Ckemtp
52643
1610
676
The system is well-designed. The Electoral College is a necessary check and balance and makes sense when you think about it. It prevents Mob Rule and protects minorities from tyranny.
Here's more: https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU
BobbityRoss
False representation. The grey area looks huge, but the key point is the population, not the land area. A graph/pie chart would be better.
asmallcat
If MORE people live in those areas, why shouldn't they be MORE focused by national politicians? We already have the SENATE to protect (1/2)
asmallcat
lower population state's rights. One person one vote is how the presidency should be.
enybi
So basically you prefer a landowning oligarchy to a proportionally representative democracy, that's good to know.
Ornro
For the sake of completeness here is a source saying why it is not as good as you might think https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k
richtick
Here here.
mmaatt8
If you switch gray and blue, you'll see that half of the population is the entire United States and it would look less impressive
FreckleFoxx
Unless you're a republican in a blue state. As a Vermonter there's a sense that your vote doesn't matter, I can understand that frustration.
getupgetouttaheregone
As a Wisconsinite I love the system. This year we finally showed our state is not solid blue and connot be taken for granted in a race
Grillparzer
It is about to be tested whether it protects minorities from tyranny.
goochthecat
Ask a gay person, a birth control user, an immigrant, or someone who needs an abortion if theyre willing to submit to majority rule.
Grillparzer
As an atheist, I understand.
deadbysmiley
All hail the dump system that already just in 20 years elected two questionable people
imbaroque
And candidates only focus on a few states because of this. There aren't 9 states in the United States.
SaintMaceToTheFace
Yeah she did. And then she lost because trump focused on many more states than she did. She neglected her voters and they flipped
tastelesshuman
So people should have less votes because they live in a city?
goochthecat
Yes. Because it's about proportions, not numbers.
jake96
lol you're basically advocating for a three-fifths compromise.
tastelesshuman
What is proportional about giving some people 3 votes?
HarryButtHolePussyPotter
This is dumb. The Electoral college is a system that makes no sense and is out of date.
SaintMaceToTheFace
It makes perfect sense when you aren't salty that you lost
HarryButtHolePussyPotter
I've been a passenger be on the Trump Train , sir. No saltiness here.
JaxAndHisLampPost
What people also don't understand is that you cant assume Hillary would have won the popular vote if the system was different.
someguyinslc
Maybe, maybe not. It better represents the voters and encourage people to go do so. We all know people who didn't vote because of the EC.
shitsasecret
Some of us have been aware of this being a bit of a problem for a long time. I did high school projects on it 6 years ago (during Obama).
Crimx42
That's not how the EC works, Members of the EC are not bound to vote based on how their county votes.
getupgetouttaheregone
Technically true but they can be replaced by another in that event or it may not even matter in the total count to 270 if a few dissent.
williammurderfayce
The EC hasn't ever influenced the end result of an election because of this possibility.
Rasdwatrium
It still happened over 70 times so far and 4 times the EC came to another conclusion compared to the popular vote.
williammurderfayce
The point being made here has nothing to do with popular vote vs electoral votes. It has happened 70 times and made no impact on the outcome
charliesheen420
There have only been three unfaithful electors ever.
Crimx42
20
scarygibberish
? There have been many faithless electors, just not so many recently. In the last 50 years, there were 6
jakaii
I have no idea where you got your numbers, but it's actually 157, I believe. Only 82 of which changed their vote for conviction reasons.
StraightToCatFolder
Imagine your district was divided like this... /a/zBtOg
BDR518
Yeah, I grew up as a Republican in Maryland. The most gerrymandered state in the nation. The pain goes both ways.
johnqcurls
Debatable. NC had their districts ruled illegal they were so messed up. MD looks pretty terrible too though.
StraightToCatFolder
Ok, well how abouts we add some voter suppression laws. You don't see liberals pulling that shit.
BDR518
When someone DOES vote illegally, it suppresses the vote of a legal voter.
StraightToCatFolder
Illegal voting is almost non-existent. Laws which claim to curb illegal voting actually prevent hundreds of thousands from voting. Cont...
StraightToCatFolder
Do some research before you voice your uniformed opinion. Nearly every conservative argument can be debunked so easily. So ignorant goddamn!
RagePhish
It does nothing to protect minorities
Schadenfreude8
The word minority doesn't exclusively apply to race you know.
