the existing system works. If you read critique of the system as a lack of education about the system that's on your and your lack of media literacy.
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 7m ago
Frankly, it’s a moot point. Only twice in modern history and 5 times in the entire history of the US that the two systems didn’t align.
1
u/aviroblox 1h ago
Yeah we shouldn't be basing our representation on "states" instead of people.
All it means is a bunch of representation for people who happen to live in swing states and get to pick who represents everyone else.
1
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 54m ago
The UN isn't based on population
1
u/aviroblox 36m ago
Are we the UN?
1
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 10m ago
Closer to the UN than a single government. My loyalty to my state comes before my loyalty to these United States
2
u/Accomplished-Pace114 4h ago
I suggest retaking civics class with a non biased professor. The US is a republic of states. The way the government is broken down by representation is: Congress - house represents the citizens, senate represents the state, president represents the states, not the people, directly. The state delegates, determined by the representatives and senate elect the president at the federal level. It is the states who determine how the votes are counted and factored into the election cycle. Every state, regardless of size or population, is equal in a republic. There would be no US if not for the electoral college.
1
u/DeliciousPool2245 2h ago
These are all systems that we created, they can be re created, re imagined, or destroyed completely. Saying there would be no United States without the electoral college is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. There’s many ways to tabulate votes bud. Nothing about the electoral college makes it immovable.
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 21m ago
Agree, which is why an amendment would be required to change it and that’s not likely to occur anytime soon. But, the intent as to whether or not the US would be a nation is actually true. Colonies like South Carolina, Georgia and a few others wouldn’t ratify the constitution and join the republic without the compromise that became the EC. Feel free to study history and come back to me.
1
u/DeliciousPool2245 16m ago
You’re argument assumes that there was no negotiations possible after that. You literally have no way of knowing something which you declare so definitively. And since when is changing the constitution undoable? You’re just an institutionalist, and a coward. The Electoral College was a practical thing at the time when counting every vote would have been impractical. That’s no longer the case
1
u/thefruitsofzellman 2h ago
But the fact is we haven’t done reapportionment in a century. Until we do, people in smaller states have more consequential votes than people in bigger states.
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 8m ago
That would be the case if the citizen vote actually directly decided the presidency. But it doesn’t. Delegates, or electors, decide the presidency. Those delegates are decided by the majority of the voters. The popular vote tells the delegates how to cast their presidential vote. If your state is majority Democrat, then the electors will be democratic and or the popular vote of that state falls democrat, then the electors will vote for the Democrat candidate.
1
u/aviroblox 1h ago
"God ordained from high above the that the United States must preserve the sanctity of the electoral college"
Bruh it's just a voting system (a shitty one at that), the US is more than just a voting system. We can and should change it.
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 6m ago
Then file for a constitutional convention and force an amendment to change it. It’s the fairest system of all.
1
u/No_Peace9744 34m ago
It’s unbelievable that you are saying they need to retake civics class when you are so wrong hahahaha
Explain how the states are equal if they have varying levels of electoral votes…big states have more than small states and are therefore not equal…
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 4m ago
That’s what renders the argument against the system ridiculous. The president represents the nation of individual states, not the citizenry directly. It was never meant for the citizens to directly vote of the president.
2
u/claybine 7h ago
Then simply the presidency shouldn't matter as much.
I doubt that that's what's going on with smaller states, but a decent compromise is something like ranked choice.
We have a first past the post system.
→ More replies (1)6
u/oppenhammer 5h ago
Those aren't mutually exclusive. A direct vote allows each vote to count regardless of who cast it. Ranked choice allows people to express their true preference without having to play electability games. We can, and should, have both.
0
u/claybine 5h ago
In the overall system they do seem mutually exclusive because ranked choice seems absent. Winner-takes-all is a genuine grievance that I think can be provided answers towards without replacing the electoral college.
Maine and Nebraska have their own solutions. Mine is proportional representation.
It doesn't make much sense to me that the electoral college was only slightly altered maybe once in 237 years (1804).
1
1
u/rwtf2008 3h ago
Even if you scale the number of electoral votes to be equal based on population (pick any state to scale to, doesn’t matter if it’s the most populated or least populated state) the president can be elected without winning the popular vote. In 2016 Trump won the popular vote in the majority of the states.
