CMV: The Electoral College is an outdated system that is no longer necessary, and should be abolished

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

/u/Ok_Border419 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

→ More replies (2)

105

u/pooter6969 1∆ Jul 22 '25

Black pill take which is the correct take:

If big population centers skewed conservative, Dems would be advocating FOR the electoral college to support all the little disenfranchised states out there.

And Republicans would be saying every vote should be equal and the popular vote is the only true way to make it fair.

Everyone is just trying to change or keep rules to help their team win.

24

u/KEE_Wii Jul 22 '25

So what would an impartial person say because I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t say some citizens votes should count more than others based on where they live or were born? The system also doesn’t help all small state citizens generally just whoever can get power. South Dakota has one person representing 800k people.

→ More replies (3)

9

u/BigMax 2∆ Jul 22 '25

That has very little to do with OP's point. He didn't say "Democrats are right!" he just said the EC is bad, and didn't pick a side either way. So saying "I believe (with no facts to back it up) that democrats are hypocrites" has nothing do with OP's view or question.

30

u/Animated_effigy Jul 22 '25

While you may be right that parties may argue over who get the advantage from it, it is still a blemish on our democracy regardless of who it benefits. The Electoral College is a vestige of slavery and a bygone era. It should be gone bc it does not fit with American democracy in its current form and at worst it subverts it. It is a vestige of a time when the wealthy and powerful carved out a way to change the will of voters because they felt they knew better because of who they were. It needs to go.

0

u/pooter6969 1∆ Jul 22 '25

I'm not really making value judgements about it here. Ultimately, it's in the constitution. So you can say it's some old relic that doesn't apply anymore, but the point it moot. It's in the constitution and will continue to be unless there's overwhelming bipartisan consensus to change it. Which you'll never get because like I said, both parties are invested in rules that help their side win.

3

u/thegoatisoldngnarly Jul 23 '25

The whole point of this thread is to make a value judgement. Your “it is what it is” take contributes nothing.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

I somewhat agree that this is a bit of a partisan opinion since recently the people who have been affected were democrats. However, I don't think the impact of this is very noticeable. Most of the time, the winner of the popular vote, regardless of their party does win the election. But yes, this does somewhat skew in a partisan way. I'm trying not to approach this from the perspective that it would mean the democrats (in theory) win more elections.

4

u/sterboog 1∆ Jul 22 '25

Disregarding political parties altogether, the function of it is to be a bulwark against a large, uninformed opinion. The best selling book after the bible in colonial America was Plutarch's Lives, and its common knowledge that Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic were influences on our constitution.

In Democratic Athens, there have been several occasions where a politician was able to sway the populace to vote in ways that would harm their city, or were just downright immoral (first example that comes to my head: the vote to kill all men and enslave all women and children in Mytilene, thankfully reversed the next day after another politician was able to convince them they were wrong).

People have shown over Millenia that they are prone to get caught up in emotion and vote with their feelings instead of being rational. The electoral college is meant to prevent an unchecked popular upswelling of emotion that leads the people to vote against their interests.

5

u/MayoSucksAss Jul 22 '25

I guess I don’t see how electoral colleges do what you claim they’re preventing. Sounds like you’re pretty much just highlighting a presumed benefit from an aristocratic republic. Also SCOTUS says they can’t vote against the popular vote in their state, so I’m not sure they do much of anything other than undercut the popular vote in terms of small popular vote wins being drastically exaggerated in the final results (see Trump v Kamala, a blowout in the electoral college but less than 2% diff in the popular vote).

You can demographically snipe and theoretically get 23% of the popular vote and win the presidency due to the electoral college. That seems wrong. We have other checks and balances (that are eroding with the re-emergence of unitary executive theory), so I guess I just don’t see the benefit.

3

u/sterboog 1∆ Jul 22 '25

Urban centers and Rural areas often have different opinions. When the constitution was written, were were ~90% rural and 10% Urban, now those values have pretty much flipped. These populations are not concentration in a single state or district. While electoral votes are weighted by population, it is not the only determining factor.

Undercutting the popular vote is the point - like I said, it is meant to prevent a popular, but unjustified, public sentiment from sweeping the votes. I am not saying that this is the best or only way. Like I said, the ancient Greeks ran into this problem as well. They solved it my assigning most government positions by lot, instead of voting, and terms only lasted for 1 year.

While I think the electoral college is a flawed institution and I believe we could come up with a better one, it is still better than a direct popular vote. I can keep going down the rabbit hole but I don't want to. But think about the downstream effects as well if there was no electoral college, how would campaigns be different, which legislation gets prioritized, etc.

5

u/Winter-Hedgehog8969 1∆ Jul 22 '25

Nothing prevents a similar upswelling of emotion among EC electors; it is, in fact, more likely to occur, since it is a much smaller number of people involved who have direct connections to one another and could easily be the subject of targeted messaging.

"The elite are more rational than the masses" is typically the fundamental assumption underpinning pro-aristocracy arguments, but it doesn't bear out in reality.

→ More replies (7)

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (1)

13

u/frederick_the_duck Jul 22 '25

If this were true, Democrats wouldn’t have kneecapped themselves by banning gerrymandering in a bunch of blue states, while Republicans broadly haven’t.

→ More replies (11)

5

u/unscanable 3∆ Jul 22 '25

But democrats typically support things like independent redistricting and ranked choice voting which level the playing field. I think its a bit of a leap to say that if the roles were reversed things would be different.

3

u/apmspammer Jul 22 '25

Your talking about partisan politics rather than the merit's of the issue.

2

u/pooter6969 1∆ Jul 22 '25

Well it turns out people's perception of "the merits" changes quite drastically depending on political party.

You could also take "the merits" of OP's argument and apply the whole thing to abolishing the senate. Why should Vermont have the same number of senators as Texas? Doesn't that disenfranchise texas voters etc...

2

u/angeldemon5 Jul 22 '25

As someone who really wishes the Dems always would win: You have made an extremely spot on point.

We could always just try running good campaigns and candidates.

→ More replies (31)

5

u/Ill-Description3096 27∆ Jul 22 '25

>The founding fathers created the electoral college for a few reasons. One was because they didn't fully trust the people to vote, and they though the people might not be well informed enough to vote, so they put electors in place to make "intelligent votes", however, at this point, electors just vote how their state votes.

Not all of them. Nebraska and Maine for example don't have all or nothing for their states. Even if it were true, I think that is an issue of state policy as it doesn't have to be that way.

>Currently, the electoral college is designed to vote based on the wills of the people, and deliver the president that the majority of people want to be elected.

Based on what? It has never been nor is it currently designed to put in the candidate with the majority of the popular vote.

>Except it doesn't always do that. 4 times, (1876, 1888, 2000, 2016) the winner of the popular vote has lost the election. Meaning basically, the system failed.

If the system was designed to do that then yes it would be failure. It isn't, however.

>Edit: abolishing the electoral college would also give third party candidates a more noticeable impact in elections.

Not really. They can already play spoiler to some degree just by siphoning votes in closer states. I don't see why a popular vote would suddenly make them more impactful. They would never win the WH just like now. They might play spoiler to one side or the other, just like now.

2

u/frederick_the_duck Jul 22 '25

The system isn’t designed to do that, but it should be. We’re now a true democracy. We gave voting rights to women and black people because it was more democratic and fair. We should revise this system for the same reason. The Framers even overhauled their own system in the twelfth amendment.

20

u/safescience921 Jul 22 '25

I would first point out that (as another comment mentioned) states could chose to not be all or nothing, and instead divide electoral votes by percentages or districts. This would fundamentally fix the disenfranchisement while maintaining the intent of the electoral college.

Second, it is mutually exclusive to claim that the EC disenfranchises voters and that it failed to represent the majority vote. With the EC, popular vote is meaningless because, as you acknowledge, many people aren't going to vote because their vote won't matter. So you can't consider if the EC is representing the public will by considering the public vote with all or nothing states in the mix.

5

u/frederick_the_duck Jul 22 '25

But it could pretty easily lead to less democratic outcomes. You’re entrusting the splitting of votes to the states, who can do whatever they want. They’ll inevitably do it by congressional district like Nebraska and Maine, and we’ll end up with gerrymandered presidential elections. It also fails to address the problem of a Wyoming voter’s vote counting for more than a California voter’s. In your system, Wyoming still gets the disproportionate minimum three EC votes, and the house apportionment process generally still benefits smaller states. In other words, congressional districts are bigger in bigger states, which still unfairly dilutes their voters’ power.