CaptainLegot
I've never heard minority used outside of race, and I'm sure it's a similar situation for many others.
pgarc90
Maybe that's the problem
Slashinhobo
Can't be possible, unless you never took anything greater than simple math you have heard it in a math class. Congress use these term to 1/2
Slashinhobo
represent party size(math). You heard of Minority Report (movie) which wasn't about race. Getting point across in a limited word cnt sucks
Schadenfreude8
+1 for your last comment lol
Schadenfreude8
I'm positive you have, particularly if you've ever taken a math class, you just didn't think about it.
Schadenfreude8
better still, think of the flip side, because I'm extra positive you've heard the word "majority" outside of the context of race.
msu14hockey
But the electoral college isn't designed to protect "the political minority" either. Or small states. This whole post is BS.
Florky
Please explain this reasoning behind it not protecting small states.
msu14hockey
I said it wasn't designed to protect them. In reality it gives them an outsized voice, but I've never seen it suggested that the intent of
msu14hockey
the Founding Fathers was to give people in one state more impact than another.
Lichonaleash
If by "protecting minorities" you mean empower rural republican voters (minority by popular vote). How about a true democracy instead?
SaintMaceToTheFace
Because you would silence half the country
Lichonaleash
They have their vote still. They have their congressional seats. Noone is silenced. But with the EC, minority in a state is ignored.
Geo80
Democracy is 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
DogsDidNothingWrong
Nice comparing city folks to wolves.
acunninglinguist
3edgy5me
RichardPOsterior
How about the federal government be shrunk dramatically, power moved back to the states, and people go back to focusing on local politics?
SepticStorm
That is one way to do it, but the word Democracy gets thrown around so much people forget we are a Republic, not a democracy.
Lichonaleash
True, but even in a republic, there is supposed to be equality among members. With the EC, the power is imbalanced.
SepticStorm
EC is based on congressional representation, so it is as equal as any law passed.
Lichonaleash
In my red state, 43% off the population was not represented due to the ECs existence. Because I was not in my state's majority.
SaintMaceToTheFace
Because he WON your state. Instead of one big election it's 51 small ones
SepticStorm
but your stated collectively voted for a candidate. so your EC votes are collectively cast. 50 independent elections.
Somanyquestions
One where there is no leader?
RedClaws23
Exactly. We don't want True Democracy, we want Representative Democracy instead of a Democratic Republic.
Lichonaleash
I meant the will of the fair majority vote. As opposed to the will of the electoral college, which skews power away from the majority vote.
Somanyquestions
@adamsandler
goochthecat
If you had a majority vote, abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, birth control, voting rights would be locked in 1965.
Lichonaleash
As times change, so does the majority. And so does the law.
btraqnasty
Land and regions dont vote. people vote. each person should get the same voice, not each acre of land.
nslavik18
Well it is to have their voices heard. A running candidate will only visit the blue to ensure their presidency. And not care about the grey
btraqnasty
They will visit the majority of Americans then?
JumpTheCheeseburger
Sure, but rural voters' issues would be virtually ignored since a square mile in a city has more potential votes than a rural square mile.
theguybehindtheguybehindtheguy
You realize there are rural areas in states like California, right? CA produces most of the nation's food
BewareTheIceSpiders
The square mile doesnt vote, dude.
JumpTheCheeseburger
No but the people living in those square miles vote, dude.
BewareTheIceSpiders
Sigh its just not a question of area. More and more of the population live in cities. So yes, rural issues get less and less spotlight.
BewareTheIceSpiders
Not because of density but just because rural issues affect less and less voters.
btraqnasty
So instead the voters in urban areas should be ignored?
JumpTheCheeseburger
Not saying that either. Although not perfect the electoral college attempts to provide more of a balance between the two.
heril
Right now if you live in a rural area you are still out weighed by the cities in your state.
fred28056
if that was the case then Hilary would of Won. Every blue county you see is a major city.
heril
According to the census bureau 80% of the United States live in urban areas. Varies some by state I'm sure, but not many rural people.
heril
So what motivation does any candidate have to lose by ignoring rural people with or without the Electoral College
n0tJesus
They may get fewer visits from candidates, but as a Seattleite i hate it when they come here anyway. They just fuck up traffic even more.1/2
n0tJesus
2/2 But the issues people have are not brought up to candidates while they are in town. TV & internet are a great way to raise awareness.
MonkeyHittingPianoDramatically
So what? One person = one vote. The quintessential of all are equal
JumpTheCheeseburger
I believe that, but that's not the point. If it went by the popular vote a candidate would mainly run on urban issues to rack up the votes.
