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.
It'd be nice to go beyond and have some sort of ranked voting while we're at it. Essentially being forced to pick between two parties or risk having your vote being wasted sucks.
I don't know how the american system works, but voting for small parties should not considered a wasted vote. It helps the party even if they don't get elected
It's worse than wasted. It's effectively a half-vote for the major candidate you like the least.
Works in places with coalition governments.
If a party receives 5% of the popular vote, they start to receive funding from the FEC. That hasn't happened in a while for a third party.
Well then people should organize. I don't understand why americans only vote for two parties if they don't like either of them
First past the post incentiveses two party systems, which is why people are desperate for ranked ballot, or something that can allow other parties to exist.
Because in first past the post voting, whomever gets the score first, wins. Combine that with mostly voting against a specific party, and you're railroading people into a de facto two-party system when people vote for the "best bet against _____".
45% of the country doesn't vote at all, so.
Part of that is due to the feeling that one's vote doesn't matter. IMO having the president be elected by popular vote would bring a lot more people to the polls.
Yup. In states that are not swing states, why would those voters even bother?
But even if a party gets, say, 5% of the vote and gets funding, that level of vote splitting can influence who gets a seat now. That might be fine and dandy when the short term doesn't matter too much, but right now, the stakes are very high in the US, since the right straight up wants to dismantle democracy, kill trans people, and completely ban abortions.
Those are high stakes just to likely get some more funding for a third party (much less win even a single seat).
IMO any political pressure that could go towards pushing third parties should first to towards electoral reform. Only then can third parties be voted for without putting a lot of people at risk.
Not in America. In America it's an utter waste. The elections are too close.
Unpopular opinion: ranked choice voting will do little to solve the USA's democracy issues.
For starters, there are plenty of countries that do use FPTP and still have plenty of third parties in their parliaments (Canada, UK, Taiwan, Australia off the top of my head). So FPTP does not inherently preclude third parties - rather, the USA simply doesn't have any culture of multilateralism. I'd say this is mostly a byproduct of various cultural phenomena - the wealth gap, corporate media ownership, private campaign financing, win-or-lose mindset, etc.
But the greater issue is that RCV doesn't really ensure proportionality. As long as you have a single winner from each district, there will be distortions between the proportion of parties for whom people vote and the ultimate parliamentary body. For example, even if you implemented RCV across the entire USA today, I'm pretty sure most legislative bodies would still be entirely dominated by a single party because of gerrymandering and single-member districts.
So if you want to fix the USA's core issue, what you really need is a more proportional system - either have fewer, larger districts with multiple representatives from each one, or adopt something like MMP which is what Germany has (where you also cast a party vote to declare your preference for which party you most want represented in parliament and distribute proportionally along this tally across all voters). Not only does this make the final representation more fair, but it also does a much better job of making all votes matter, instead of only the lucky few in swing states or the rare competitive Congressional race.
But RCV on its own won't do much. It is still a small improvement, and if you have the opportunity to adopt it, I say go for it. But at best, I think it would take decades, or maybe even generations, before it starts to improve things.
Also, while I know this doesn't pertain quite so much to Presidential elections as the electoral college is used for, the USA is also fairly unique in that it has a directly elected head of government with much more power than other countries that also have a directly elected head of state. This is also a part of the problem - the executive branch is supposed to be the weakest of the 3 Federal branches - but it's a discussion for another time.
Canada and UK third parties are still smaller parties, they have no possiblity of electing a head of state.
While also true in Australia, we have preferential voting as well and whilst smaller parties dont have the numbers or votes to become the ruling parties you can vote 1 for a smaller party and 2 for a major party so the smaller party gets a funding boost for future campaigns.
And also if enough people vote for a smaller party them a larger party may have to team up with a smaller party to get the majority numbers to hold government.
Then the smaller party may have a bit of clout to get some of their values and opinions into parlimertary debate or passing bills meaning we get a wider variety of input than the major party line and its members falling into line to vote with their peers blindly.
Same as I wrote on the other sibling comment. I think these countries all have terrible electoral systems. But the point is, they're still ahead of the USA in terms of the fact that they will still have an awareness and understanding of third parties, whereas >90% of Americans are just programmed to believe there are only 2 options.
As a thought experiment, ask yourself what would happen if you could wave a magic wand and make every city, state and national legislative election use RCV over FPTP. Do you really think anything would change? I'm pretty sure 95% of the results would be exactly the same. Like I said above, RCV may make things better 20+ years from now, but there's also a very good chance that so few people actually use their second options that it nothing ends up changing at all. This is why I think multi-member districts or MMP are better solutions.
Are you forgetting Ross Perot almost won? There is constant talk of Trump starting a third party, libertarian and green parties get a fair amount of attention, and not to mention the fact that the two major parties actually consist of many smaller factions in a coalition. There's a reason primaries happen, and often congressmen vote against the majority of their party and votes are split on other lines than party lines. Most people are smarter than is popular to say on the internet, they just understand voting the lesser of two evil is their best option right now from a certain perspective. I prefer to vote third party to increase the viability of third parties in later elections.
Look at third parties and their success in the UK and Canada.
The last general election in the UK was 2019. Conservatives got 43.6% of the vote but 56.2% of the seats. Labor got 32.1% of the votes and 31.1% of the seats.
The biggest national third party, the Liberal Democrats, got 11.6% of the vote but a mere 1.7% of the seats.