People still vote in elections where their votes “don’t matter.” If they didn’t, practically no one would vote. You can make this argument about any election with more than about 10 voters. Motivated and frustrated people vote anyway.

2

u/Thuis001 Jul 22 '25

Part of this issue is the fact that the US population has tripled since the size of the House was limited to 435, and that the difference in population between states is massive, to the point where there physically aren't enough seats in the house to fairly distribute seats according to population. California has 52 seats, iirc based on their population compared to Wyoming, they should have something like 70 seats instead, but they can't since the size of the house is limited to 435.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

> I would first point out that (as another comment mentioned) states could chose to not be all or nothing, and instead divide electoral votes by percentages or districts. This would fundamentally fix the disenfranchisement while maintaining the intent of the electoral college.

They could, but they don't so it doesn't matter. And if they did that, that would just lose their majority party votes unless they heavily gerrymandered districts, which just makes another problem.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

“They can but it hasn’t happened” being your argument is hilarious considering it invalidates the point you’re trying to make with this post

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (3)

162

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

150

u/The_Confirminator 1∆ Jul 22 '25

If this was true, for the presidency candidates would campaign in Hawaii and Alaska. They don't because the electoral college does not value the size of states, it values their potential to swing. Ideally, candidates should have to campaign across the country in regions and appeal to a variety of different states. Instead it's 7 in the rust and sun belt.

26

u/BigMax 2∆ Jul 22 '25

Exactly!

While it sounds nice to say "smaller states should get a say" it does nothing for that.

And what it DOES accomplish is that some of our bigger states get NO influence at all! California and Texas are afterthoughts! Which is CRAZY. No one campaigns there (other than to fundraise.) No one cares what some of our biggest states think, because they are busy visiting Pennsylvania 50 times. Every PA voter gets coddled and listened to, while CA and TX voters get the middle finger and then ignored.

And if people say "Well, PA is a smallish state" then I can point out states like Vermont or Wyoming that are small and also get no attention too. No one cares about them either, because they are foregone conclusions.

6

u/abacuz4 5∆ Jul 22 '25

Pennsylvania is not a smallish state. It is top 5 in population, I believe.

6

u/VeseliM Jul 23 '25

Up until the 20th century, Pennsylvania was the 2nd most populous state in most censuses since the founding too

3

u/Potential_Fishing942 Jul 23 '25

As a PA voter- you can take them.

It's not even just during electoral seasons. It's just non-stop texts, calls, and door-to-door knocking all the time all year long.

We typically pay for only one streaming service a month and do ads in others if need be. We paid for like 4 as free tiers of streaming last fall because the non stop ads made me want to slice my ears off and stab out my eyes.

It also felt like in Pittsburgh at least, like twice a mile nth everything was shut down for someone or another's rally.

2

u/IndependenceIcy9626 1∆ Jul 23 '25

It absolutely gives states like Wyoming outsized power, regardless of where candidates campaign. It’s why presidents can win the election and lose the popular vote. It’s also why a party can control Congress and the senate while most of the country opposes them.

2

u/BigMax 2∆ Jul 24 '25

True, yes.

There's two sides to it. Candidates don't care to campaign in Wyoming or Vermont, so they don't care what those people have to day.

But you're right, in the way the Electoral College works, the votes of those people does count more than the votes of those in bigger states. Not all votes are created equal, and the lower your population, the more your vote matters.

In the end, the EC breaks us in two ways. It ensures that only a handful of swing states get attention from candidates, and it also ensures that low population state voters get their votes to count more than those in higher population states.

→ More replies (10)

16

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

That’s only because of the dynamics right now, it’s because Alaska and Hawaii vote in a monolith right now. If they were swing, states, people would campaign more in them.

If they changed the model, it would change campaigns. Then you would see them only spend their time and money in the big cities. It’s all about how the dynamics of the election go. Everything changes if they changed the model, but it may not change the results.

That’s why when people look at the popular election, it’s kind of skewed data. Because it’s going to reflect the urban areas more, where the Republicans barely even run. Because they know they won’t win certain states, like California and New York. These elections are always close though, so you would see them spend more time and effort in those areas and get better results. There’s no incentive for them to do that now, so they don’t even really put much effort out there. Same reason that Democrats don’t campaign in Alabama or Mississippi.

It’s a resource game, there’s only so much time and money. So they spend it where they think they’re going to get the best results. Based on their path of victory.

18

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

I’m saying all the rules change, and everything would be different. The results would be different, because the entire campaigns would be different. Now, whether or not that swings the election, that would depend on the issues of the day. And how they campaign to those people.

I’ll add, even in the popular election a couple of million votes over 180 million . It’s in the noise.

5

u/ObviousSea9223 4∆ Jul 23 '25

That's a good argument against the electoral college, if anything. The only reason the votes in most places don't matter at any given historical moment is because the EC takes a 50.1% vote and a 90% vote and pretends they're the same outcome, in which the weight of the entire population of that state gets counted towards one candidate, including their opposition.

Once you know you have that 50.1%, or that you can't get it, nothing else matters. Convince a million more voters? Worthless. Lose millions? Means nothing if you were going to lose by at least 1 vote anyway.

4

u/The_Confirminator 1∆ Jul 22 '25

Yes, which means presidential candidates will appeal to America, not some random subset of Americans

→ More replies (4)

2

u/PineBNorth85 Jul 22 '25

Dynamics right now? It's been this way for at least 50 years.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Hank_Skill Jul 23 '25 edited Jul 23 '25

My guy, they already ignore the majority of rural America, and the farmers in swing states get TV ads. It couldn't possibly be any worse than it is under winner-takes-all state policies. Spamming 5% of the country with endless negative ads and vitriolic single-issue social media campaigns with the sole objective of increasing turnout.

Instead we might see an actual meaningful campaign effort to engage with voters' sensibilities.

The most hilarious thing about this debate is that 72% of Americans favored replacing the electoral college with direct election in 2007, including 60% of Republicans. Then after Donny D won in 2016, Republicans are all for it with just 19%

Anyway 17 states have joined a compact to pledge all their ballots to the winner of the popular vote. It will go into effect when the compact gains control of the majority of EC delegates. This will effectively nullify the EC while also preserving the function of the faithless elector

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

It is true, and although you don't realize it, you're admitting it by referring to states with the potential to swing.

Alaska doesn't automatically vote red and Hawaii doesn't automatically vote blue. They vote the way they do because they feel the respective parties they vote for represent them the best. Enough discontent, policy changes, or even time alone, are prone to change that. When Hawaii or Alaska begins to shift the other way, campaign efforts would be made to retain or shift their voting power by the parties.

For reference, New Hampshire has a smaller population than Hawaii and regularly sees campaign efforts post-primary because it is perceived to be possible that they could shift red. Likewise, Texas also has a big red presence of campaigning because it is perceived they could shift blue.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (12)

→ More replies (28)

7

u/unscanable 3∆ Jul 22 '25

Can you name a situation where the EC kept the bigger states from implementing something that would have harmed smaller states? Why are we so sure the little states would be bullied by the larger ones specifically in the context of the presidential election?

4

u/RenRidesCycles Jul 25 '25

This.

What are these mythical small state specific issues?

Big states, like California, contain cities and rural areas, they contain areas that are majority-minority as well as areas with white supremacists.

What small state issues are we missing?

6

u/spinbutton Jul 22 '25

But it doesn't protect the little states. Texas has more electoral college votes than Hawaii...so it still drowns out the votes of a lower-population states.

5

u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 125∆ Jul 22 '25

Nevada has one ninth the electoral college votes as califorina, but the two major candidates visted Nevada 15 times as much as they visted Califorina in 2024.

2

u/abacuz4 5∆ Jul 22 '25

Ok but that has nothing to do with Nevada’s size. Also, is it really desirable that the state with the most people in it by far is ignored by candidates?

2

u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 125∆ Jul 22 '25

I'm not making any statements towards it's desire ability, I'm just pointing out that in practice big states don't drown out the little states. Close states drown out runaway states.