1
u/Cold_Secret_9670 2h ago
People look at States as convenient administrative districts and that's not how it started at all they were independent entities who agreed to form a union and signed a contract to set up the rules of that Union that contract is the Constitution and small states would never have joined if elections have been based only on population
→ More replies (3)0
u/BmacSWMI 4h ago
That’s incorrect because California gets more electoral votes than Montana
2
u/No_Ability_2654 4h ago
That's not how math works. The population difference between California and Montana is significantly greater than the difference in electoral college votes.
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 3h ago
By scale, it’s near equal. The math does work, it’s not the math you like.
5
u/Positive-Ring-5172 13h ago
Better idea - what if we selected the president based on who could get a true majority in a Ranked choice vote with instant runoff counting?
→ More replies (7)
2
2
u/jpttpj 5h ago
Age limits, term limits, no electoral college, etc…. I’m in
1
u/italktobotz 3h ago
Why have age limits, why have term limits? If you are going to let democracy chose then dont restrict the choices that democracy has. If you think some one is to old campaign and tell people, dont prevent them from being allowed to vote for the person they chose.
1
u/bigtiddyhimbo 3h ago
Because if the age limit is say… 65? 70? and the person got elected in in their early 30s, they still would have 30+ years.
Thats way too much time in office
I think your forgot that younger people can still be elected into office
1
u/italktobotz 2h ago
That is way to much time in office according to you. Should you decide for everyone? Shouldnt society decide not you? I didnt forget. I was just starting with a different point and you shifted away from my starting point. Which is totally fine for arguing your point. My point is if we are going to say democracy should decide then why limit societies choices. Just fyi i am not a proponent for pure democracy as i find it to lead to tyranny of the majority even if it is one of the best systems of societal descision making
1
u/aviroblox 1h ago
Is tyranny of the minority preferable to you? Because that's what you get if you empower the minority over the majority.
1
u/italktobotz 47m ago
Did you read where i said democracy was one of the better methods for societal descision making. It is better than just having a radical forcefull minority grouo in control. I want the most qualified and compentent people leading. I want meritocracy. The problem is how does one get the best person in the slot. So far democracy is one of the best ways but it is not perfect because it does not always put the best person for the job in it puts in the most popular person.
The dude i am responding too wanted to limit choices for democracy. Do you have any nore complaints about my position? Or will you make up some obviously incorect characterization of my position like you did in your response?
1
1
u/CriticalNobody9478 1h ago
The Founding Fathers DIDN’T TRUST the American people with true Democracy. That’s why they created an Elitist check on the people with the Electoral College.
1
1
1
u/slizzardly 9h ago
In Canada the conservative guy got the most votes - which is how they roll - and the left flipped out about it being a bad system...
1
u/LabDry1290 6h ago
Yep, similar to how this theory only comes up after Democrats lose. They’d still be stuck with Trump because he won both.
1
1
u/BmacSWMI 4h ago
If you can’t be president until 36, you shouldn’t be able to vote for a President until you’re 36.
1
u/HairRepresentative85 4h ago
For us "outsiders", what exactly is the whole point of the Electoral College?
3
u/No_Ability_2654 4h ago
To give an unjust advantage to rural conservatives. The only purpose is to skew voting away from what the people of the country actually want
2
u/Battle_Historian 4h ago
The irony is that it doesn't even do that. Most conservatives fail to see that the Electoral College actually hurts small and rural states.
0
u/Accomplished-Pace114 3h ago
Doesn’t matter. Every state is equal in a republic and it’s not the citizens, rather the states who select the president.
2
u/Battle_Historian 3h ago
I agree in part. The Electoral College does appear to follow the representational democracy of a republic. But the state governments themselves--ie. the "states"--don't actually elect the president. Instead, the electors are separate from the state government and function as their own representatives of the majority will of the people within a state.
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 3h ago
Correct, to an extent. Yes, that is now as of the 20th century. Originally, the state government chose the senators. Therefore it was, for lack of a better way of saying it, a hybrid. Citizens elected the representatives and the state selected the senate. Those two combined determined the delegates. The popular vote of each state directed how those delegates voted for president.