In comparison, look at regional third parties. The Scottish National Party got 3.9% of the vote and a whopping 7.4% of the seats. Irish regional parties like Sinn Feinn and the Democratic Unionist Party got a combined 2.3% of the seats with a combined 1.4% of the seats.
Previous elections have been quite similar. In 2015, the far right UKIP won only a single seat after getting a whopping 12.6% of the vote.
Canada is quite similar. The Bloc Quebecois consistently gets more votes than the national New Democratic Party, despite having gotten less than half as many votes.
Understood, all of these countries have terrible electoral systems, that was not my point. My point is that Americans only have a culture of voting for one of two parties, so switching to ranked choice voting will likely change nothing at all, because Americans already practically never even consider alternate options. Hell, I doubt even 10% of them could even name a third party, so why would they consider voting for them all of a sudden just because of the switch to RCV? They're constantly blasted with the same message that you have one of two options, so chances are that they'll just pick one and ignore the rest, just like they do now.
It might give independents more of a voice.
Parties work a bit differently in the US vs e.g. Israel.
In Israel, party insiders choose their politicians. If you want different candidates than an existing party is offering, you have to make your own new party with your own new list.
By contrast, in the US, parties run primary elections where voters pick the candidates. The specifics depend on the state, but in most states the election is held for registered members of that party.
Americans aren't idiots. Most know third party candidates don't do well in plurality elections. So smart progressives, alt-right etc. politicians don't run as a third party candidate against mainstream Democrats and Republicans. Instead, they primary an incumbent Democrat or Republican, like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, or join the primary when the incumbent retired like Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Somewhere like Israel, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Joe Manchin would be in two very different parties. In the US, they're in the same party.
In places where RCV is passed, you absolutely see more candidates running and getting decent percentages of the vote. Because that isn't a terrible strategy any more. Someone like AOC might have run as a Progressive or something rather than primarying the Democrat.
I contest your usage of Canada as an example. While it's certainly not as polarized as the US, the effects of FPTP are still prominent. There's a ton of vote splitting at the federal and provincial levels. Eg, conservatives rule Ontario despite the majority of people voting for one of the two left-er leaning parties, since the two parties basically split the left vote down the middle, while conservatives only have one party.
I do completely agree that propositional voting is waaaaay better than ranked choice, though. Personally, I will take almost anything over FPTP, but some form of PR is vastly superior, as you noted.
But at least with ranked choice, people can start to vote for another party without it feeling like a penalty. As a Canadian, I basically have to vote strategic. I don't get to vote for my favourite party because of FPTP. Ranked choice would at least remove that issue.
I think the two party system of the US is basically where FPTP systems are all at risk to end up, especially since voting strategically gradually results in that. But the US GOP is so crazy that it's almost a necessity for any progressive to vote strategically, whereas at least in Canada, things aren't quite as bad, which makes it easier for people to take the risk of voting for who they really want to.
For anyone living in Utah, a bill to enable Ranked Choice voting will be in November 2023.
So anyone there please register to vote sooner rather than later.
Currently people are being told it's too confusing and too liberal, so they really could be more young people votes to help the cause.
RCV is a rebrand of the voting method IRV, which was used by many cities in the early 20th century. Due to inconsistent results, it was repealed. So, unfortunately, conservatives have a leg to stand on when they attack RCV.
For clarity: their specific attacks take things to the extreme and often have some racist underpinnings, but there is a kernel of truth to attacking specifically on the method itself.
That is why I support something like STAR voting, it doesn't suffer from many of RCV's issues
I wish your ballot measure luck however, because at the end of the day it still is, mildly better than FPTP
I wish for something like STAR as well, but much like voting now it's all about the lesser of two evils between current voting and anything besides the current voting method haha
Well the thing about that is, RCV has been repealed in 6 states and counting for producing poor results. And it's also given right wing groups like the heritage foundation a foothold to attack it. I'm actually seeing negative RCV sentiment on the ground when I talk to people about STAR so their message is spreading. When I explain STAR and how it fixes several of RCVs issues they come around to it, so it may in fact be better to push that instead of tag along with RCV if it's going to end up being a waste of political capital
Neat! I am all for that? What are the left or rights views on STAR currently?
I don't see it being on the radar of the major parties at the moment. RCV is in the spotlight so far. But that can change very soon because in Eugene, Oregon this week they are finishing up getting STAR on the ballot for their elections, then they're also pushing for it to appear on the state ballot in May. The effort is led by non-partisan groups like the equal vote coalition.
So far my conversations with both sides of the aisle have been fruitful, and I hope that is how it continues
Not "while we're at it" - RCV is the real change we need.
Approval/STAR would be even better, but I'd take RCV over FPTP
RCV will do nothing to break the duopoly in America. RCV will basically allow you to vote for the Democrats or Republicans without bubbling their name on your ballot.
Contrary to what is stated, RCV falls apart as soon as more than 2 parties become viable. It suffers from the spoiler effect.
RCV, like plurality voting, only reflects your preference for one candidate at a time. In fact, it's relatively accurate to say that RCV is just plurality with (literally) extra steps (rounds).
One of the better ballot changes we can make is to move to something like STAR voting, which can capture the nuance of magnitude of preference for ALL candidates at once.
However, changing voting method alone is not enough. Proportional representation and expanding the number of elected officials are two powerful ways to introduce new ideas and break up power structures.
And, of course, campaign finance reform such as democracy vouchers
I don’t think I get it.