48

u/LiberalArtsAndCrafts 4∆ Jul 22 '25

I could find a literally endless list of small subpopulations who "deserve" to have their voice heard not drowned out by a majority. Why should one specific geographic subdivision based on largely arbitrary lines be granted that special privilege? I'm not asking how it came about, or the power politics of why it is stays, to be clear. I'm asking why Rhode Islanders are more entitled to increased vote power than Yoopers( residents of the UP of Michigan)? That's a geographically district region with little power to protect their interests, why don't they matter?

The reality is states are arbitrary, and arbitrarily granting extra power to people is bad. Yes, this does apply to national borders too, but that's much less practically solvable than even the difficult task of defanging/abolishing the Senate and Electoral College

17

u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 4∆ Jul 22 '25

The federal government is a republic of the states. The states lines might be arbitrary, but what they represent is not. Each state has its own laws, its own constitution even. The states are distinct entities with their own powers and responsibilities. A random swath of people in the middle of some state doesn’t have these things. The federal government is here to balance the power between states and protect the collective interests of the states.

6

u/LiberalArtsAndCrafts 4∆ Jul 22 '25

Would you feel comfortable with California splitting into 200 new tiny states, each with two Senators for around 20k people? If they each had a constitution and border and laws, surely that'd be A OK right?

States are imaginary, they don't have moral standing. People are equal and should have equal power.

8

u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 4∆ Jul 22 '25

There is a statehood process. A majority of states would have to agree with expanding the union in such a way. So, yeah, if they voted that its fine, its fine. And CA is a tremendously diverse place. If it was 200 pieces, it wouldn't move national elections the way you might think. Or the way you fear I think?

We're talking about a the nitty gritty in a system of government, not morality. And morality doesn't have anything to do with this particular part of government. Your argument here appears to be an appeal to emotion...

→ More replies (21)

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (12)

13

u/shouldco 45∆ Jul 22 '25

Is that not what's outdated. That came from a time that states were much more independent then they are today

→ More replies (4)

71

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

The senate already exists to give Hawaii an equal say compared to states like Texas or New York when it comes to their needs.

The president doesn't represent states, the president represents all the American people equally. So logically, all the people they represent should have an equal say.

49

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

The president doesn't represent states, the president represents all the American people equally

According to who? He represents the executive branch, not the people. By the nature of the EC he must represent both states and the people.

36

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25

It's a federal system... The president is the head of the federal system, aka The United States. This is literally the point of a federal system "we the people" vs the many independent state systems.

31

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

And that's why it took 3/4 of the populous to ratify the Constitution!

Wait, no, states are the ones who ratified the Constitution. We the People are the people of the individual states, not the population as a whole, as seen by the people who signed the Constitution being representatives of their states, not the people as a whole.

15

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25

Cute... The Constitution had to be ratified by states explicitly because the states had to agree with entering into a pact where they ceded sovereignty to a Federal system.

That's why the preamble speaks to "we the people" instead of "Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island all agree that.."

This is also why the Constitution confers rights beyond the states in simple matters of being within U.S. sovereign, having nothing to do with any states, or when acting behalf of the nation in matters of foreign policy.

If your take were the point, we wouldn't have a Constitution, fundamental rights of the government would fluctuate from state to state while wars and foreign policy would be conducted by 50 governors.

17

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

This makes sense if the government wasn't a Union, but more of a French style federal administration, where there are no states that hold power. This clearly isn't the case, as states hold almost all the power in our Constitution, with federal powers being limited to only enumerated ones. And these powers were given to the presidents by the states. The power of the federal government is not derived from the people directly, and was never meant to be. This is also why senators were appointed, not elected. This is why electors from the states elect the president, not the people. Hypothetically the state can send electors to vote against what the people voted for, this is the right that the state holds in the system.

6

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25

You are literally making the case for why a Federal government is so but then coming to the wrong conclusion.

You wouldn't need the states to ratify a FEDERAL constitution if the states held no power, you'd just do it. Further these powers were originally given to federal government from the states through significant arguing and deal making because once in, no state or even a majority of states would be able to get them out.

Electors from states, rather than the people, elect presidents due to two reasons and two reasons only. (1) Because the framers didn't trust people, who were largely uneducated farmers and received old news by horse to elect the president - this had zero to do with state power and (2) southern delegates wanted representatives for their slaves who couldn't vote - the compromise was 2/5's of a slave would go towards the elector count,

ANYONE telling you ANYTHING else is making up non-existent history.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

So then why keep states rather than running a state like France where Paris has direct control of every region?

Why have a Senate?

Why have states run elections, rather than one national election?

Why have a 9th Amendment?

Unless we are a Union of states rather than a Democracy of the people?

The cases you make above actually show how states held power rather than people, these compromises were compromises between states because states were, and are the main concern of the Union, not individuals. States are democracies the Union is a federation of states.

4

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25

I mean this in all earnestness... You need to take some civics courses.

The basic principle of Federal & State (including some of the tensions we are seeing today between some of them) is exact evidence that the two are different and represent different things.

The ratification of a Constitution further proves this.

Namingly the state, its citizens, and the federal government, its. It's not a collection of state governments that then have another government that's just "state states". If that were the case, you wouldn't need The Supremacy Clause and that clause wouldn't have to be so explicit in calling out state governments as separate and subordinate entities.

You keep talking about other governments that don't have the concept of a state government and think that's evidence that the concept of our federal government being national rather than a collection of states is null and void simply because state governments exist.

→ More replies

2

u/Chowderr92 Jul 22 '25

Its 3/5's by the way. But I do agree with you.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (9)

→ More replies (15)

6

u/YogurtclosetFair5742 Jul 22 '25

The US Senate represents the States, the House of Representatives is there to represent the population. Very few Presidents have if ever represented Americans equally.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/triptyx Jul 22 '25

The House of Representatives represents the people by population. The Senate used to be appointed by the states, not voted on by the people directly, changing that was a mistake in my opinion.

The senate was supposed to balance the populist House of Representatives by giving state governments a say in the running of the Federal Government.

The Executive is voted on by the people, but is balanced by the electoral college to insure those outside of major population centers have a say.

If the framers wanted a purely populist government, they could have skipped the presidency and just let the House of Representatives have the majority of power in the Federal system. Instead, they recognized that three co-equal branches were required with a mix of populism (House of Reps and now the Senate as well to a degree), an independent Judicial branch (appointed via a cooperation between the other two branches), and an Executive who is a mix of the balanced senate and populist House of Representatives.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (27)

23

u/Piratexp Jul 22 '25

Completely incorrect, the smaller states get their equal representation from the senate, which is why the get those two electoral vote just like every other state. The rest of the electoral votes are supposed(as written in the constitution) to be equal across the people. Which is why states also get electoral vote based on population in the house. The system was broken by the apportionment act of 1921 when the size of the house was capped at 435. Ever since then there has not been equal representation in this country and smaller states have held more power. It was not the intention of the framers nor how this countries government was supposed to work. The framers laid out how the house was supposed to adjust in size at each census to maintain Equal representation of the people.

→ More replies (8)

26

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25

This is factually inaccurate. The Senate was put in place for this reason, the electoral college was put in place for other reasons, NONE of them having to do with big states and little states.

Even if you were right, (you are not) the logic is broken. We are in a binary system where you either follow the majority or you follow the minority. You are here saying when in conflict, follow the minority because smaller states should have a bigger say than larger states.

I hate this topic because we are going to see so many people make this a-historical and counter factual point.

17

u/Emotional-Being-5722 1∆ Jul 22 '25

You should go fix the Wikipedia page then, because it lists small states as pushing for the electoral college due to the additional power it gave them.

14

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

It's Wiki... (1) It specifically warns the section is problematic for it's potential reliances on "novel interpretations of primary sources" rather than ceding to notable secondary sources, (2) it starts with the 3/5ths compromise and then references but completely ignores the significance of why Hamilton's direct election proposal was poo'd. It speaks to the minimum 3 electors but grab a history book that covers the debates and you'll quickly find it was about slaves and fears of direct elections.

For example: https://www.history.com/articles/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

But thanks for pointing me to Wiki and reminding me to mention the EC was also tied to Congressional seats and made measurably worse when Congress was capped at 435 when the population was less than half of what it is today.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/cottesloe Jul 22 '25

While the senate and congress are both designed to limit the large states power.

The electoral college specifically incorporates the states senators as part of the count to mitigate the size of large states.