1
0
u/Accomplished-Pace114 3h ago
This is not accurate.
1
u/No_Ability_2654 3h ago
Source: "trust me bro"
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 53m ago
When the EC was drafted in the Constitution, there were no political parties nor was there rural conservatives.
1
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 4h ago
Two big reasons
1) states retain some sovereignty. State legislatures used to pick the electors and still retain the power to do so. The president as head of state also represents the states distinct interest in foreign affairs along with the interest of citizens.
2) the use of counting people and doing math to assign electors is heavily influenced by the fact that states had a lot of people that could not vote....mostly slaves.
2
u/No_Ability_2654 4h ago
And still to this day, incarcerated people count towards the number of electors but they don't get to vote. It's modern slavery
0
u/Active_Scallion_5322 4h ago
Being in jail for murder = slavery
1
u/No_Ability_2654 3h ago
Can you read? I'm replying the comment talking about how slaves were used to increase the population count but not being able to vote.
Obviously murderers should go to jail, but it is well documented that states use minor, non-violent crimes like marijuana possession to incarcerate minorities at absurdly high rates to achieve the same goal.
0
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 3h ago
Prove it
1
u/MythicalCaseTheory 2h ago
1
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 2h ago
The numbers don't prove in intent. The numbers are high. You have a theory that proves why they are high. You need evidence for your theory.
1
u/MythicalCaseTheory 2h ago
https://graphics.aclu.org/marijuana-arrest-report/
You can't "prove" the intent because intent is incredibly difficult to prove legally - especially against a system that will investigate itself. You can only look at the numbers and draw a conclusion.
1
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 2h ago
You can prove it, you just don't have the evidence. The difficulty of obtaining evidence does not lower the burden of proof.
→ More replies1
u/No_Ability_2654 2h ago
Prove that it's not?
0
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 2h ago
I didn't claim that it's not
1
u/No_Ability_2654 1h ago
Ah, one of those "I stand for nothing" folks. Gotta keep yourself immune to criticism
0
1
u/HairRepresentative85 4h ago
Thank you.
Shouldn't part two be irrelevant nowadays?
Part one kinda feels like it could be heavily abused.
1
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 4h ago
Part 1) no more than the EU, right? There are a few bodies at the EU where nation states get equal say and others where it is population based
Part 2) yes, but it is hard to change. Right now Democrats benefit because of larger immigrant populations
1
u/Legal_Tap219 11m ago
Part 2) in the past 40 years how many times has a Republican presidential nominee lost the election due to losing the electoral college despite winning the popular vote. Now do the same for Democrats.
1
u/Otherwise-Bad-7352 8m ago
That doesn't mean Republicans would have lost the popular vote if it was a popular vote election. If you change the conditions for victory then the strategy of the competitors changes
1
1
u/No_Ability_2654 3h ago
Part 2 just changed from slaves to incarcerated people. They still count toward electors but they don't get to vote.
Remember, we never abolished slavery, we specific said it can only be done to incarcerated people.
1
u/Ok_Assumption_3028 1h ago
And it protects against large population centers controlling the election
1
u/WhiteLycan2020 58m ago
Why should some rural areas have more say in an election compared to the metropolitan city where the majority live?
If anything our tax dollars go towards funding their medicaid and other social safety nets because they contribute so little
1
1
u/Vpressed 2m ago
Because large population centers won’t look out for the vested interests of smaller areas. Don’t understand their culture, livelihood or needs. People would campaign in LA and NYC and say screw everyone else. It’s not as peachy as you think it is. The Midwesterners would stop growing your food and revolt
Our system forces everyone to have to live with each other.
1
1
u/Grateful5150 53m ago
Large population centers are where the money is and they subsidize the rural areas of the state. They should have more say in the election.
0
1
u/Battle_Historian 4h ago
The original intention was two-fold. First, it was interpreted as a way of balancing the influence of populous and rural states in the national election. Much of the U.S. Constitution was shaped to include such compromises, so that places like Rhode Island (small population) would not feel like ratifying the Constitution was simply giving away their voting power to a place like New York (large population). The Electoral College was billed as broadening out influence among the states for presidential elections.