As I imagine it it would be: Republicans HATE Democrats. Democrats HATE Republicans. If all Democrats rank the R candidate dead last and Republicans do the same for the D one, their votes pretty much nullify each other, and whatever third party that got less First-choice votes but also way less Last-choice votes has a better chance at winning. Isn’t that how it should work?
Mostly. Yes, RCV tends to elect compromise candidates, ones who may not be anyone's first choice, but that most people can live with. I think Joe Biden is a good example of this. Everyone was rah-rah for some else during the primaries: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee... but Joe Biden has broad tepid appeal.
I prefer score ballots over ranked ballots, expressing magnitude of preference is important!
Ranked choice specifically is one of the worst ranked ballot options out there and I hope we can push for something else
Isnt that what ranked choice is? Expressing magnitude by ranking your choices?
No, it's not.
Given ballot options of Socialists, Democrats, and Republicans, I'd rank them 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, when expressing my feelings about the election: I love the Socialists, dislike the Republicans, and prefer the Democrats slightly over the Republicans.
This nuanced opinion isn't captured on a ranked ballot.
With a score ballot, like STAR voting, I'd give the Socialists 5 stars, the Democrats 1 star, and the Republicans 0 stars. This method not only captures my preferences but also the depth of my feelings for each party. This is then reflected in both the final score and the automatic runoff step of tabulation.
Ah. Gotcha. That makes sense, thanks for explaining!
Reminds me of the Blackadder episode where Baldrick won by 16,000 votes, even though there was only one voter:
Let's just cut out the middleman and go straight to direct voting.
Vote directly on the issues that matter to you. Representative democracies only exist to protect the ruling class.
BREAKING: group of people whose only chance of getting elected is relying on the Electoral College not thrilled about the idea of abandoning the Electoral College
It's a great idea until it affects them lol
Yeah, dawg forbid they change their platform to, you know, appeal to a majority of Americans...
Ranked choice voting please.
My state Congress is getting ready to vote to outlaw Ranked Choice....
Probably because they know if it gets implemented they will get tossed out. What a shame.
What the point of that? Since you'd need the votes to make it a thing anyway you'd have the votes to change the law too, right?
They're probably banning it in local elections.
Came here to say this.
Part of this piece has an excellent insight into the dichotomy of the Republican Party. Of those highly engaged with politics, only 27% want to ditch the electoral college! These people understand the party is unpopular and the tactics used to hold power are a necessary way to get their policies.
The rest of the group feels otherwise, probably NOT because they don’t care if their candidate gets elected, but rather that they don’t understand how crucial it is to their party (along with gerrymandering). And their first gut instinct is that popular vote is justified/rational/logical whatever.
Now for a little thought experiment: What would happen if this became an actual campaign issue? I’d put my money on those 27% being able to convince the rest of the party how important it is, flipping their view. Maybe I’m wrong, but since many R voters tent to put self interests above all else, it logically follows that they’re just not understanding how critical the electoral college is. If their talking heads went on air/TV each day and stopped talking about how immigrants are stealing jobs or poor people are taking their hard earned money, and instead focused on the importance of the electoral college, they’d flip. Not because they think it’s right or justified. Because they think it’s best for themselves and their party. And it’s the current rallying cry.
Now apply this across an entire party, with those highly engaged telling the others how to vote, what to think about policy, and what the outcomes will be. Bring together uneducated people already susceptible to misinformation, and pair them with intelligent and extremely vocal/active groups who can sell snake oil like the best of them. Take that minority vote and put some real numbers behind it… likely not enough to get a majority, but enough to win a sophisticated electoral college or gerrymandered district.
they probably wouldn’t even try and hide it: they’d literally just come out and say the electoral college helps keep the democrats out and they’d vote for it
Good point. It’ll likely take three words to get a lot of those people to flip: own the libs.
Sometimes I forget how little value some people place in consistency of beliefs. Small government! Except ____. Ad nauseam.
They already have these talking points. They used them when Hillary won the popular vote.
Tyranny of the majority, nobody would have to listen to rural Americans ever again.
It's all bullshit obviously. But it cut through to moderates last time it made the rounds. And these are swayable voters I'm talking about.
Yes, I think the rabble would quickly fall in line against changing the electoral college. We saw them growing more accepting of LGBT people for a few years only to whiplash back to homicidal hatred once their high priesthood started ranting against the gays again. These poll results are kind of like an interesting Freudian slip though: like you said, when they're not paying attention a majority of Repubs can organically move to the reasonable opinion before the elites can apply their brainwashing again.
The (European) centrist part in me think the “less engaged” Republicans are those who like the central right-wing ideas (small government, less taxes etc.), but don’t like how crazy the current Republican party is, and since they have no real representative they identify themselves as “less engaged”. Those people would probably prefer for the electoral college to be abolished so that the current Republican party never gets elected again and they’re forced to shift to candidates that are actually sane in order to win back votes.
…but yeah, your analysis might be correct too, those “less engaged” people could also be MAGAs that just don’t understand how they wouldn’t win an actually democratic election.
I’m sure you’re right about some people. They’re feeling abandoned and disgusted by what’s supposed to have their support and ideologies in mind, therefore not as active. That makes sense.
I know there are a lot of good/reasonable people who just want the government to play a smaller role in society and I think that’s a necessary part of any well-functioning system. And I agree with the sentiment in specific applications. Hopefully there is a way forward for those types to force a change for the better from the current GOP. Because it’s gone off the rails.
Republicans would never win a nationwide election again. They'd actually have to come up with policies people want. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
I've had family that votes Republican say this, they will literally defend the minority vote winning. They see democracy as "mob rule." Well, if a bunch of rich assholes getting to decide who's president, and a system where the people with the least votes win, how is that not mob rule?