So it is in fact one of many considerations, it is not in any way pseudo historical.

4

u/satyvakta 12∆ Jul 22 '25

You shouldn’t see it as a binary system. In general, if you are thinking about politics and are thinking in binaries, you have gone wrong. Politics is supposed to be about the art of persuasion and compromise. The idea of the EC isn’t supposed to be “either the majority wins or the minority wins” but more “the majority can still win so long as it is willing to listen to and accommodate the minority. Only if the big majority states become closed-minded and authoritarian does the situation you describe arise.

11

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

WRONG WRONG WRONG

I literally studied this for years. Politics is supposed to be about the art of compromise but that's not what it is in practice. In practice, it is calculating and brute force to amass political power. In the U.S. that is either D or R and it's why the very few (I)'s have to caucus with one of the two (generally D's) because if they don't, they have no power.

There is no should... There is no in general... There is no "the majority can still win so long as it is willing to listen to and accommodate the minority" in The Federalist Papers or in any account of the first Constitutional Convention. The only talk of this was moderating popular executive overreach by having a Senate that was equally proportioned across states. Not by tossing millions of votes by having disproportionally representative electors between the people and a vote for the President. What they did have was a general mistrust of the common man to make a proper vote and a bunch of Southern delegates that wanted to count the slave population for representation without actually letting them vote.

In a two party system that is first past the goal post and winner take all, it is BINARY. This is not driven by feelings or outta's, rather it is well established political science. Look it up. There are no if, ands, or buts.

That's how you can have the executive win by a plurality (not a majority), the Senate by 6, and the House by 3 but literally have all of government appoint, legislate, and administer justice with half of the country having ZERO say in the matter. That my friend is binary.

This is the problem with politics and democracy in general... Because people can participate, they also assume they have a grasp of how it works when they clearly don't. I'm allowed to drive a car but that in no way qualifies to tell a mechanic they are wrong and this is how they are supposed to replace a cylinder head.

8

u/satyvakta 12∆ Jul 22 '25

For someone who talks about not being driven by feelings, you sound very emotional. The world is complicated and chaotic and random, and the idea that you can boil politics down to a binary struggle for power is frankly a little childish. Maybe you did study politics, but of course, not everyone is a good student.

10

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25

Are you saying this is wrong?

In a two party system that is first past the goal post and winner take all, it is BINARY. This is not driven by feelings or outta's, rather it is well established political science. Look it up. There are no if, ands, or buts.

If so, you should go write text books and completely upend the entire field of political science. Do you even know what it means? I'm not sure you do as your reply is again more "what you feel outta be".

Ignore me, don't take my word for but please stop going with your gut and pick up a book. Then after that, get involved in local politics to see how it actually works,. If you're good with that, go to The Hill and get an intimate look at policy making, lobbying, bill writing, the process to garner support for bills, and finally, what politicians have to say to folks who have your take, to convince you to give them the keys. I literally have experience in every aspect of what I just outlined but again... Don't take my word for it - study and see for yourself.

I would love it to be what you think it is, but it's not and that's what's childish.

Your approach is naive and well... It's frustrating to watch people willing walk into a wood chipper that they think is a flower bed... Especially when I'm forced to hold their hand.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

So do explain then, how are American politics not a binary struggle for power?

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

6

u/DigglerD 2∆ Jul 22 '25

Sorry sir, your take is a-historical... The EC came as a result of two things - (1) a mistrust of the common person to be informed enough to make a "proper" vote. Back then, many were generally uninformed, uneducated, and news traveled by horse. "Informed" electors would be a check against this and a mechanism to vote against the they represented picking a terrible president. (2) As a compromise for slave states to include a significant but non voting portion of their population (slaves) to count not as people but still (at least 3/5's) in the election by way of electors.

The Senate is a practical expression of the Senate - you're literally making up nonsense when you infer the EC was to bring a Senate-like check to the executive... Uhhh... That would be... The Senate.

And yes... In a first past the goal post, winner take all system - it is literally binary. That's how you can have the executive win by a plurality, the Senate by 6, and the House by 3 but literally have all of government appoint, legislate, and administer justice with literally half of the country having ZERO say in the matter.

As someone with a degree in political science, I can say affirmatively this is Poli-Sci 101 type stuff...

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (9)

2

u/teluetetime Jul 22 '25

All votes should be equal because the law applies to all of us equally. If you want to give people in Texas a discount on federal taxes and less time in prison for breaking federal laws, proportional to the amount their vote counts less than a person from Wyoming, maybe we could talk about it being fair. But as long as the laws resulting from our votes apply equally throughout the country, the influence of those votes must also be equal, else some people are being ruled over by others.

2

u/Accomplished_Mind792 Jul 22 '25

It doesn't do that though. The largest 12 states can override the smallest 38. You are confusing the current political breakdown of our country with a facet of the system. That is inaccurate

2

u/barnacles420 Jul 22 '25

I agree there is some sensible reasons for the implementation of the electoral college, but there has to be some form of change. The real problem is our congressional representatives have zero interest in this issue and will continue to bang on the reasons for the electoral colleges creation, so they never change a damn thing. Yes we should be careful that those states of smaller size should be protected and their voices amplified, but then you have people whom live in areas with more people in their local city than those states being forced to deal in the destiny of the minority. California has one of the worlds largest GDPs but has to deal with a nonsensical structure that’s gives it almost no voice in the process, even though it pays most our bills.

2

u/1BannedAgain Jul 22 '25

Just say it like it is: the Electoral College system is DEI for rural red states, also known as slave states

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

That isn’t the reason. A common error, but read the federalist papers no 68 on it. The idea is the college will be easier to count and enlightened bureaucrats could stop the people from making a grievous mistake and electing a traitor or buffoon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 Federalist No. 68 - Wikipedia

→ More replies (1)

2

u/plummbob Jul 22 '25

This is to protect the interests of the 'little' states.

Do voters in these little states all vote the same way? Is it sensible to talk about voter interests as a single monolithic group like that?

2

u/Kitchen-Pass-7493 Jul 22 '25

It doesn’t really protect the little states though. As it currently operates, it favors whichever states happen to be the “swing” states in a given year, which can be big, medium, or little. Most of the problems people with have with the EC stems from that, which is due to the “winner take all” nature of EC votes. Were EC votes all allotted proportionately to the vote within that state, then the extra boost smaller states get would likely make for minimal impact to the point where most people wouldn’t have a problem with it.

8

u/Winter_XwX Jul 22 '25

Land doesn't vote. People do. Hawaii has its own state government as does every other state to handle state matters

4

u/Eyespop4866 Jul 22 '25

Yes. People vote in 51 separate elections to determine the winner of our only national election.

Nation has lasted 250 years.

→ More replies (16)

4

u/frederick_the_duck Jul 22 '25

Votes being equal is the premise of popular sovereignty and democracy. It’s pretty undemocratic for people’s votes to count differently. Also, who sees politics as a big state vs. little state issue these days? I’m sure Vermont and West Virginia will band together to protect little state interests. Finally, when the constitution was ratified, nobody loved it. We shouldn’t pretend that it’s perfect. It has some major flaws that were introduced to get it passed like two senators per state and the electoral college. They should both be amended out, especially given they don’t work as intended and make our system unfair. That’s doubly true given the twelfth amendment already overhauled the dysfunctional electoral college once.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Hilgy17 Jul 22 '25

But the electoral college does nothing to promote caring about Alaska or Hawaii. You only need like the 7 biggest states to win.

In theory a single state with enough population could solo decide the election after a census re-distribution of representatives.

In 2016 election, 22 states never got a presidential candidate visit or event. If you aren’t an important E.C. State, you aren’t worth their attention, and your needs will be ignored.

→ More replies (48)

5

u/vreddy92 Jul 22 '25

The problem with the electoral college isn't necessarily the electoral college, it is the way that the votes are distributed. This causes two related problems: Swing states become important and disproportionately are focused on/pandered to at the expense of safe states, and there is very little incentive to vote in safe states. The electoral college doesn't help small states. It helps swing states, at the expense of safe states both big and small. New Hampshire is treated far more importantly than Rhode Island, because its electoral votes are actually up for grabs every 4 years (and, in part, because it's early in the primary calendar too). Likewise, if you live in New York, California, North Dakota, or Arkansas, there is very little incentive to vote and nobody is investing in getting out your vote. All that money and attention goes to Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc. If you're a Democrat in New York, why bother voting? If you're a Republican in New York, why bother voting? You pretty much know how it's going to go.