Slander7
The urban population is much larger. Their issues should receive proportionately more attention.
aceebro
Most Americans don't live in urban areas. Suburbs maybe, but it's not 50% city dwellers.
MostSereneDoge
Rural states are actually over-represented in the electoral college. They get more electoral votes per population than states like CA and NY
AllottaFagina
Wymoning, 584,153 (2014) and 3 electoral votes. That's 1 vote per 194,717 people.
AllottaFagina
California: 38.8 million (2014) and 55 electoral votes. That's 1 vote per 705,454 people.
AllottaFagina
If you applied Wyoming's math to California, CA would have 199 Electoral votes.
goochthecat
Which is exactly the way it's meant to work. Our whole system is set up to cut off tyranny of democratic majority.
Rasdwatrium
So we can have the tyranny of the democratic minority? Great deal!
goochthecat
Without which abortion would still be illegal, gays would be unable to marry, because a shitload of liberal causes are not majority views.
MostSereneDoge
I accept your premise, but reject your conclusion. Bush became president because of the electoral college, and appointed two justices who
aselfdefeatingattitude
Except those things would all still be illegal if it weren't for the courts. So, no, it would still work.
drago1337
Isn't this just exaggerating geographic space? Based of your words, it'd be half the nation in blue vs. half the nation in gray.
vonKaiser
Blue vs Grey... I think we did that once before.....
JudgeRhymehold
Won't be long I'm sure...someone will revisit the idea...but I don't have much faith in things :P
drago1337
Took me a moment and then... Whelp. Wondering now if color choice on purpose...
DragonsLoveTacosButHateSpicySalsa
Exactly this! If 50% of American's vote for something who cares about the population density of the state in which they live?!
SaintMaceToTheFace
So a bunch of people in a city making laws about shit they know nothing about
Viridescent
Because those 50% have vastly different needs. Take it from a left leaning citizen from Rural GA, big city laws don't work for everyone.
drago1337
Agreed; culture, values, problems, etc. all different. This coming from a highly educated city person. But lived 6 yrs in upstate NY.
DragonsLoveTacosButHateSpicySalsa
Isn't that the role of state and local governments? The federal gov't should stick to foreign and domestic policies on a macro-scale.
Geo80
It should, but it doesn't.
Viridescent
It is. The problem is that there is an expectation that the Federal gov't is supposed to handle everything, and people ignore local & state.
DragonsLoveTacosButHateSpicySalsa
Preach! People ignore their local gov't even though it has a massive impact on their everyday life.
SeraRelm
And vice versa. How is this a valid argument for anything but "more people means less rights?"
Viridescent
That wasn't the argument I was trying to make. The electoral college just gives the rural locations a fairer chance more or less.
SankingDragon
This is so incredibly stupid I don't know where to start. There's a reason using geographical maps to display data is unscientific.
Qualtagh
Unless you're displaying weather data
LeonRoland
Except when the data is geographically relevant... The only way to improve this display would be to use a color gradient.
SankingDragon
Although it is very important to note the difference between location-relevant and geographically relevant.
adudeabiding
yeah no this map/description is wrong. those are the counties that voted democrat, but lots of democrats live in the grey areas too.
adudeabiding
those are just where the majority of voters voted hillary. also plenty of republicans in the blue areas too
Branchc
This map only shows population, not voting results.
RunningForEverAndEver
But the population is not in the grey zone
RunningForEverAndEver
With the above logic Alaska should have 60 electorate Texas would have 52 California would have 46. A state like Virginia would have 7
eagerophiuchus
Squirrel and elk populations deserve some voting power too!
GreenFox
Why would that matter? If 50%+1 of the people disagree with me then why should I win? It shouldn't matter where they live.
Greenplantpaperwork
Each soveriegn State has its own voting laws. Voter fraud is easier in simple majority rule. There are actually regional concerns.
GreenFox
Well that was quite the non sequitur. How did you get to voter fraud from majority rule? You can still have states run their own voting.
Greenplantpaperwork
Watch the video. !!
Ant4N
Goes from "Fuck minorities" to "minorities should have a say in the voting system" real quick
RogueEnthusiast
I see US shaped game of minesweeper & now thinking that minesweeper shaped as countries needs to be a thing. *accidental terrorist thoughts*
MulliganStew
You can wipe out a least half of those grey boxes as uninhabited.