We have lots of minority protections in place to avoid mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College is the tyranny of the minority.
And yet, none of them will support using an Electoral College to elect the governor of their state. I guess mob rule is fine when it comes to governors, senators, mayors, and sheriffs, but not presidents.
"As long as the party I identify with is in charge then it's fine."
It's really not surprising when they support going full dictator.
The cons really showed their hand more recently when arguing over things like suppressing the vote, and mail-in voting and telling everyone that "voting is not really a right enshrined in the Constitution".
Well, tell us how you really feel.
Wait, are you implying that only crafting policy around what the elitist of the elite want and waging stupid performative culture wars for the clueless gop base is unpopular with most Americans?
Americans, lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The better plan would be institute the Wyoming Rule or something similar to it. The HoR is simply too damned small which not only limits the number of EC votes it also has the representative to citizen ratio fucked up 90 way to Sunday.
We broke the EC in 1929 by capping the size of the HoR and it's well past time to fix it.
If the president was chosen by popular vote, I think you could make a reasonable case that the last Republican president would have been George H.W. Bush in 1988. George W. Bush did win the popular vote against John Kerry in 2004, but he lost it to Al Gore in 2000 so it's debatable whether or not he would have beaten an incumbent Gore in 2004 I think.
And now you see why the Republicans are so against it. They can’t win in a straight vote.
I could also make a reasonable case that election strategies would have changed to more populist stances to accommodate for that.
Bush did say if the popular vote mattered he'd have campaigned in Texas. Changes the entire landscape.
And Gore in California, New York, hell the whole east and west coast (aka where voters live)
That's the whole point of this discussion
Pro-citizen means democracy
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The Wyoming Rule, or something like it, would solve a lot more problems than just the EC.
My vote would finally matter. My state already knows who it's supporting with or without me.
yeah, the 'vote!' stuff is hard to stomach living where i do, which went red on TV literally the minute polls closed
And so, neither party is going to bother trying to court your vote: one can take you for granted, and the other will write you off. So I hope you have the same concerns as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona, because that's what you're getting.
Two things I'd love to see. Eliminating the electoral college and then getting rid of superdelegates. Two fundamentally anti-democratic concepts.
Well superdelegates aren't exactly something the government can legislate away because they're just an internal thing of the DNC.
Abolish parties.
How?
How do you do that without violating the First Amendment right to freedom of association?
Ranked-choice voting.
Don't forget "ranked-choice voting".
My goodness, yes.
Under the 2018 rules, in the Democratic National Convention superdelegates can't participate in the first vote and can participate only in a contested convention. Seems reasonable to me.
Wikipedia also reminded me about this little bit of Bernie hypocrisy that I'd forgotten about: "Sanders initially said that the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates should be the nominee; in May 2016, after falling behind in the elected delegate count, he shifted, pushed for a contested convention and arguing that, 'The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party.'" Talk about unprincipled political opportunist.
Yes Bernie is an unprincipled political opportunist.
Who’s this dude like casually smoking a cigarette in what appears to be some kind of war zone.
I can disagree with something Bernie said, but still be a huge supporter of his for his many other things I fully agree with. I maintain that superdelegates being in place to deal with a contested convention is still a bad thing and undemocratic. The real unhelpful part was when the DNC chair stated that it can also quell unintended grassroots efforts. I thought grassroots efforts were an example of a good thing about democracy, not a bad one.
Bernie Sanders is emphatically not a Democrat and doesn't want to do any of the work of building or supporting the party, but when he decides to run for president, he suddenly wants the party's money and infrastructure, only to abandon the party ASAP after the election. He may be fine as a senator, but as a presidential candidate, he's just so utterly loathsome. He's got major entitled old white man syndrome and it makes me lose absolutely all respect for him.
If you're on to a contested convention, you can't directly reflect the will of the primary voters in the first place (because they didn't pick a winner) so I can't really find any reason to object to superdelegates, most of whom are elected Democrats and already literally representing their constituents in Congress, etc.
They will never allow that because it'll kill the entire republican party lol
Won't be good for Democrats either. System is rigged for two parties and two parties only.
This would not really change the two party system. All it would mean is that you genuinely need a majority of votes and not the majority of a weird convoluted combo of states.
It would destroy the party system. Suddenly there's a progressive democrat party and the freedumb caucus becomes it's own thing.
I'm game for that.
First-past-the-post voting systems result in two conflicting parties. This would entrench the two party system. The current system is not good, but popular vote is only slightly better.
The difference is in what the voters want.
Both parties wouldn't be for it, but liberal voters would be for it. Conservative voters would be against it.
The electoral college was created at a time when faster-than-horse communication didn't exist. It made sense then, but has not grown with the times.
I fail to see how it ever made sense.
The year is 1780. The printing press is the pinnacle of technology, there's no such thing as an adding machine. Most correspondence is done on parchment with a quill pen. The majority of Americans cannot read or write. Information cannot travel beyond earshot faster than a galloping horse. Elect a president by popular vote. You have four months.
That's not even it. At the time the Constitution was adopted, there were states like Virginia that had a lot of people, but rather few voters. They were afraid that they wouldn't have a real say in who the president was. The Electoral College was a way to inflate slave states' power, and entice them to join the Union.
The whole thing is absurd and overly represents rural areas and Republicans. We already have a huge problem with the "2 senators per state" thing and the House representing Republicans far too much in relation to their numbers.