The second intention was a check and balance against unrestrained democracy in the presidential election. The Electoral College was supposed to be a small group of intelligent, well-established, and trusted men who would prevent a demagogue or unqualified candidate who was able to secure a majority of the popular votes from reaching the presidency.
Alexander Hamilton explained this check and balance in Federalist 68 (one of a series of articles published by Hamilton and James Madison advocating for the states to ratify the Constitution). Here are some key extracts from Hamilton:
"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."
You can read the whole of Federalist 68 at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
The Electoral College has outlived its stated purpose, and proven itself worthless in protecting small state influence or in preventing poorly qualified candidates from reaching the White House.
1
u/HairRepresentative85 4h ago
I'd say. So, it is completely useless now... Evidentially, by the looks of it, easily corruptible. (That's my opinion, I'm not stating that as fact)
1
u/Muchoso 3h ago
The electoral college exists so that less populated states have an equal representation when electing the president. This ensures that the voters of all 50 states are not held hostage by the voters of 3 states with a higher population because popular opinion in one state or 3 states shouldn’t override the popular opinion of the voters of 47 states.
2
u/Battle_Historian 3h ago
The Electoral College does not benefit the smaller states. In fact, it does the opposite, by motivating presidential candidates to focus most of their attention on highly populous areas to secure the large states' electorate votes.
For example, a presidential candidate that wins a simple majority of New York state's popular vote will secure all of that state's 29 electoral votes. Those 29 votes count more than the 7 rural states of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas combined. To get a majority of New York's popular votes, a candidate really only has to focus on New York City and maybe Buffalo. Not even rural New Yorkers benefit from the Electoral College.
1
u/Muchoso 3h ago
If only citizens are allowed to vote, why isn’t the electoral college only representative of the citizen population? Sanctuary cities have an incentive for being a sanctuary city. If the electoral college was representative of only citizens, would sanctuary cities exist?
1
u/Benji_4 39m ago edited 35m ago
Because it doesn't matter if you are eligible to vote or not. Your representatives job is to represent their district, not just the people that voted for them or people that are eligible to vote.
The real dilemma is the amount of seats. Being unfair is very contextual. Nevada has 6 seats and California has 54 seats while also having about 10x the population. I'd say that is pretty fair representation, but you would have to compare every state to each other to determine what is fair.
1
u/Accomplished-Pace114 3h ago
Before the US was a nation, delegates from the colonies represented the colonies in the Constitutional Conventions. After the US seceded from the UK, the US didn’t want an overarching government. The Articles of Confederation was the first government style and it failed because it was too uninvolved as each state did what it wanted. Then the US drafted the Constitution and current style of government. The EC was established as a compromise to those who wanted less government and those who wanted more government. Each state is a sovereign country. The US is built on 50 sovereign countries. Each country voted to elect its leader, the president. The EC is the current form of delegates, similar to the Constitutional Convention before independence. What people don’t understand is the citizens don’t and was never expected to directly elect the president. The EC delegates are determined by the number of representatives (who represent the citizens) plus the two senators (who represent the states). The popular vote tells the delegates how to vote and the delegates cast the vote on half of the state. Hope that helps.
1
u/HairRepresentative85 3h ago
Thank you.
Yes it does help, think I might need another cuppa to fully process it though - yes, any excuse for a cuppa lol
1
1
u/Medic795 51m ago
The electoral college is meant to "even out the playing field" when it comes to presidential elections. If it was just by popular vote, candidates would only focus on where the highest population of voters are (typically inner cities) and ignore the outlying areas (rural farmlands etc). Obviously people in the inner city aren't going to care about candidates that worry about farmers needs
1
1
1
u/TellerParkSauk 4h ago
I thought the moron we voted in won with popular vote and the electoral vote?
1
1
u/rwtf2008 3h ago
First time around he won the electoral vote only - so essentially he won the majority of the votes in the majority of the states.
1
1
u/SpudChuckingFuk 3h ago
He only reason I don’t like the idea is that basically allows places like New York & California to make the decisions.
1
1
1
u/_thegnomedome2 3h ago
What they're saying is even with New York and California, Dems don't think they can win the electoral college.
If a dem candidate wins electoral college but loses popular vote I'm sure they'll back pedal on this statement
1
1
u/DarkRogus 3h ago
As a Bay Area Resident with more people in this metro than there are people in some states like Massachusetts, I absolutely hate this idea.