ConductorOfTheStruggleTrain
PragerU is the most fuck-tardedly biased source you could ever possibly use
zpjon
PragerU is utter garbage, but I wouldn't put it all the way at "fuck-tardedly" bad
Ckemtp
Honestly I hadn't seen it before. I just watched the vid on a search. Another commenter has given another source above.
ConductorOfTheStruggleTrain
Yeah, I saw. CGP Grey is really good. He also has a great series on voting issues.
ConductorOfTheStruggleTrain
And he basis his videos on research and has his videos viewed and edited by experts in the field on both sides of the political spectrum.
madscrills
I don't see how the inner workings of how the electoral college can be biased.
ConductorOfTheStruggleTrain
Saying that the electoral college is the greatest thing ever and ignoring the rampant gerrymandering and voter manipulation of the system.
pgarc90
Gerrymandering doesn't affect the electoral college. State borders do. You're thinking of Congress.
AsheLake
Here's a video that addresses some of the points completely left out by the above biased source: https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k
madscrills
Thank you
AsheLake
1] No problem. This reminds me of a Mark Twain quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
AsheLake
3] Using specifically selected true statements to mislead people is even worse than lying because it's harder to detect.
AsheLake
2] By which I mean that leaving relevant things out can be just as bad as (if not worse than) blatantly telling mistruths.
OriginaIPoster
PragerU has had videos about why women are weaker than men and why all Muslims want to kill people, they're pretty shite
mrmister88
can you show me?
OriginaIPoster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5">AGc5nOXw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AkAGc5nOXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LGzrYUGXdI
mrmister88
This video criticizes Islam as an ideology, not Muslims. Do you equate those? Do you think it's possible to do that?
OriginaIPoster
There's plenty more on Islam
OriginaIPoster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E">k0R8QLaY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvfHnZMcOY&index=14&list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1w_5qAEs5cSUJ5Bk0R8QLaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9WZFeA4FzI
OriginaIPoster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MZgIiJNvPo
mrmister88
How does any of these videos prove that women are weaker? Do you think a male and female are biologically identical?
Crimx42
PragerU is an insanely biased propaganda machine. Here's a better source CGP Grey, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw
smarmageddon
LOVE me some CGP Grey
Dunekoon
PU is ridiculous
[deleted]
[deleted]
GreenFox
@rohan1097 posted the same video 3 hours ago...
OriginaIPoster
Ah didn't see him. I'll just delete mine after you see this
cthulhubeard
His tone in his update is fucking hilarious.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Hilarisad.
Assgaurdian
They did have one very sensible video but I can't remember which one it was
AlwaysUpvoteScottPilgrim
.
CompletelyOrginal
.
Cncnorman
I liked this video but the last 30 sec confused me. What's going on in dec?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
When we talk about electoral college, we're talking about people who vote on behalf of a state in December.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
It's basically a final tally that officially decrees a candidate as having won before they are sworn in.
GRex2595
That's when the EC actually votes.
Cncnorman
Why in Dec? Could their vote possibly change the election results?
GRex2595
The seats in Congress are our electors. Once they get to D.C., they vote for the President. Technically, they could end up voting Clinton.
Ckemtp
Always appreciative of another source for balance. Thank you.
GreenFox
hrm... today OP wasn't a faggot....
twentyfourcharacterslong
Yeah he was. He thinks what he said was the same as the video. It's not.
Assgaurdian
Another by him pointing out some flaws https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k
TheSwedishMoose
https://youtu.be/zcZTTB10_Vo
CaptComment
Someone please explain to me how it is fair that one person's vote carries more weight then another person's, based on location?
scabab
"because land has rights too" or something. fuck knows.
RedClaws23
That's basically it. Because each state gets two votes and its people get between 1 and 53, because your land can have more influencethanyou
CaptComment
So then it's not really "by the people, for the people" is it?
hobotopia
If they didn't politicians could ignore half the country in order to get elected, as it would be more cost effective durring campaigning
AncientPostNecromancer
Because without the people in the gray zones the people in the blue would starve.
KingKarnage
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New">sey_Plan">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan This is why.
ThatOnePolarBearOnTheLeft
That's just how the system works though - a Presidential election is just 50 separate state based elections.
demondog68
Technically there are 51 separate elections as Washington DC gets its own election as well
gamejeepboi
Which can be done without the electoral college.