I'm 100% okay with the 2 senators per state thing. That's a feature, not a bug. Even though cities are on the right side of history right now, I don't want to completely silence the rural vote forever.
However, arbitrarily limiting the number of House reps is absolutely absurd and counter to the purpose of the House. That is a bug.
The Republicans are the main reason we still have it .. they know they'd never win if they had to play fair.
But but but why should cities get to determine everything? Don't you know that not only does land vote, everyone in a patch of land votes the same? So, why bother giving everyone in a city a vote, you know?
Also, be sure to let the vice president cancel the whole thing if they don't like the results.
(Please tell me my sarcasm is obvious.)
We should just abolish the Senate. With the current formulation of the US government there's no reason why a State should have extra power like that. Let the people make the rules. Expand the House, abolish the Senate, and remove the electoral college. And since we're wishing for things that will never happen anyway, go ahead and use some kind of proportional vote (ranked choice, star, whatever, just literally anything but FPTP).
Instead of tilting at the windmill that is removing the EC how about we do something much easier and simpler and simply expand the House of Representatives? Not only would this add votes to the EC and make the Presidential Elections more representative it would also, you know, make the HoR more Representative! For extra fun it would also diminish the returns of gerrymandering since there would be so many more districts.
All we need is a change to the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929. There is no good reason that the size of the HoR is fixed at 435. None.
you should lead with this
In 1929, each representative represented about 283k Americans. Now each representative represent about 762k Americans. That's almost a 300% increase. This means each American's voice is only about 1/3rd as powerful as it was in 1929. To have as much political power as they did in 1929, we'd need about 1200 Representatives.
And yet, having more representatives fundamentally reduces the power of each as well. Your vote is fundamentally worth less as the population increases. Something you're just gonna have to come to terms with.
I'm ok with my vote meaning more or less as long as it's the same vote everyone else gets...that's not the case with the current system.
I don't see a problem with that.
Would there be any way to have everyone keep the same voting power while the population tripled?
Sure, you just define the problem differently. Instead of saying that there are X representatives in total, you just say there should be 1 representative for every 283K citizens. In this way the number of representatives naturally scales with the population.
This is basically what the Wyoming Rule does. It sets the ratio in the lowest population State, currently Wyoming, as the ratio for everywhere. Wyoming currently has 500,000 people and 1 Representative. That means the HoR would expand to something like 580 Seats.
We could change the math, and the name, to the "1929 Rule" and set the ratio 280,000 to 1. I'm actually fine with an HoR that has 1,200 people in it but either way the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929 needs changed and the HoR needs expanded.
Good point - it's not about power because everyone else also gets that extra power up. It's about equity.
And we can achieve now that through fairness in redistricting.
That's a long way around to get to fair representation. It amounts to a distraction from the real issue.
We can achieve that now through fairness in redistricting.
No you can't.
Your way doesn't return the ratio of EC votes between the HoR and the Senate to what it should be. It keeps it stuck in 1929 and every year that goes by makes it worse.
Your way doesn't scale the number of total EC votes as our population grows.
Your way ALSO doesn't return the ratio of Citizens to Representatives to anything resembling sanity. Ratios of nearly 800,000 to 1, and growing, are irrational and break Democracy.
You could redistrict the ever loving hell out of the other 49 States but Wyoming would keep it's 3 EC votes and its outsized vote for President. It would keep it's outsized influence in the HoR and it would keep it's ranking as #1 in the Citizen to Representative Ratio.
So much of what everyone hates about our Federal Government today is DIRECTLY tied to a vastly undersized HoR. The body is simply too small to adequately represent a population of over 300,000,000 people.
There are only so many ways to divide 435 seats while still guaranteeing at least 1 seat per state.
Unfortunately the elected representatives don't care what the majority of citizens want.
Hell, a good chunk of the citizens vote for people that don't support their lives or values. It's fucked top to bottom.
That good chunk would be democrats and republicans
I don't disagree. The only real power us peons have is voting, and we are really, really shitty at voting.
When you say majority, do you mean by popular vote, or...
I propose the National Popular Vote Interstate compact. Cgp grey has an amazing video on it. It's a "petition" of sorts that basically says that states that sign it will have its elective representatives vote with the majority vote of their said state.
Here's the video if anyone wants to watch it: https://youtu.be/tUX-frlNBJY
The "founding fathers" would be against the electoral college today too. The electoral college was an idea to try to get the people to directly vote for the president.
The electoral college was necessary because it would have been logistically impossible for people living in 18th and 19th century America to be able to participate in a single-day one person one vote election, given their level of technology at the time.
We live in the 21st century. We have instantaneous means of communication via the internet making designating an elector to travel to Washington unnecessary, a greatly expanded infrastructure via roads and mass transit for people to travel to polling places in a reasonable amount of time in a day, computers that can tally the ballots many hundreds of times faster than a human being can, and vastly expanded capacity for handling the logistics of running a nationwide election including a complex bureaucracy dedicated to oversight and enforcement of voting laws and regulations.
The electoral college is an archaic system whose only purpose has been completely supplanted by modern technology. Any notion of rogue electors defending the republic from authoritarians and populists is not only historically false, but given the fact that they failed to prevent exactly that situation from happening once already, laughably ineffective.
That had nothing to do with it. It would have been extremely easy for people in each state to count the votes for that state, then bring those vote totals to the capital where those state-totals are added together to get the final country-wide count. The problem is that that kind of simple, one-person one-vote system means that each vote would be weighted equally, and in some states there was a large portion of the population that couldn't vote but the state's decision-makers still wanted that portion to affect how much say that state had in choosing the President.