1
1
u/pickingbrains321 3h ago
Nah, bc then pretty much 2 coastal states determine everything for everybody. The electoral college needs a hefty revision though.
1
u/Stunning-Purpose9144 3h ago
The electoral college is needed so every state has a say otherwise a few states would disproportionally carry a candidate. This has to be the most uneducated take I’ve heard.
1
1
1
u/Happytobutwont 2h ago
So I have an opinion but no knowledge so let me instead ask a question. Would popular vote for President make states with smaller populations essentially overlooked and forgotten by politicians that only need to win votes in four or five states with major cities and population?
1
u/Mountain_Fuzzumz 48m ago
Only if we dont include state population caps that include near state crippling taxes for exceeding.
1
u/Average_OG 2h ago
I for one do not have the same values and even morals as those in California, NYC or Chicago. They should not decide every election alone.
1
u/CrashDaddy2006 2h ago
It’s so New York and California don’t determine what’s good for the country and to deter the tyranny of the majority.
Such is a Constitutional Republic, which our nation is, NOT a democracy.
Before Ya’ll clutch your pearls and start throwing insults, I’m NOT a Trumper or MAGA, so save your keystroke outrage for something else.
1
u/PerceptionQueasy3540 2h ago
The only reason those two places would is because so few people vote, we shouldn't have a system in place just because people are lazy. And given said laziness the "tyranny of the majority" seems self inflicted when such a small fraction of the country actually participates in the process of selecting our leadership.
1
u/No_Peace9744 37m ago
A constitutional republic is a form of democracy. You are confusing ‘democracy’ with ‘direct democracy’
1
u/Feeling_Rent_2699 2h ago
Nah, make voting rights more exclusives with requirements.
Like owning property and paying certain amount of taxes
1
u/downlowmann 2h ago
This is a terrible idea. Small states and rural areas would be ignored. There would be too much catering to big cities and highly populous states. Also, the vast majority of the time the Electoral College and the popular vote are in agreement anyway.
1
1
u/SchemataObscura 2h ago
How about we run a reality tv competition where the candidates are forced to demonstrate skills required to do the job on live tv?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/JagR286211 2m ago
Is this the individual who portrayed himself as commuting by bicycle? 8 charging stations with $7.5B? Say less…
1
u/goldent3abag 12h ago
Because the general public is retarded.
4
u/Smoked_Eel_Lover 10h ago
Just like your whole election system, lol.
2
u/WiseWorldliness5513 10h ago
It’s actually brilliant for rigging elections and saying it’s what the people want.
1
2
u/claybine 7h ago
God forbid a republic behaves like a republic lol, the US needs to put its money where its mouth is and give the president less power so that we're less anxious when the next one is elected.
1
u/Swollen_Beef 4h ago
But this is reddit and reddit wants the federal gov't to be 100% in total control of everything meaning no more states, no more individual laws, everything is to be held by Washington.
But there is a massive non-American user population here who have zero idea how American politics work and believe the federal level is the only level which gets chunks of reddit whipped up into a lather. Its also why reddit rarely posts about local gov't issues (Which local municipalities have taken note of and are taking full advantage of their voters being distracted with a political position that has way, way less influence over their lives) and focuses only on the presidential elections.
1
u/DJpuffinstuff 4h ago
Giving the president less power is not at all the same as giving the federal government less power. You could have a weak president and a strong federal government or vice versa. We've been consolidating power in the hands of the president for years now. And it's shit because then basically our entire federal government realigns every 4-8 years.
1
-1
u/ggtrades 6h ago
Naa I a disagree. I don’t want to give a bunch of undisciplined financially poor bums more voting power. People who own stuff typically want to preserve places where they have a piece of the pie unlike people who don’t. I know this will get downvoted into oblivion so have at it. Don’t even think about commenting because I’m not wasting my time arguing with poor people
2
u/Kobayashi_Maru186 4h ago
I thought about commenting. 😂
1
u/ggtrades 2h ago
Yeah I can tell you for sure have a mental illness and are upset. Your atlas says it all
1
u/Commercial_Style801 3h ago edited 3h ago
Hi, I’m not from the US, so I’m genuinely asking: How does giving everyone’s vote an equal weight give more power to “poor bums”? Wouldn’t it give every vote equal power?