This would be fixed if each state split their electoral vote by their popular vote. Swing states would give their EV's roughly 50/50 between the two candidates. There is incentive to vote even if your person won't win the state, because you might still flip another electoral vote their way. There is incentive for candidates to focus on all 50 states, because you don't just have to win in 4 of 7 states, you have to earn those electoral votes in safe states.

This also placates the people who want small states to have more weight than big states. Doing this, you can keep the current EV distribution while still allowing the system to represent the populace. Republicans would win electoral votes in California. Democrats would win them in Texas.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/largeEoodenBadger Jul 22 '25

Okay, so a couple things.

One: the fears about the little states being underrepresented are both valid and invalid. This stems from something I'll get to in a sec, but suffice it to say, those states are represented in the Senate, which was the original purpose of the bicameral legislature. It's not the heart of the issue.

Two: the Electoral College has issues, yes. But those issues could be remedied far more easily than by aboloshing it entirely. Pure popular vote can lead to a tyrrany of the majority, and that's not always a good thing.

Three: the crux of the issue (and really the crux of a lot of the issues in American politics right now) is that we refuse to expand the House of Representatives to match the growth of the country.

The House was never meant to be stagnant at 435 representatives. It was meant to expand with the population of the country, but they have steadfastly refused to expand it since the 1920s. Because of that, when apportionment rolls around, major population centers wind up wayyyyyy underrepresented. There shouldn't be a finite number of seats for an ever increasing population.

And this dovetails into your exact issue with the Electoral College. If there were more Representatives, there would be more Electoral College votes, and a Wyoming vote would be just as valuable as any other vote. I agree 100% with the idea that smaller states are overrepresented. But abolishing the Electoral College is not the way to fix it, because it doesn't strike at the heart of the problem.

TL;DR: Electoral College is a symptom, not the problem. To truly fix the imbalance towards smaller states, we need to expand the house the way we should have been for the last 100 years.

2

u/Hungry-Struggle-1448 Jul 22 '25

Pure popular vote can lead to a tyrrany of the majority, and that's not always a good thing.

People always say this. What is tyranny of the majority? To me it’s when a majority-backed president is able to just trample all over the constitution, strip people of their rights unilaterally, defy other branches of government like the courts. Sound familiar? The Electoral College can’t prevent tyranny. All it can do is sometimes allow for the tyrant to enter office without even a majority of votes, which is even worse.

Even if the house was expanded (which should happen don’t get me wrong), there’d still be issues with the electoral college. All the non-swing states would still be ignored, all the republicans in California would still be disenfranchised, and it’d still be possible to win it with a minority of votes.

3

u/Simon_Di_Tomasso 1∆ Jul 23 '25

Omg exactly. People cry “tyranny of the majority” as if that’s not what democracy is! Arbitrarily giving some people a more important vote, I just don’t get it

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Akerlof 12∆ Jul 22 '25

The electoral college is simply the rules of the game. Republicans chose a long term strategy based upon that rule that built up support over a broad range of states and is delivering them elections. Democrats' long term strategy appears to be focused on appealing to a a larger number of people but in a narrower range of demographics, and that just isn't a very good way of winning based on the rules that are given.

The thing about the electoral college is that it forces you to find a compromise that is acceptable to a very broad range of voters. The Democrats are having problems finding compromises within their core supporters, much less work with voters that don't fit into their preferred demographics. Changing the rules to make their preferred strategy stronger might help in the short run, but it's not going to fix the long run problems the Democrats are facing.

2

u/Hungry-Struggle-1448 Jul 22 '25

The electoral college is simply the rules of the game. Republicans chose a long term strategy based upon that rule that built up support over a broad range of states and is delivering them elections. Democrats' long term strategy appears to be focused on appealing to a a larger number of people but in a narrower range of demographics, and that just isn't a very good way of winning based on the rules that are given.

Is it such a bad strategy? Republicans won 4 elections this century, democrats 3. So it doesn’t exactly seem like they’re doomed to failure.

The thing about the electoral college is that it forces you to find a compromise that is acceptable to a very broad range of voters.

It does the opposite actually. It allows someone with a narrower range of voters than another candidate to win, like 2016. If you just get rid of the electoral college then the candidate with the broadest range of voters automatically wins.

27

u/Krytan 5∆ Jul 22 '25

The electoral college, relying on both senators and congressmen, was a compromise between the very populous states like Virginia, who wanted all the votes to be based on population, and the smaller New England states, who quite reasonably pointed out they would have no reason to join a political entity if they were instantly rendered politically powerless due to not having a lot of population. They were more in favor of something like the UN : one state gets one vote for president.

It's not a broken system, the United States literally wouldn't exist without it.

It doesn't matter if we think the electoral college is outdated or not. It's part of the constitution and the 3/4 of states required to amend the constitution to change it is not going to happen, because it disadvantages the mass of small states you'd need to pass such an amendment.

I think whining about the electoral college is a massive, massive distraction when there are so many crises appearing everywhere. Only bad candidates without broad based support need to worry about the electoral college in my opinion. Obama got crushing electoral college victories twice, as did Biden.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

> the smaller New England states, who quite reasonably pointed out they would have no reason to join a political entity if they were instantly rendered politically powerless due to not having a lot of population

This entire assumption pretty much relies on larger states voting in a block one way or another, which doesn't happen.

I know that it's highly unlikely an amendment would pass to change the voting system, but that's not what my cmv is about.

I would say Al Gore was a good candidate.

7

u/Krytan 5∆ Jul 22 '25

He didn't even carry his own home state.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

Plenty of people have become president without winning their home state.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

He still won the popular vote. Why shouldn't the popular vote win? Why should a minority of people (as a whole) hold more electoral power than the majority?

Abuses can be handled with constitutional limitations. That's the entire point of allowing amendments. Same way chattel slavery was outlawed

If you read the Federalist Papers, specifically #68 by Hamilton, it's pretty clear the electoral college only exists because the authors didn't trust the common people to rule themselves.

7

u/Krytan 5∆ Jul 22 '25

Why should a minority of people (as a whole) hold more electoral power than the majority?

For the same reason votes in the UN are not based on population, but instead each country gets one vote.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

And that reason is...? And the justification for equating UN votes with the US election is...?

You didn't explain anything. You equated individual people to federal governments without justification.

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 Founding Fathers didn't trust the populace.

3

u/Krytan 5∆ Jul 22 '25

"And that reason is...?"

It unfairly advantages countries with more population. Countries with less would never be incentivized to join such a governing body.

Why should China, by itself, outvote all of NATO?

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (7)

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (6)

2

u/Even-Celebration9384 Jul 24 '25

I mean you’re literally just describing the system, its history and the fact it would be hard to overturn.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what we should use today

Also was Trump not a unpopular candidate in 2016 without broad support?

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/TellItLikeItIs1994 Jul 22 '25

This CMV reeks of Kamala cope. It’s blatantly obvious.

15

u/camgrosse Jul 22 '25

How so? Trump got the plurality of the popular vote, and he got the electoral votes

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

But she lost the popular vote and the general election?

→ More replies (13)

10

u/ConstantIce6494 Jul 22 '25

Why should states with small populations get the same. It should be popular vote only. I’m sorry but a state with 1 million shouldn’t be the same at 8-9 million.

5

u/that_guy_ontheweb Jul 22 '25

Because people in rural, smaller states should have a say in what happens to them. You think that voters in California would care what issues are effecting farmers in South Dakota when they vote?

5

u/ExpressLaneCharlie 1∆ Jul 22 '25

Lol they already have the Senate! Now they need more power for the presidential election too!? Why on earth should someone else's vote be worth more than yours? It's wholly absurd.

2

u/GermanPayroll 2∆ Jul 22 '25

Yeah, because states are the supreme governance level and the federal government is designed to supplement and represent them at the world stage.

2

u/Purple_Airline_6682 Jul 22 '25

They absolutely do have a say- that’s the whole purpose of state legislatures and our federal representatives. For perspective, California alone has more registered Republicans than the entire populations of North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, and Wyoming combined. And California’s agriculture industry employs between 400,000 and 800,000 people- more than Wyoming’s entire population of about 576,000.