So basically, the Electoral College is there because of slavery.
You are correct, of course. Based on the writings of the founders at the time they established the system, it was clear that the system was never intended to be a democratic one in the first place. They didn't trust each other and they certainly didn't trust uneducated rural Americans with the power to select the chief executive.
The fact that they couldn't agree on whether or not to count a slave as a full person for the purposes of counting population is all the more reason the system should have been swept away ages ago.
They could, however, agree that a tax on tea-smugglers was worth starting a war and killing thousands over.
The election is not and has never been a single day affair. People like Trump are just trying to make it into one because it gives them a better chance at winning.
I didn't mean to imply it was. Just that before America was well developed with sophisticated infrastructure, it would have been a tall ask to have voters in rural areas show up at a specific location at a specific time to vote. It would have taken counties several days to collect all of the ballots, tally them, and hand them off to someone who then had to report those results to the state, and then after all the counties reported in the state would appointed an elector to go to Washington on horseback to deliver the results in person. Electors made sense at the time - it funneled the communications down to a single official entity, rather than trying to organize the election centrally and delivering ballots from the far corners of the United States delivered to Washington DC to be counted and certified.
We could cut out the electoral college and very little about our voting process would change, it would just eliminate an archaic and historically anti-democratic system that works behind the scenes to contribute nothing of value in our current society, aside from being a very tantalizing point of failure that has already been targeted by election fraudsters.
Also, there have been times where electors got the names wrong lol. Imagine losing because somebody put your name wrong. I mean I guess there's precedent for the supreme Court picking a winner already. God I hate this country.
The electoral college exists because the founding fathers didn't want normal people voting for president. The whole point is to isolate people from directly choosing a president.
There was also the little problem of logistics back then.
Which is why there's still a ton of delay in the process. There's about a month between voting for electors and them voting, and several months before the president was inaugurated.
And it worked better before information was so easy to obtain.
I feel like while the electoral college is an issue, it's the gerrymandering that is ultimately the biggest issue.
And in fact probably also contributes to the electoral college issue.
The senate is pretty bad too.
In theory we could expand the number of house seats so that more populous states get more reps and everyone has a more equal number of voters per congressperson. I think that would not only help make the house more fair but would also make the electoral college more fair (since the # of electors increases with the number of house members). Not as good as the popular vote, but it’s an improvement that doesn’t require a conditional amendment.
Although it’s somewhat inconceivable to some people that the US can have more than 50 states (and that DC isn’t what it once was), don’t forget about representation for DC and Puerto Rico.
Both which operate very much like state entities now, making a pretty good argument for true federal representation with proper voting power.
Representation for DC would be harder to justify, but if a party actually pushed for it Puerto Rico statehood would have a fair chance.
The US has less representation per capita than most developed nations.
To be fair, it's also the most populous developed nation.
What you're talking about is the Wyoming Rule or something similar to it. We fucked up our Government and we really really need to get rid of the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929.
Gerrymandering only directly impacts the House, while the EC biases the presidential vote, and state sizes bias the senate. All three elected branches are badly selected and all three are biased towards the Republicans. Hard to say the House is more important than the presidency though.
Some more fuckery with the house: Each state is supposed to get at least one representative, plus another representative per every so many people, right? And historically the house has expanded to fit the growing population, right?
That's not how it works anymore. They stopped expanding it when it was obvious the Republicans would never have a majority in the house ever again. Go look at the algorithm they use to determine how many representatives each state gets.
No.
The size of the HoR was set in 1929 and since then the Democrats have controlled it for multiple years at a time. Heck at one point they were in control of it for 45 straight years! There's been a number of multi-year stretches since 1929 where Democrats controlled BOTH bodies.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/
The Re-Apportionment Act of 1929 that fixed the size of the HoR at its current 435 is a big chunk of the problem with the EC and quite a few other things. It needs to be undone.
That was entirely intentional though?
It was a bad idea necessary to bribe the small states into joining to keep the colonies together in a time with more important issues. The EC's population bias was also intentional, it doesn't make it not fundamentally undemocratic.
And the admission of states has always been very political. They have been often admitted in pairs to maintain political parity of the time and other proposed states (the state of Sequoyah) were rejected for political reasons (balancing east-west states or just racism, you decide). There's a reason statehood for Puerto Rico, a territory with more than enough people and no historical impediments like DC, isn't just a formality of waiting for a request by its people.
The Founding Fathers made a quite good first draft for modern democracy, but they weren't oracles and they made compromises based on the political needs of the day. There's a reason we don't install American democracy in countries we regime-change.
Democracy wasn't intended, I agree with that, but I don't think many wanted an entire democracy either, it wasn't just about states wanting power but also about minority representation. I personally prefer a constitutional system to a democratic system.
I mean, sure. They were also slaveholders. This is just trivia not something speaking to what should happen in the current day.
Because the constitution was the charter, the binding contract underwhich previously separate political entities agreed to be governed. You can't just change my rental contract to kick out my roommate midway through my term without following an established process we both signed on.
Talking about the constitution protecting minority representation at anything but the state-vs-state level or acting like it's a personal contract any of us at any point voluntarily entered into or could have rejected if not structured in this way is a laughable diversion. How it was made and that it exists as the current law of the land is irrelevant in a discussion of its current failures.