ThatOnePolarBearOnTheLeft
Not in the same way. Moving to direct election effectively abolishes the state-based element, and moreover ensures that only big cities will
gamejeepboi
Reread the comment I responded to, then reread my comment with that context; state based elections can be done many ways.
ThatOnePolarBearOnTheLeft
ever get their voices heard in the electoral process.
gamejeepboi
see above
LivingDecomposition
It was designed to allow more populated states to get fair representation for their numbers, but keep low-pop states from being powerless.
CaptComment
Thats a good way to put it. I think i just dont agree with the idea that voting power has anything to do with a state rather then each voter
LivingDecomposition
It's because we're a republic. Every citizen can't/won't vote on every issue all the time, so we elect representatives who's job it's--
SardonicGrin
You are punishing and rendering powerless anyone who doesn't live in a large city.
LivingDecomposition
--supposed to be to do the research on the issues, be knowledgeable about how it will effect the citizens, and make the best choice.
LivingDecomposition
Think of it like each state is a European country, and the EU is the federal government. Each state sends a rep to vote for the head of--
jaycatsby
Right, but being a republic has nothing to do with the EC. It explains Congress, but not the EC. They are just reporting
LivingDecomposition
--the executive branch.
IronicUsername
It's not. It's a deeply flawed system and it's ridiculous that anyone still defends it.
namiasdf
Because their regional needs are relevant, and if only those who live in high density areas win everything, it wont be representative.
klj126
False
gtmiller
Except the country lives in a fairly even split of urban and rural. If anything the current system supresses urban regions.
ForgotMyOtherAcct
yes it would be, that's what "representative" means; giving rural voters more say and urban ones less is the opposite of "representative"
namiasdf
No, because they are a region with general interests that can be represented at the federal level with one seat. It's fair, imo.
ForgotMyOtherAcct
It's not fair because we are giving more votes to people because they live less densely; land area shouldn't determine votes, and saying it
ForgotMyOtherAcct
will protect one group of people from another's voting ability just means you're enabling that first group to have more power over the other
namiasdf
You do realize those constituents are a lot larger in terms of land area, to make up for this discrepancy.
StoneSixOnes
If high density is more than half the population, high density is representative. Thats what it means.
SardonicGrin
Really? Do people that live in high rises have the same interests or concerns as a rural farming community? If cities have all the votes,
SardonicGrin
Then rural areas will get ignored and trump will be elected president because he heard their concerns and listened to them.
StoneSixOnes
My point is that it doesn't matter if they have the same interests. In a winner take all system all you can do to even approach a fair (1/?)
CaptComment
I think you misunderstand. The popular vote has no bearing on region. So everyone (rural or city) should be valued the same. If it so 1/
namiasdf
on any issues/bills put through the federal house.
leumasmc
Which is why the popular vote isn't used.
namiasdf
"riding" (constituent), and he represents us in our House of Commons (Senate/House). i.e. Our region gets a vote at the federal level.
namiasdf
Our PM is literally only the leader of the party that got the most seats in our House of Commons.
CaptComment
happens that more people live in the city then so be it. They shouldnt be punished for that.
namiasdf
You guys vote for your POTUS and your Senate/House representatives separately. That is mostly because your POTUS has a lot of power.
namiasdf
And the party with the most seats appoints their leader as Prime Minister. We don't vote for a PM, we vote for a representative in our
namiasdf
Nono, that's what the electoral college does. We have a similar voting system, only our seats in "congress/house" are actually who we vote.
CaptComment
What?
namiasdf
While considering regional borders. i.e. Rural areas with farmers have significantly different interests than perhaps fishermen on the coast
namiasdf
If your constituent in the US is majority of one party, that seat becomes of that party, regardless of the number of people who it represent
namiasdf
But you also divide constituents by population density, to make the populations in each constituent as equal as possible
ItsAllZeroesAndOnes
It's because people like you do not know the difference between "then" and "than".
heyguysimtom
Because urban and rural communities have different needs and vote differently. Prime example: NorCal vs SoCal voting. LA owns the state
CoolSweaterDude
Consider if we used population alone, only the blue sections would be targeted, making entire states worthless for the voting process. (1)
CoolSweaterDude
Whole cultures of people reside in those grey areas and would have no say in the voting process because they don't live in a blue area. (2)
CoolSweaterDude
This makes voting on population alone vastly unfair as compared to the electoral college, which isn't perfect but more balancesd.