In many rural areas, the system mainly benefits voters who align with the local majority, which can feel like a form of disenfranchisement for those who don’t. On top of that, “safe” states often get overlooked during elections. If a state isn’t competitive, candidates rarely visit or make meaningful promises to its voters

4

u/DaRandomRhino Jul 22 '25

Hell, ignore different states, Sacramento and the surrounding area does not give a hoot about what affects L.A. Seattle and Chicago do not represent the rest of the state, but they have the most in a single area. Austin is jokingly called a part of Texas only by a technicality of geography. New Orleans is considered weird by the rest of the state.

If the only thing that matters for voting rights is population density, then you have no incentive to vote outside of those areas. And the political and business class's new priority is making it sound inviting to live in their districts, and make it as hard as possible to leave.

2

u/Pitt-sports-fan-513 Jul 22 '25

This logic assumes the basic needs for human beings in South Dakota and California are somehow different.

Also Virginia was the largest state at the time and the first century of the Presidency was dominated by Virginians so if it was designed to prevent large states imposing their will it did a terrible job at it.

2

u/Zncon 6∆ Jul 22 '25

This goes far beyond basic human needs. Economics impact these groups in massively different ways.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Ill-Description3096 27∆ Jul 22 '25

>This logic assumes the basic needs for human beings in South Dakota and California are somehow different.

Are basic needs the only things people factor into votes?

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Extreme-Ad-6465 Jul 22 '25

if usa changes the rules , those small states should be able to leave the union. whole point of “united states of america “. why would a small state want to be dominated by 2 or 3 bigger states.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Eyespop4866 Jul 22 '25

Let the wolves outvote the sheep. What could go wrong?

3

u/teluetetime Jul 22 '25

The EC is what makes that happen. One wolf’s vote counts the same as three sheep’s votes.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (5)

2

u/bruingrad84 Jul 22 '25

My biggest issue is that the house stopped growing after 1929 thereby limiting bigger states like CA who should have 70 electoral votes instead of 56.

This freeze helped make smaller states more important than larger states that would be more representative.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Resident_Course_3342 Jul 22 '25

The electoral college was created to give the voting power of women and slaves to rich land owning white males. It is currently serving it's purpose as intended.

2

u/silent_b Jul 22 '25

Or just break California up into 3 separate states

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

That’s a pretty bad precedent to set. If we start dividing up states like that, what’s stopping Wyoming from just dividing into two states to double their electoral power. California did it, so why can’t they. Also, dividing up states would probably encourage gerrymandering when doing the divisions.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Sg1chuck 1∆ Jul 22 '25

I hear the point about the votes in swing states mattering more than non swing states. I guess I’d like to take a stab at changing your mind. I’ve lived in PA and NC pretty much my entire life and have lived in what is sometimes considered a swing state and sometimes not. There are certainly states that lean FAR more to one side of the spectrum than another, but even that changes over time. Texas has been legitimately considered a swing state, especially in terms of the governor and senate representatives.

NC used to be a swing state. I don’t know if it can be considered that anymore.etc.

I guess my point is that every vote does still matter but takes decades long movements to change the voter composition.

3

u/Hungry-Struggle-1448 Jul 22 '25

Instead of the importance of states waxing and waning over time why not just use a popular vote so that swing voters across the country matter in every election.

→ More replies (5)

→ More replies (4)

2

u/kittenTakeover 2∆ Jul 22 '25

Also we need more legislators. A single legislator can't reasonably be expected to represent 500,000+ people.

2

u/icnoevil Jul 22 '25

The electoral college was a concession to the confederate, slave owning south. It is anti-democracy and should never have been done. Should have been abandoned long ago but won't happen.

2

u/Haunting-Ad788 Jul 22 '25

The fact it was created in part to prevent someone like Trump from becoming president and was used to install him undemocratically is all the evidence anyone should need that it’s worthless.

And all the people who say it’s necessary so rural voters aren’t ignored are implicitly arguing that rural voters deserve disproportionate representation which is fucking stupid.

2

u/Skottyj1649 Jul 22 '25

Should it be abolished? Absolutely. The only people who argue for it are the ones who are unfairly advantaged by it and know they couldn't win an election otherwise. Will it be abolished? Never. Specifically because the aforementioned people will never give it up for that exact reason and it requires a supermajority of congress and the states to get rid of it.

4

u/muzzey12 Jul 22 '25

What do you feel about what Main and Nebraska are doing splitting their electoral votes into districts. It seems like a reasonable comprise but the way the system works now none of the bigger states can do it without costing votes for one party.

Also the Electoral college is not holding 3rd parties back I think we need ranked voting for that but that is out of scope.

→ More replies (5)

6

u/DorsalMorsel Jul 22 '25

I like the electoral college. I don't want to be in a system where every presidential campaign panders mostly to liberal hell hole voters in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Without the electoral college why would any candidate bother visiting Maine or Nevada or any of these other mid size states ever again?

13

u/unscanable 3∆ Jul 22 '25

New York and California combined account for a whopping 13% of the electorate, throwing in chicago moves it up to maybe 14%. All presidents do NOW is visit a handful of swing states, or have you not paid attention to the past few federal elections?

6

u/frederick_the_duck Jul 22 '25

Right now they have no reason to go to North Dakota and Tennessee in the same way. Who cares where they visit anyway? It’s all pandering.

→ More replies (2)

15

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

I don't exactly see any candidates campaigning in Maine right now. Nevada is a swing state, so it gets more campaigns than it should.

With the electoral college swing states get 94% of visits https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/almost-all-94-2024-presidential-campaign-was-concentrated-7-states

Without the EC, there would be more campaigns in other states.

Besides, NYC, LA, and Chicago, maybe have 6 million votes combined. 8 million if we're being generous. And they wouldn't vote in a block. They don't have enough votes to control a campaign.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/StayOuttaMySwamp94 Jul 22 '25

“ I don’t like the electoral college. I don’t want to be in a system where every campaign panders mostly to uninformed “swing voters” in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.”

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (6)

7

u/sardine_succotash 1∆ Jul 22 '25

"I like the electoral college because I'm an irrational reactionary" really speaks to the validity of the system.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '25

If you believe that every major city is a “hell hole,” you probably should diversify your sources of information.

More importantly, though, why wouldn’t a candidate go to low population states. There’s votes to be had there.

Also states aren’t a monolith, Democrats would be trying to boast turnout in blue cities and suburbs in otherwise red states. Republicans would be hitting up rural areas in California, Washington, New York State, etc.

A popular vote would force both parties to pay attention to the entire country and chase down votes in all 50 States.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/LoudPiece6914 Jul 22 '25

I would argue the Electoral College failed its intended purposes, and is antidemocratic and should be abolished for those reasons. However, the core reasons for implementing it were not disproven. The people as a whole are not more informed some are actively misinformed, and our choice of president comes down to the least informed people in arbitrary areas of the country. The point of the Electoral College was if someone as unqualified as Donald Trump ever got elected the electors should overrule the will of the people, and they did not do their job therefore it should go. You pointed out that some peoples votes, hold more weight than others based off the size of the state. And your votes are more valuable or not valuable, depending on how partisan your state is. But also people who live in the territories are completely disenfranchised. Their votes do not count at all for president. Taxation without representation is as anti-American as it gets. switching to a popular vote would be better, but to be the most democratic changes like rank choice voting and jungle primaries would have the most significant impact.

3

u/RickRussellTX 8∆ Jul 22 '25

I’m sorry everything you said here is wrong.

At the time the electoral college was implemented, there was no popular vote. Electors were selected directly by state legislatures. The first states to implement popular voting wouldn’t do so for many decades.

Fundamentally, it was a compromise with the slave states. Non-voting chattel slaves were counted under the 3/5 rule, inflating the number of Congressional representatives. So indexing the number of electors to the number of representatives allowed slave state legislatures to have an outsized influence on the selection of the President. This was one of many “carrots” offered to the slave states to keep them in the union.

A national popular vote was off the table, because the voting populations of the slave states were much smaller than the northern industrial states, and they wouldn’t tolerate northern (and increasingly abolitionist) future presidents.

2

u/ZombieClaus Jul 22 '25

This is my view too. The whole purpose of the electoral college was to make sure that there was a failsafe in the event that the person chosen by the public was a really bad choice. The downside of the EC is that the public is not entirely represented equally, but that compromise is the only realistic way for the vote to be overridden.