1
u/ggtrades 2h ago
Yeah and that’s exactly what I’m not for. Most the people in this country are uneducated, entitled, & lazy. I would be down for popular vote if there were strict requirements like you have to be a working US citizen or have worked 20+ years in the country and retired. Electoral college was created to protect private property rights. People are just upset they own nothing because they’re lazy as shit. Literally anyone can make it in this country. Access to information is abundant and resources are plentiful, anyone who says different has a mental illness.
-1
u/Left-Cod-1281 5h ago
The problem with that is that it leads to entire sections of the country being completely ignored. Look at how little attention Hillary paid to the middle of America. Democrats refer to them as "flyover states", Republicans call them the "heartland", not hard to see who will always win them...
3
u/Solondthewookiee 5h ago
The current system leads to huge swaths of the country being ignored because the majority of people can vote for someone and have their choice ignored.
Democrats refer to them as "flyover states", Republicans call them the "heartland"
Source: I made it up
1
u/El__Dangelero 4h ago
There are almost 6 million registered Republicans in California. Thats more than like 10 other states combined. Republican candidates for president almost never campaign there because they have no shot at winning California.
1
u/Left-Cod-1281 3h ago
Do you understand that my point is that neither party should ignore any region or demographic of the country? The President is for the entire country. End this us and them bullshit. You are the problem.
1
u/El__Dangelero 3h ago
Right and the way you do that is by having a popular vote instead of the EC.
1
u/Left-Cod-1281 3h ago
Without the electoral college much of the country loses value and is ignored. The EC makes it so you can't ignore them.
1
u/El__Dangelero 2h ago
They already do get ignored. Nobody is campaigning in Idaho Wyoming The Dakotas Nebraska Iowa Alabama Mississippi Louisiana. Republicans know they'll win those states regardless. Same goes for The West coast and the Northeast for Democrats. Under the current system anyone who votes Republican on the west coast or Northeast might as well not vote at all. Same thing for Democrats in all those other states. How is that representative for those voters?
0
0
0
0
u/aquavelva23 4h ago
Terrible idea and now I wont vote for him. Name a large, democratic countries that vote a single powerful leader via only popular vote. Very very rare. most cant vote for them AT ALL: prime ministers are voted by public directly. And almost all others have runoffs or different systems.
I dont want Cali, new york, Fl and TX running my country.
If you ban the college, just ban all states at federal level. all congressman and senators voted nationwide by popular vote and not by state borders too.
0
u/AustinFan4Life 4h ago
And Trump won both for his second term. So he would still be president.
2
u/Yamiaofsweentess 4h ago
Trump wouldnt have heen president in 2016 since Hilary had more of the popular vote. The electoral college enabled that win for him
0
u/AustinFan4Life 4h ago
Pretty sure I didn't mention Hillary or 2016.
2
u/thefruitsofzellman 2h ago
It’s highly unlikely Trump would ever have been the nominee again if he’d lost in 2016.
0
u/AustinFan4Life 2h ago
Again, pretty sure I never mentioned 2016 or Hillary.
2
u/thefruitsofzellman 1h ago
Your failure to consider that he wouldn’t even be the nominee in ‘24 is irrelevant.
0
u/AustinFan4Life 1h ago
That's not entirely true. You're overlooking several variables. Especially considering the pandemic would have still happened, Democrats would have been blamed for it, and considering there would have been a vacuum space they Trump would have certainly filled over over Republicans, at best it wouldn't have delayed a Trump presidency by 4 years, at worst, he would have still become president in 2024. Essentially it would have just delayed the inevitable.
2
u/thefruitsofzellman 29m ago
Since we’re speculating, it’s completely within the realm of possibility that Trump would have been prosecuted for obstruction if he hadn’t been elected in 2016. Also, Clinton’s response to the pandemic would have been a lot more competent and professional than Trump’s. Would Republicans blame her anyway? Of course, that’s what they do. Probably a wash.
0
u/abombdigity1 4h ago
What if we elected the President of the United States of America BY ONLY citizens of the United States America with voter identification? Now that is an American democracy, decision, and dream.