Again, there's a reason we don't implement it in other countries. It persists here because of inertia and cynical resistance by a minority party that can't win governing power without it, but it's not a good system in a country that purports to gain moral justification for its government through all of its citizens being equal.
Yes it was a contract at a state to federal government level, furthermore, it is a binding concession of power from the federal government
Equality doesn't mean democracy. Democracy grants a majority power over a minority.
Now 1 person 1 vote isn't equal? Democracy is everyone has the right to state their preferences and be treated equally. That sometimes more people want the other thing isn't a flaw in the system and in no way a justification to just give some people more votes. A tyranny of the majority is a whole lot better than a tyranny of the minority.
I swear there must be some kind of rural state indoctrination camp where people learn that 1 person 1 vote is actually bad and they're rightfully entitled to more say than those dirty city-dwellers. All while talking about the minority rights carefully crafted by the slaveholding men who literally transferred votes from the slaves to their oppressors.
I don't really understand how we fix gerrymandering. Districts can sue the state for making their elections more competitive, less competitive, or a perceived slight. Every time maps are drawn, 99.9% of districts become less competitive, offering a safer win for both of the two major parties where they expect to win. Strategically voting for third parties that can put Ranked Choice in place is... Possible, but incremental.
So yeah it seems like ending the electoral college is less complicated. It seems very popular with most people and half the politicians.
First we need a federal initiative/ referendum system. Because the existing politicians will never vote to limit their own power.
After we have this, we can start with initiatives that set maximum ages, fix the voting systems. Fix Roe. Dismantle the terrible stranglehold the two party system has on getting anything done.
Do all the things that are popular but politicians will never do.
Direct democracy has shown to be a pretty bad idea. It's useful here and there for certain things like referenda, but to use it for everything? Fuck that, no way. People are fucking dumb and are already constantly voting against their interests.
I mean just look at Brexit. And that would be just the tip of the iceberg if we ran our entire country that way.
A two party system where each side does whatever it takes to stay in positions of power has shown to be a pretty bad idea as well.
What else do we have to work with?
The two party system is a direct result of first past the post voting system. Ranked choice would go a long way toward fixing things.
Parliamentary system would work too. They often have 5+ viable parties.
We could start by reconsidering the Reapportionment Act of 1929...
This would help so much. Not only would greatly increasing the number of representatives lead to fairer representation - it would decrease lobbyist power in the House (harder to buy a critical number of members when there are so many representatives).
there is absolutely no valid argument to do anything that isn't simply tallying all the votes. because of course that's how it should work
It makes sense from the perspective of early America, which initially wanted a confederate system.
It doesn't make sense now that most people consider themselves American first and their state is just the place they currently live.
The EC can work but make it a contest for each electoral vote, and remove the states from the equation entirely. California being safe blue and Texas being safe red don't matter, each district is counted for one electoral vote, and the states don't get extra votes anymore.
That just seems like popular vote with extra steps. I'm not sure, but I feel like mathematically there would be no way in which the result of the EC would differ from the popular vote under such a system. I suppose it might still be possible to skew it far enough to shift the outcome using some extreme gerrymandering.
It is a popular vote with extra steps. That's literally what it is.
The extra steps mean that politicians can't purely focus on population centers, rural communities would count for the same vote. each district should be of similar population size, and every district counts for one.
This:
seems to run counter to this:
As an example, lets say you have a rural area with 1000 people in it, and you decide that each district should contain 1000 people, so that entire area is one gigantic district. Nearby you have a city with 10,000 people, so you split the city into 10 districts. That city still counts 10 times what that one giant rural area does. The only way I can see where you could make the rural area count for more is with extreme gerrymandering where you snake little bits of every rural area in to include a chunk of the city population thereby diluting the strength of the cities vote by smearing part of it over the rural areas.
I see absolutely no reason why we should adopt a system that exists solely for the purpose of making gerrymandering possible, and I see no reason why doing things this way would make any difference over just using the popular vote if you aren't gerrymandering.
Apparently you are unaware of ranked choice voting systems, because there are certainly reasons that electing by popular vote is a bad system.
Not a fan of the EC, but this is a bad take imo.
Many democracies don't have the people directly vote on their leader. Parliamentary systems typically have the people voting for a representative who will then vote for the Prime Minister on their behalf.
Representative Democracy exists for a reason.
Something something, “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.”
I would modify the electoral college rather than get rid of it. Make it so that states are obligated to assign their electoral votes to candidates in proportion to the number of votes received. For example, Maryland might go 60% blue and 40% red, so they would give 6 of their 10 votes to blue and 4 to red.
This would de-emphasize the importance of swing states, not completely disenfranchise rural voters, and would return a result that more closely mirrored the popular vote. It might also pave the way for a 3rd party to be relevant if the stars aligned elsewhere.
Might work for MD size states, but most smaller even EV states would split their EVs evenly, even if the state voted 60/40 one way or the other -- while odd EV states would always cast a net vote for the winner.
For example, using the 2020 election numbers Trump would win if the election included only the following states:
I don't know that it's any nobler to for electoral influence to discriminate on the basis of even states and odd states than swing states vs safe states. Unless you're also one of the group wanting to expand the legislature until there are no 4 and 6 EV states ...
Direct voting should be the end-goal of a democracy.
You mean referendums?
Not sure what the guy you replied to meant, but I don't think we should have referendums about every little thing. I know some of the stuff that pops up in my friend's state's referendums they say they don't feel qualified at all to vote on. But I agree that major stuff, like who gets to be President, probably should be direct voting.