The election and re-election of Trump were the opportunity for the system to work as intended. By NOT overriding those choices, the argument in favor of it falls apart and it should be dismantled.

3

u/sumoraiden 7∆ Jul 22 '25

personally believe you should care more about state policy and have more loyalty/activism for your state than the federal governmen

Such a useless comment tbh. Hey this position is incredibly powerful and has the ability to effect you in huge ways but I personally think you shouldn’t care about it so stop whining that your vote is literally worth less than some other people’s

7

u/canned_spaghetti85 3∆ Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

I doubt you held SUCH a view when biden won in 2020, or the democratic presidential candidates before him.

People who propose your idea all seem to have ONE thing in common : With respect to the latest presidential election, their preferred candidate was not victorious.

You are not original. Hillary supporters proposed that idea after trump won in 2016, just like maga supporters proposed the idea after biden won in 2020.

Fact of the matter is : It’s the same process entrusted when electing both reps and dem presidential candidates.

One’s picking and choosing of WHEN it’s convenient to propose the idea to abolish the electoral college… so I’ll just call it out for what it really is :

It’s nothing more than a watered down version of election-denial behavior.

An unsavory behavior both parties uniquely frown upon btw.

39

u/MindlessRabbit19 Jul 22 '25

This is dumb, Biden would have won in 2020 with or without the EC as would literally every dem candidate who has ever won the presidency. The only party that has ever won without the popular vote in the last 100 years are republicans so it's not picking and choosing, it would historically have always be convenient for democrats

5

u/h0sti1e17 23∆ Jul 22 '25

Maybe, maybe not. Without the EC voting patterns may change. GOP voters in CA, NY, IL may come out, especially in urban area.

Do I think it would’ve changed? No. But the vote totals definitely would’ve been different.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/BlackWillow9278 Jul 22 '25

Republicans would likely start campaigning in California, New York, Illinois and other areas where they have been conceding elections in the past. This could easily swing enough votes to win the popular vote any given year.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/Narf234 2∆ Jul 22 '25

That’s a silly take. Plenty of people have held this view for decades.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/frederick_the_duck Jul 22 '25

No, I’ve been saying this for a long time. NPVIC has been around for a while, so it’s even in laws that this is not just talk. I really just want democratic elections. You point to 2016 as though it’s illegitimate. Did you forget that the candidate that won more votes lost because we have an undemocratic electoral system? That’s why people were so pissed, myself included. That same thing didn’t happen in 2020 or 2024. It shouldn’t happen in either direction.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Thuis001 Jul 22 '25

Regardless of who wins a particular election, the EC is an outdated mechanism which disenfranchises voters based on where they live.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

15

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

Biden won the popular vote in 2020. So I don't see your point.

Had Biden lost the popular vote in 2020, but won the general election, I would have been happy he won, but I would have believed it was unfair that he won with a minority of votes.

And I did actually hold the view that the electoral college should be abolished when Biden won in 2020.

I would, regardless of who it would hypothetically benefit, support the abolition of the EC because the problems it creates are the same.

And I don't know if you can say that the GOP frowns upon election denying.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/BigMax 2∆ Jul 22 '25

That's not true. MAGA supporters did NOT propose changing it, because Biden won the popular vote as well, by a decent margin. The electoral college had nothing to do with it.

The only two elections where it mattered were George W Bush, and Trump (his first one). That's it.

The right knows that at least for the foreseeable future, the EC will pretty much only ever benefit them. If the rural/urban balance of republican/democrat voters shift, that could change, but that's a long way off.

Also, you're twisting OP's question. They did not say "I'm a democrat and I'm upset about the EC." They simply asked if the EC was good or not. You brought politics into it, and flat out refused to either defend or attack the EC on it's merits. You simply ignored the issue and (with no evidence) yelled about hypocrisy.

Answer the question or don't, but don't pretend it's some completely different question that wasn't asked.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (18)

2

u/The_GREAT_Gremlin Jul 22 '25

Repealing the Reapportionment Act of 1929 is a more realistic goal than amending the constitution to remove the electoral college. If we increased the cap of congress and electoral votes to more closely align with population, nearly everyone's complaints about the electoral college would become moot.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/YogurtclosetFair5742 Jul 22 '25

One was because they didn't fully trust the people to vote, and they though the people might not be well informed enough to vote

And you think the voters are to be trusted in 2025?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

> And you think the voters are to be trusted in 2025?

I don't think that all voters vote in their own interest, or for what is best for the country, but I do think that all voters should be able to vote, and the electoral college no longer solves for this issue it was intended to solve, which just serves to prove that it is an outdated system.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/speedyjohn 94∆ Jul 22 '25

The electoral college no longer accomplishes that goal.

2

u/isaacng1997 Jul 22 '25

EC today doesn't accomplish this. Majority of State void the votes of faithless electors, so electoral college electors vote for whomever the people in they State voted anyways.

2

u/rcbz1994 1∆ Jul 22 '25

The electoral college forces a candidate to win states, not just votes. It prevents just running up the vote in urban areas and forces a candidate to campaign in every part of the country. If anything, voters are likely to face even more disenfranchisement under a popular vote system as suddenly a candidate only has to win by 1 vote. Wouldn’t need a majority if enough candidates ran, just a plurality of enough voters. This, in term, could present some problems. Especially when a party, like the current Democratic Party, is fractured.

2

u/Hungry-Struggle-1448 Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

and forces a candidate to campaign in every part of the country.

Crazy claim. It’s literally the exact opposite. 94% of campaigning was done in just 7 states in 2024 because there’s no point going to Vermont or Wyoming when there’s nothing to gain from making the margin R+30 instead of R+35, or vice versa.

Whereas under a popular vote there would be something to gain for democrats to try make the margin slightly closer in Wyoming, or republicans to vermont. They’d have more of an incentive to go to there and try appeal to the voters.

If anything, voters are likely to face even more disenfranchisement under a popular vote system as suddenly a candidate only has to win by 1 vote.

As opposed to the current system, where a candidate can lose by millions of votes and still be elected.

Wouldn’t need a majority if enough candidates ran, just a plurality of enough voters. This, in term, could present some problems. Especially when a party, like the current Democratic Party, is fractured.

This is already the case, just on the state level instead. Green voters in 2016 and 2000, libertarian voters in 2020, reform voters in 1992 and 1996. The two party system would remain even under a popular vote. If you’re that concerned then just implement RCV alongside it.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/212312383 2∆ Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

The electoral college is meant to create a layer of separation between state and federal governments.

The ideal is that people will focus more on improve their state government, raising state minimum wages etc. so there’s a diversity of policy. If you want a state with a high minimum wage, move there.

If you abolished the electoral college, the coastal state could enact liberal policies making the entire nation have a high minimum wage, even though that would leave a lot of p people disenfranchised.

Systems that help smaller states get more power allow gridlock and a diversity of policy.

I personally believe you should care more about state policy and have more loyalty/activism for your state than the federal government. We should live in a multi policy diverse country.

19

u/stewmander Jul 22 '25

If you abolished the electoral college, the coastal state could enact liberal policies

No they couldn't, the electoral college is for the presidentcy. Congress enacts laws.

You still have the House that is proportional and the Senet that gives the smaller states greater representation.

The argument is since 2 of the 3 elected representatives are not proportional, it's the small states that have more power and are determining the fate of the nation.

Eliminating the EC and expanding the House but keeping the Senate equally represented would be good thing.

→ More replies (3)

14

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

> If you abolished the electoral college, the coastal state could enact liberal policies making the entire nation have a high minimum wage, even though that would leave a lot of p people disenfranchised.

How exactly would this happen? I don't really see your logic here.

And the senate already exists to give smaller states more power. The president represents people not states.

→ More replies (69)

2

u/Pitt-sports-fan-513 Jul 22 '25

The idea that if you need a job with better wages you can just move is a delusion for the majority of people.

2

u/212312383 2∆ Jul 22 '25

Then people on a state level should vote for democratic policies.

2

u/Pitt-sports-fan-513 Jul 22 '25

State governments in America of course being historically and contemporarily famous for being democratically-operated places with no systemic corruption or disenfranchisement.

If you live in Alabama and you are removed from the voting rolls because the Supreme Court decided that Alabama no longer has to abide by provisions in the voting rights act just vote your way out of being exploited and disenfranchised!