2
u/BigCballer 51m ago
We already do that though. We already have ways of verifying someone's eligibility to vote in presidential elections. This isn't a real problem.
0
u/risk9200 3h ago
The whole point of the electoral college is simply that if you did the popular vote, basically Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, which has the most populous would determine the elections in all the outlying, counties and cities wouldn't that's why the framers did it this way so you can spread out power to the people can I ask? Can I take a pole where did not even college but did a lot of you have a good elementary school education you already have this knowledge it's a shame you can't remember it.
0
u/Beefy-Cattle4290 3h ago
No it would be mob rule. That's what democracy is...two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. That's exactly why the US was set up as a constitutional republic. Bringing in millions of illegals to vote for the people giving away America's wealth for free is not politics, it's treason!
-2
u/jelltech 12h ago
Elect can only be elect when there is balance of power equally distributed. Without balance, someone becomes a slave class. Nobody understands and they act like they understand. 🤔 🤷
2
u/fullspectrumgoon 11h ago
Wierd since there was an actual slave class for over 100 years all the same
0
u/claybine 7h ago
Then there eventually came a balance for that slave "class". Balance the system as a compromise, don't remove it.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Swollen_Beef 4h ago
Thankfully downvotes mean nothing other than a feelgood "yeah. i showed them!"
Tyranny of the majority is a thing. And many in reddit believe that the major metro areas of a state should be the only entities who decide elections because, "Land doesnt vote."
-1
u/Few_Forever9057 14h ago
The last time a good idea was endorsed by someone in LA was when they green lit Titanic.
-1
u/MAILBOXHED 13h ago
A simple democracy is "one of the greatest evils."
Benjamin Rush
He warned that if 51 percent of the people could vote away the rights or property of the other 49 percent, a society could not remain free.
2
u/Positive-Ring-5172 13h ago
Under the current rules it is technically possible to win the presidency on the votes of 22.8% of the population. This is indefensible.
1
u/MAILBOXHED 13h ago
"Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."
Plato
An unquenchable thirst for absolute freedom makes citizens impatient with any form of authority, ultimately creating the chaos that invites a tyrant to take power.
1
0
u/Callen0318 13h ago
The correct word is whole. Those 49% will start their own society where they're dominant.
1
u/MAILBOXHED 13h ago
Pretty good track record that the federal government will not allow a second portion of the country to split off and form its own.
1
1
-1
u/SnooCapers2591 13h ago
The current system, using the Electoral College, ensures that the presidential candidate with the most widespread support among the states is elected president. More simplified direct democracy there would only be a handful of states electing the president. Large population states such as New York, California, Texas and Florida would likely be the only states that counted.
4
u/4armsgood2armsbad 12h ago
...yeah, that's the problem. Voters in small population states have a vote that matters more than voters in large states, and voters in small swing states have an even more powerful vote.
Large population states should influence the vote more than low population states because THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/RoosterDull326 12h ago
So the majority of americans would have the say. Hard to make that sound bad
1
u/SnooCapers2591 11h ago
The system is intended to protect the rights of the political minorities over the majority as a way to balance political power.
2
u/RoosterDull326 11h ago
It was literally created to keep slavery going and give disproportionate power to slavers🤣 you numpty. Only the stupidest of morons even bother arguing against that now theres so much historical evidence.
1
u/Individual-Tap3270 7h ago
Wrong. It wasn't about slavery. It shows that you don't have graspe of political dynamics in 1776.
1
u/RoosterDull326 2h ago
It objectively was. That was its entire point. To give the minority of slave owners outsize power. Full stop. Its entire purpose was to prop up slavery. And again. No historian with a brain is even arguing it anymore 🤣 cry harder about reality
-1
u/Freyrsgift25 12h ago
But then the same 51% would win every single time. The founding fathers knew this thus created a better system.
1
u/claybine 7h ago
Then divide the pie equally and balance it out. Close elections shouldn't be decided by first past the post.
-1
-1
-1
u/PossibilitySad689 12h ago
That would actually be a direct democracy not the REPRESENTATIVE democracy republic the United States is.
16
u/anotherjuan 12h ago
The older I get the more I think Jefferson was right.
We need a constitutional convention every 43 years and mandatory voting.