Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
pewresearch.org
65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.
You are viewing a single comment
They told me in high school that the electoral college was still necessary because counting the popular vote was too hard...
Every other country in the world manages it but the Americans fuck it up. Like healthcare.
Every other country in the world?
Did you forget places outside Western Europe, Canada, and Australia exist?
And Japan, and New Zealand, and Eastern Europe, and…
I live in a Central European capital with worse healthcare than the US. (I have lived in both countries and have elderly relatives living under state funded healthcare in both systems.)
First, there’s a big difference between cities in both places. I could believe that if you compare California to Bratislav, but Oklahoma to Vienna would already be a different matter.
And in any case, it depends how much worse it was. In the US, even if it’s “state funded”, you have to pay for it, and quite a lot. Chances are if you went to a private clinic in Central Europe paying that same amount of money you could’ve gotten the same, if not better treatment.
I might as well just say it, I'm mostly comparing Louisville, KY and Los Angeles to Prague, Czech Republic and a midsized city in Poland. I have relatives who travel to the US for treatment because at least in CZ the elder care in hospitals is abusive/negligent.
Edit: To clarify I've lived in Kentucky and Czech Republic, but spend a lot of time in Poland and Los Angeles because of family/personal ties.
I mean, I can believe public hospitals in Prague not being top-notch, but flying to America to get treatment seems surreal. Like, that’s a lot of money and I can’t believe for that amount they couldn’t find a private to do it better in CZ or at least in Germany.
I haven’t personally been in America so you’re probably more knowledgeable than me under that aspect, but from all the shit I’ve read online I don’t get why should anyone from Europe go get treatment there instead of a Scandinavian country.
There probably are people that could treat her well in Europe, but I think the issue would be getting her treated in a country she's not a resident of, and doesn't have insurance in. She has a condition that the Czech state insurance refuses to treat because of her age. It's possible other European systems would be the same but I can't speak to them.
Oh that sucks. Seems like a very specific case so I guess I shouldn’t lump it in with the generic knowledge I have, sorry for talking out of my ass.
I still think a country like the US could manage with universal free healthcare, but I shouldn’t have assumed that every country that has one works just as well, you’re right.
I think the US system is very broken in pricing, but my experience in terms of quality of care and waits is that the US is very good in that regard. That's why there's a lot of medical tourism there for more extreme conditions. I'm not defending the terrible pricing structure, but the healthcare system overall is not just bad.
Well, it is one of the most developed countries in the world, it would’ve been weird if it didn’t have a lot of specialized doctors.
Other than the price though, I’ve seen a lot of people complain about long waits and surgeries (even reconstructive ones) not being “approved” by insurance companies. It’s probably skewed since people only talk about the bad experiences they’ve had, but just the fact that they can do that seems crazy to me.
I've never heard people complain about US waits to the level of Canada, or much of Europe. But yeah the insurance thing is that they will only cover treatments necessary to health (usually, but some others may be mandatory minimums now).
Did your teachers perhaps get their college diplomas in the 1870s? Because that predates the first tabulating machines being invented. Add that invention to the telegraph machine (ca 1837), and you've got a stew going.
I wish I was kidding! My school district wasn't too bright.
You're either in your 90's or 100's, or that was a complete lie.
Oh I know it was a lie. My school district sucked.
No. It's because states that have huge populations would choose the president with basically zero say from most others. Technically a non representative government.
Except using the popular vote means that States wouldn't decide who was president like they do now, the people would.
Under the current system if I vote Red in Chicago I just completely wasted my time. Cook County is so blue that I don't have a voice. Get rid of the Electoral College, however, and now my vote worth just as much as everyone elses.
People seem to think that if we moved away from the College that the population of a blue state will 100% vote blue or a red state will only have red votes. It's just not true. The northern half of California or the southern half Illinois votes way different than their counterparts.
The Electoral College is an outdated system designed for a time when the US had relatively low Literacy and the public couldn't be reliably counted on to be informed. There is no excuse for it nowadays.
You solve the 'problem' of 'tyranny of the majority' by having a strong constitution and good rights and protections for minorities, not by switching to the indisputably worse option of 'tyranny of the minority'. Because that causes the exact same problem, but for even more people instead.
The version of the tyranny of the majority that he's warning against is already solved in the American system. The ward against it is the Senate. Every state has exactly 2 votes in the Senate and no legislation can be passed and enacted into law without passing a vote in the Senate.
The senate is a terrible way to deal with it though. But it's at least better than the EC.
The issue is while a strong constitution is nice, it's necessary to have at least some people in office who would respect the constitution to be effective, including at least a partially originality supreme court.
Alternatively, more clearly written constitutional laws. It's wild that you have judges who cannot agree on what an article of the constitution really means, and the language should have been amended years ago.
In the Netherlands, we have a clearly written constitution, but no real 'supreme court' in the American sense. And that setup seems to work quite well.
Agreed some should be clarified, but a lot are pretty clear but are denied as unclear for political reasons. One obvious example is the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights. Also, keep in the mind the US constitution is the oldest constitution still in use, so language does evolve somewhat.
So instead, states with populations smaller than some cities get to completely override the will of the majority of the country.
As opposed to our current system, where 80% of states don't matter because they're not swing states.
What do you mean? They do matter? A democrat doesn't campaign in California not because it doesn't matter but because they know most Californians will already vote for them, same with Republicans in Texas
They don't matter because most states use winner take all for their EC votes. Every additional vote past 50% is absolutely worthless, as is any vote cast in a state where there's no chance to hit 50%.
With a popular vote system, every vote would still be worth something. It would be worth a politician's while to campaign in California because even if they'd normally get 60%, as it's still worth it to drive higher turnout or try to increase that to 65%. It'd be worth going to a hostile state because a vote is a vote. It doesn't matter where it comes from; they'd all have equal worth.
Every vote past 50% just then wouldn't matter at a national level. Yes it would increase the total number of votes that voted for the winning candidate, but it would also centralize power more into cities.
States with more diversity of opinion have more say. Seems reasonable to me.
Why should states have more say? We elect the president nationally. It's not a state election, or it shouldn't be.
Because we have 50 of them and not 350 million. It's a simple and effective way to get a weighted average.
Why should there be a 'weighted average' for a federal election?
Because there's a lot of people that don't live in cities and they need different things from the people that live in cities.
Yes, and that's why there are state and local elections. We're talking about voting for president.
Literally every thread you have to argue with me. Are you doing that with everyone or just me?
Aside from that, there's things federal government can legislate against that the state will absolutely have no say in. I'm more left wing in my politics but guns, despite being a fundamental right seems most fought against by the left and fought for by the right.
I don't even notice usernames most of the time. Maybe I "have to" argue with you because you say a lot of disputable things. Turn down the paranoia a few notches.
You have an average of a post/comment to Lemmy every 15 minutes over 3 months. You most certainly do not "have to" spend every waking moment of your day on here arguing with people. It's unhealthy.
When did I say I had to do anything? And if your job doesn't give you lots of free time to kill, that's not my problem.
Also, do you think I post when I'm asleep?
What we have now is non-representative. Rather, it's representative of land, not voters.
Horse feathers. There are 535 total EC votes and only 100 of those come from the Senate. The other 435 are come from the House whichis based on population.
The solution to this mess is to upsize the HoR and tilt the ratio back to where it was prior to 1929 when we fucked it up.