StoneSixOnes
The problem is its a massive overcorrection that leaves the majority unheard to give the minority a louder voice.
StoneSixOnes
The electoral college combined with winner take all is the real issue here. More than half of americans are now unrepresented.
JollyGreenAl
Because the president needs to take care of people wherever they live not just those that live in New York and Las Angeles.
StoneSixOnes
So why dont we change do a system that represents everyone proportionally instead of fucking people who live in high density areas?
AsheLake
It's not.
gtmiller
It is. Compare California to Wyoming.
LordNoodles
Explain to me why apartments in California is worth 10x mine? Cuz it isn't fair.
leumasmc
Because we live under a Federal system with states as the largest element of that system.
LuvMeMore
Mob Rule
mckinful
"Mob rule" too, but people tend to forget the economic and geographic situation when it was created played a role, as well
DoctorTheta
Don't mind me, I'm just favoriting this comment
ItKnowsWhatScaresYou
Or how 3 or 4 states voting overwhelmingly for one party can outweigh the other 46+ in a true democracy.
ForgotMyOtherAcct
well, if 3 or 4 states actually is most of the people in a democracy, they should be able to swing any vote by.. having the most people
ItKnowsWhatScaresYou
It's why we're a representative democracy with protection for individual liberty+property. No mob rule. No huge state dominance. It works.
ItKnowsWhatScaresYou
Imagine 51% of the folks in your town voted to have you be hanged. You'd be really glad that we're not a true democracy and you have rights
ForgotMyOtherAcct
excellent slippery slope. No, minority rule can't be justified as an alternative to mob rule, that has nothing to do with personal rights
ambereyedragon
The founding fathers didn't trust the common man
TommyRottn
Because we are a Union of States and States have rights
sprinckletitties
Because you can't have candidates campaigning in only the South or the Pacific/New England. You need broad appeal.
ThePurpleMacaw
because if it doesn't only candidates that help cities would win and most of the country would be left without government representation
PhilbertPhrog
It's a state by state election to choose which candidate the state votes for. It's not that some votes are worth more.
Idkimadeanaccountjustforthis
Ok so I see your point, but the problem is some states have only voted dem or rep for the last 40-50 years. So it's just a given who they
Idkimadeanaccountjustforthis
Vote it.
TheKnowing1
Because that's how republic's work.
nickyaddrison
popular vote concentrates power in urban areas and diminishes rural issues, electoral college empowers rural places and ignores urban issues
nickyaddrison
electoral college is bad, but i understand the arguments for it
CaptComment
So far you've made the best point i can find. Still doesn't make sense though how 2 of last 3 presidents won and still lost the pop vote
ForgotMyOtherAcct
cities tend to be liberal, rural tends to be conservative, so a conservative candidate could win like that while liberal one won't
KaiserofEire
if you gotta live in Bufu fucking nowhere you deserve a few perks.
mckinful
It was originally designed to account for white citizens in a majority slave south vs northern nonplantation states. No longer the situation
dembonz00
Or we could just to whoever wins the most counties takes the gold. No democrat would ever win again.
Vyrro
Found the hillary supporter
CaptComment
Lol, not even close. You can fuck right off with that noise
CKnowles
It makes sense at the time of the drafting. For example, Mormons were reviled. All they wanted was a place of their own, to vote & live ->
CKnowles
their way. So they collectively stood up and walked out of their states and created another. There's no way a fledgling state could fight ->
CKnowles
existing ones in Congress, so they got little boosts. Why does a Utah citizen get more voting power than an NY one? Because the Utah one ->
CKnowles
was discriminated against in NY for their bizarre way of life. If it's really a problem for people in NY, they could go even further west ->
CKnowles
and expand the country to earn even more voting power. But that only lasts so long. That's why the Constitution is amendable and why, IMO,->
CaptComment
Interesting point, but i would still have to say that we shouldnt be valued based on location. I understand some of the reasoning you 1/2
goochthecat
Because it's a defense against population density setting the agenda for communities with vastly different needs and makeup.
SeraRelm
So less people get more voting power and more people get less. Truly a just system. *nods*
goochthecat
Want a just system? Impose popular democracy. Then watch what happens to abortion, birth control, gay marriage, and progressive taxation.
goochthecat
Hint- you lose all of those things because the pure majority opposes or supports severe limitations on them. The EC insulates you, too.