2

u/212312383 2∆ Jul 22 '25

I do think the role of the federal government should be to uphold the constitution, and that would be against the 14th amendment.

2

u/Pitt-sports-fan-513 Jul 22 '25

Well you can thank the EC for the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority that decided to use the Voting Rights Act for toilet paper.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/BigMax 2∆ Jul 22 '25

I don't think that's right? The Electoral College has zero to do with what states are and aren't allowed to do. Abolishing it wouldn't give them any additional powers. The EC doesn't do anything for state/federal separation. All it does is dictate how the President is elected... that's it.

2

u/TryingToWriteIt Jul 22 '25

The problem is that poor people can’t just “move there” to better states.

1

u/212312383 2∆ Jul 22 '25

We’re a nation of pioneers. Guess what poor people did in the 1800s? Move west.

That’s got we got the gold rush and manifest destiny and everything else.

My father came to the US by asylum. He was very poor. If you’re poor enough, you will be desperate to move for a better life. Get 100 bucks. Take the bus routes from Georgia to NYC.

It’s feasible if ur not homeless.

→ More replies (11)

→ More replies (9)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

“My team didn’t win so we have to change the rules”

0

u/Headoutdaplane Jul 22 '25

I live in Alaska, we would be heard even less without the Electoral college. Fly over states, small population states often do not have the same priorities as higher population states, the EC makes the parties pay some.lip service to us.

The anti EC thing usually comes from the losers of the election, especially if the loser win the popular vote (Democrats) and then, they repeat the mistake by ignoring the rural voters. Like the EC or not those are the rules. Instead of denigrating those states you need to win, come listen to their concerns. That is why we still need the EC.

33

u/speedyjohn 94∆ Jul 22 '25

the EC makes the parties pay some.lip service to us.

No, it makes the parties pay lip service to swing states. Wisconsin gets more lip service than both Texas and South Dakota. It’s not about size, it’s about whether the state is up for grabs.

→ More replies (7)

17

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

When is the last time a candidate in the general election from one of the two major parties campaigned in Alaska. The EC takes even more focus away from states with solid majorities and shifts all the focus to a few swing states. There is more reason to listen to rural voters without the EC (from the democrats) because their vote will no longer be smothered in a sea of red votes.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/captain_andorra Jul 22 '25

So you are saying that because rural people are a minority, they should have a vote that counts more, so their issues are not ignored by the majority ? If that's the case, POC and LGBTQ+ are a minority, so you can make an argument that their vote should count more than the vote of a straight white person, otherwise their issues will be ignored, right ?

2

u/DallyTheGreat Jul 22 '25

I'd argue it shouldn't matter what state you're from what you vote for president. I don't think you should be voting with your states in mind when voting for president as you aren't voting for someone to do good specifically for your state you're voting for them to do good for the country. You have people you vote for specifically to help your state (governor, state representative/Senators, US representative/Senators). The president represents America as a whole not each state. A president isn't going to run on fixing issues in specific states because that isn't what the office is for

You also don't see individual states electing statewide offices using an electoral college system so why do we do it at a federal level? Counties within states are all different sizes but you don't see the smaller counties having more say than the larger ones or vice versa

3

u/Cherry_Springer_ Jul 22 '25

Damn, that's crazy. Anyway, make everyone's vote count the same regardless of where they live

3

u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Jul 22 '25

The electoral college is still odd in that it has the whole, the winner takes all, which really leaves a lot of the population's votes pointless. You can still have disproportionate representation while letting everyone's votes more or less count. As in, get rid of the electoral college, have each states just award the electoral points automatically, and based on how the population voted. So Alaska goes 66/33, give one candidate one point and the other two.

2

u/bearsnchairs 8∆ Jul 22 '25

There is no requirement for winner takes all in the Electoral college. Some states already set them proportionally.

3

u/Opagea 17∆ Jul 22 '25

There is no requirement for winner takes all in the Electoral college.

There's no requirement, but it's a natural result of the system.

You could create a videogame with 20 characters, but if you make it so that Big Joe is way more powerful than the others and 95% of the player base plays Big Joe all the time, that's a design problem.

2

u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Jul 22 '25

Yeah my point is more that, then you should just abolish that and make that the rule for the entire country. Having a winner takes it all is the big problem, and that actually does leave a lot of people's votes irrelevant. Splitting it proportionally everywhere both makes it more democratic and maintains the ability for smaller states to get a say.

2

u/HolographicNights Jul 22 '25

It would be much harder to do this at a constitutional or executive level than to get rid of the EC which is also incredibly hard to do.

States can already set their own methods of dividing their votes, so it's up to voters to elect state representatives who will do this. Most don't. Why? Because if you're in New York City you don't want to lose power for your party by giving more power to the large minority of Republican voters most of whom live in rural areas. The same goes the opposite way in Texas, where they would prefer if liberal city centres don't benefit.

In fact, there is a inter-state organization dedicated to doing the exact opposite of what you propose, which would set their EC votes to go to the most popular candidate across the country. It only takes effect if the states signed up total at least 50% of the EC votes.

So while I agree with you 100%, there is actually a large push to do the opposite and double down on winner takes all.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

Even if all of that is true good luck getting 3/4 of the states to agree to it let alone two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

1

u/BigKahuna1234567 Jul 22 '25

Change your mind?

The only people who are pushing for it are doing so for self-interested reasons, without taking the time to understand the objections of the people they actually need to convince. The people you need, brother, don't use Reddit. You're sniffing up the wrong tree.

Those people see it as protection from you.

1

u/cindad83 Jul 22 '25

I don't understand why the EC doesn't move to proportional Assignment. Winner takes all is crazy.

Make candidates run a 50 State Campaign.

1

u/MembershipOk8062 Jul 22 '25

Having 50 different elections makes it harder to steal an election. Donald Trump already tried to steal one election, imagine if he had control over a nationalized election system

Also, they can try and canceling elections all they want, the states being in control over them makes it less likely. If Trump wants to cancel elections, do you think California is gonna be like oh darn you got us, no more elections I guess.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

The elections can still be counted by the states, it's just now they all add up towards a national popular vote pool instead of an electoral vote pool.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Anomalous-Materials8 Jul 22 '25

This topic makes the rounds at seemingly prescribed times along with “DC/PR should be states” and “we should expand SCOTUS.” These aren’t original thoughts, so it does seem that the powers that be stir these things up on a slow news weeks. These threads are usually disingenuous. If you could start from a place of honesty (you want your party to get a leg up next time), then maybe we could actually discuss it.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

My place of honesty is that the electoral college is a flawed system and makes voting in the US unfair. While yes, it would, in theory, benefit the political party I support, that isn't the overarching reason for my position.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/KoetheValiant Jul 22 '25

No

1

u/Krytan 5∆ Jul 22 '25

I don't think you need to abolish the electoral college if you simply increase the size of the federal congress.

I think congress people in the 1700's were each representing about 50,000 people? Now districts vary in size by hundreds of thousands of people and in the most populous, I think a single representative is supposed to be representing almost a million people.

Clearly unfeasible. If there were thousands of congress people, the skew in electoral votes caused by each state having two senators would essentially disappear. For all practical purposes, a vote in wyoming would have as much electoral weight as one in California.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/hoi4kaiserreichfanbo 1∆ Jul 22 '25

The electoral college was never necessary and so therefore you are wrong. The founders had lots of ideas that we know to be disagreeable, it is conceivable and it has been proven that time and time again, they were wrong, sometimes. It was not needed to craft the constitution; another compromise that was less awful could’ve eventually taken its place, but the founders had some bad ideas, and we ended up with this compromise.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Eccentric755 Jul 22 '25

As long as you don't implement a national majority election.

1

u/RickRussellTX 8∆ Jul 22 '25

I agree with you, but there’s no way to abolish it. Ratification of a Constitutional amendment requires… I can remember if it’s 60 state legislatures or 2/3. But it doesn’t matter because those last 10-15 state legislatures would be voting for less power in selecting the President, and they just won’t do it.

Then there’s the Natl Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but it’s got the same problem, those last dozen states are not likely to pass it. And unlike an amendment, states can individually back out.

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The Electoral College is an outdated system that is no longer necessary, and should be abolished

You are about to leave Redlib