I asked what kind of direct voting. Referendum is direct voting on laws.
It's direct elections. Direct voting is more broad.
Gotcha, I misunderstood.
Why?
By "the electoral college" most people seem to mean that each state has influence disproportionate to its population, because every state gets two electors regardless of size. Ignoring that that is independent of the electoral college, disproportionate power isn't where most of the problem arises. The problem is that most states do not allocate their electors proportionally to how their citizens voted. Almost all states give all electors to the majority winner in the state. It's not required to do it that way, and Maine and Nebraska allocate at least some of their electors based on the proportion of the vote.
If states allocated their electors solely based on the proportion of votes in the state, that would achieve what a national popular vote would achieve and more. For example, Trump won despite losing the poplar vote, but if states had instead allocated their electors proportionally to voters within the state, Trump would have lost.
Why do this instead of a national popular vote? First-past-the-post voting systems result in two party systems with a lot of conflict. Ranked choice systems elect representatives that are more agreeable to everyone. A national popular vote entrenches a bad system, making it harder to ever get a rank choice system.
More importantly from a pragmatic standpoint, it's much harder to get a national popular vote implemented. To work, almost all of the states would need to get on board, but there's no individual-level incentive for citizens of a state to agree to it. Why would the majority of citizens of Montana agree to send their electors to the national popular vote winner when it's likely not the person they voted for? How are you going to convince them to join? The majority of people there won't want that, so they won't pass the law.
If states allocate based on proportion, individuals won't be concerned that their votes will ever support a candidate they don't like. It also doesn't matter whether other states hop on board. Maine and Nebraska are proof of this. They changed their allocation schemes without regard for any other state. At the individual level, the choice is easy; no one wants their vote to go toward a candidate they don't like, and the current system AND the national popular vote system both do that. If you think about your own views, are you in a state that the majority of the time the majority of people vote for a candidate you don't like? Wouldn't you rather have your state allocate proportionally? Are you in a place where the majority of the time your state goes the way you do? Are you happy that your neighbors' opinions are suppressed? It's pretty easy to get on board at an individual level, so that makes it easy to pass within a state.
People should give up on national popular vote and focus on getting their state to switch to proportional allocation. If you really want progress, target some key states: Florida, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a viable path to getting a national popular vote. Essentially if enough states agree to send all of their electoral votes to the popular candidate then the popular vote winning candidate will win the election. The compact will only go into effect once enough states agree that would make a majority. Right now there are states with 206 electoral votes that have agreed and only 65 more electoral votes would be needed.
I do feel like your proposition is harder to convince people to enact. Right now my state has finally changed to be for a party I support I don't want to support legislation that will mean some of those electoral college votes will go to the other party, it would be more fair on the state level but not nationally. Sure I'd be okay with it if other states that vote for the other party did the same thing. It becomes this standoff where people want the other side to move first. That's my favorite part about NPVIC is that it does away with the messy middle ground.
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.
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.
Whatever else, I'm sure we can all agree that the current performative, pro-forma electoral college meetings are not what was intended by the framers.
This could be either a fake or a real ad by those people. It is amazing how hard it is to distinguish parody and real news theses days.
UPDATE: For some unknown reasons, this comment appeared under the wrong article. I've seen the "Electoral College" article, but didn't even open it, so this is not even a case of "postet in the wrong window" or so.
What? Seriously, what? What are you talking about? Who is “they,” the Pew Research Center?
For unknown reasons, my reply appeared under the wrong article. So no, there is no connection of what I said to the topic of "Electoral College".
Ok, no worries! Kbin and lemmy sometimes just freak out, so it’s all good. Thank you for clarifying!
I fucking hate how Americans divide politics between liberals and conservatives. The pollster could have at least given a third 'neither' option.
Well of course they do, the electoral college was made specifically so that states with the most population aren't the ones solely determining the outcome. If you got rid of the EC, the elections would come down to California, Florida, New York, and Texas.
Which ironically, given how Florida and Texas lean, would not "kill the Republican party" as some are claiming here.
The last republican to win the popular vote was Bush in 04. It would force them to actually care about what the people need instead of just threatening everyone else
You say that it would help Republicans, but the last two times the electoral college went against the popular vote they gave the presidency to Republicans.
Five presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. Four of those were Republicans: Hayes, Harrison, Bush, Trump. John Quincy Adams was the first, just as the Republican party came into existence, although he wasn't a member. He joined it later.
I'm not saying it would either help them or hurt them. I think many people totally ignore that fact that if the election rules and law were changed in the United States, then campaign strategies would change too. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have enough resources and power to able to adapt.
I agree with that. Republicans have shown themselves to be remarkably adept at making people stupid enough to fall for their authoritarian bullshit.
I don’t think it should be eliminated completely. I think each state should award their points proportionately. That way no one is disenfranchised.
Noone is disenfranchised. By choosing to elect an executive nationally it only makes sense to popularise the vote. Why should Wyoming citizens have more sway than California (per capita)
Democrats in Texas might as well not even vote under the current winner take all system. If the electoral points were awarded proportionally then Clinton would have won against Trump.
EC needs to go lol
Yep
That's only happening because the size of the HoR was set at 435 in 1929. Fix that and suddenly Wyoming's 3 EC votes would be a drop in the bucket...even per Capita.
Yes and you'd have a giant congress with an inflated salary budget. The problem is definitely the ec.
This was more of a valid argument when Republicans were winning elections. I think we should keep the electoral college as long as there's a republican candidate that wants to overturn our democracy.