Florky
I think part of the problem is the winner take all. How ever people near each other tend to vote similarly witch could ignore other 1/2
ThisTreeIsDurRunk
*which
Florky
People how ever there are flaws to this argument as well and it's difficult to decide the right answer to help and please everyone.
AllWeAreIsDustinNguyen
What if Trump gets to be president 52% of the time and Hillary is president 48% of the time? Maybe more fair but a complete clusterfrick
TimeFoDat
If you get rid of winner-take-all then it's basically a popular vote again, which poses the question why not just switch to popular vote?
Imtheguywhogetsawaywithit
Because that fucks over the people who don't live on a coast
TimeFoDat
Logically all it would do is make the numbers smaller. The benefit you'd get would be based on rounding error, not any actual type of logic.
Simrik
Not really. Only in presidential elections. You would still have local governing which is the important kind.
Florky
It still helps to give a voice to the less poputated states without them being ignored.
TimeFoDat
Why do the 1m Montanans deserve equal impact on national affairs as 39m Californians? That's not minority rights, it's minority rule.
TimeFoDat
It's not efficient or fair to pander to small populations when the issues people face get worse as population rises—we're a nation of PEOPLE
Florky
Through places only have the lest amount of EC votes. The only way to effect that would be to add more seats giving them to higher pop 1/2
RextProject
I disagree with you sir and/or madam. I think it would be extremely unfair to pander to ANY specific population density.
BehemothTheManCat
This
MrNobodyLivesHere
Same reason $ gets you out of jail or avoid it all together. Monopoly is real, you just don't own Boardwalk & Parkplace.
guminski
Because your location has a specific economy and culture associated with it that is not the same as what is in the tiny blue areas
CaptComment
Agreed...so by your own reasoning "area" should have nothing to do with it...just simply number of votes
guminski
Then all the areas in white have no control of their future?
comingbacktowhereivealwaysbeen
Electoral college is place for that exact reason. To make sure politicians hear the needs of everyone, not just the people in large cities
klj126
Except the electoral college isn't doing that. It is failing. And that argument isn't even useful
StoneSixOnes
I dont understand... are you implying that people in cities, what, vote... better? I dont understand this logic, everyone should be equal.
acunninglinguist
They hear the needs of a small portion of the population, and ignore the majority. That's not good policy.
mrlemonofbanana
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Senate and Congress are supposed to do: Represent their state/county in the federal govt.
wnostrebor
Was... not that Senate is popularly elected, that is not the case.
swaptrick
Haha...HAHAHAHA. But yeah seriously. These jobs were intended to be temporary tours of service, not careers.
Slander7
Larger populations should have a proportionately larger vote.
comingbacktowhereivealwaysbeen
They do...?
Slander7
Do you know what the word 'proportionate' means?
comingbacktowhereivealwaysbeen
Oh lord... the amount of electoral votes a state gets is decided by the amount of seats in congress each state has, which is decided by 1/2
comingbacktowhereivealwaysbeen
Population.. So yea, you get votes in PROPORTION to your population
SaintMaceToTheFace
They do. That is why Pensilvania, Ohio, and Florida have high electoral counts
DogsDidNothingWrong
The key word is proportionally, currently votes in small states are worth more.
Chivaxsienpre209
cuz thats how we keep the country like the founders wanted it, or some stupid shit logic like that.
CaptComment
Yes that makes sense. But in this system those needs are not being valued equally. It just happens that more people live in big 1/2
CaptComment
cities so their needs show in the forefront. I dont see that as a bad thing considering that is the majority of the pop
HereInDuckburg
You're still missing the point
Branchc
Actually they are valued equally, just not proportionally. Otherwise the cities would be the only ones to dictate policy
CaptComment
But the way you are looking at it is the problem itself... "The cities" arent doing anything. A city shouldn't vote, a person should
klj126
Except big cities are not that big of a percentage the population.
Imthedroidyouwerelookingfor
I want to know what is unfair about a popular vote? one person, one vote. Seems like the fairest solution available.
SaintMaceToTheFace
I don't. This is EXACTLY why we have the House and Senate. So that one is equal and one is proportional.
SaintMaceToTheFace
Otherwise people in cities will be a dictatorship over use in the country
asanimgurianiliealot
Candidates would run only on issues that affect city based voters and states, because that is all it would take to win. Rural people 1/
jake96
This election demonstrates how that's false. Trump won b/c of the rural counties. Very few big-city counties gave him many votes.
asanimgurianiliealot
He catered to both groups, Hillary only went after the city vote. Guess who ended up winning? Saying that the system didn't work is wrong.
jake96
Huh? I never said the system didn't work. My point was that a direct election would not mean that candidates could ignore rural voters.
asanimgurianiliealot
would be effectively ignored and the government would no longer be required to represent the entire country. At the moment to win the 2/
asanimgurianiliealot
election you have to cater to both types of people if you want to stand any chance of winning. 3/3
Imthedroidyouwerelookingfor
The electoral college already does this. 40% of the states are ignored by the candidates because they know they can win that state.
SaintMaceToTheFace
And that is why Hillary lost. She neglected blue states she thought she would win and trump took them
Imthedroidyouwerelookingfor
I agree, but that's not the point I'm arguing.
Branchc
Actually it is exactly the point. Because she ignored those states she lost, proving candidates must pay attention to every state.
hcar
I'd prefer this with a 50% runoff threshold. If nobody gets over 50%, you have a runoff with the top two finishers. No voting against people
Imthedroidyouwerelookingfor
I've heard a 40% runoff threshold.
hcar
50% would guarantee that you can vote for the person you want without worrying about voting against the person you don't want in round 1
jake96
Ranked choice (like Maine just passed) would do the same thing without the time and expense of a second election.
SunshineAndNihilism
Except since the population has vastly changed since the amount of votes were given, now Wyoming voters have 3x the power of Californians.
srsfaceI8C
x3.6 to be more precise. There's more people per electoral vote in California than even live in Wyoming, period.
moderndayprodigalson
As being from Wyoming, our state always votes red. Popular vote is irrelevant here
BaronVonToastie
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
thatlamer
Living in florida sure is good and not bad. Especially living in yokel county, USA as a socialist.
ticktockbent
We have to keep California week or else they'll destroy the world.
Somnophobe
When is California week? May?
ticktockbent
Yeah, first week of May.
Sambrosa
Electoral College votes are adjusted with each census.
CountessVonFingerbang
But the last census was in 2010. The population has shifted quite a lot in nearly 7 years.
TinnyOctopus
To a minimum of 3. Low population states are disproportionately represented in the electoral college.
Branchc
And wouldn't be represented at all in a vote based strictly on population.
graygrif
That's why a lot of people who study this would like Congress to remove the 435 cap on the House and allow its membership number to float 1/
graygrif
based on the population of the least populated state. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule
TinnyOctopus
They would be represented based strictly on population. They still have representation in the House and Senate, and that's not changing.
Branchc
Right, which is why a straight popular vote doesn't work. The votes of the entire state of Wyoming could be cancelled by a city like D.C.
picardsaysengayge
Yeah but they still create jobs, tourism, and allow for federal land. In fact, States like Alaska and Wyoming give up a LOT of land
picardsaysengayge
... To be part of the USA. And Republicans get their way out there as opposed to the really useless Republicans in WA and CA
TinnyOctopus
Yes, exactly. Every voter is equally important, and every vote should have an equal say in who gets elected. This is not currently the case:
picardsaysengayge
So let's stop shitting on the electoral college. It makes sense and kind of averages itself out.
derock789
Redrafting every few years would solve this problem for the most part. The system may be a little broken but it's better than none at all.
Imaybegotthis
Yeah they do every ten years
SepticStorm
redrafting? EC votes are adjusted with every census
RealScienceMan
That's not really true, they points are re-calculated every census. Wyoming just has the minimum number of votes.
viper1483
I feel that EC votes should split proportionally like ME & NE; i think winner take all dismisses ppls vote. But what do I know? (A: Nothing)
venslor
This might be lovely in a world where gerrymandering doesn't exist. Look at Michigan, split pres results, but only 5/14 house seats are dem
Igottiredofmyusernamesoichangedit
I thought 1 point per congressional district would be fair
Ikasnu
Because us Wyomingites are awesome
[deleted]
[deleted]
srsfaceI8C
It's actually worse than what @YesOtherBarry said. There's more people living in California per CA electoral vote than there is people (1)
srsfaceI8C
who even live in Wyoming, period. (2)
BusierThanAOneHandedHookerOnFreeHandjobNight
CA EC votes / CA pop = 55/38,800,000 = 1.42e-6 WY EC votes / WY pop = 3/584,000 = 5.14e-6. 5.14/1.42 = 3.62. 3.62 times, actually.
SepticStorm
EC is based on population, and can change
DrDresDog
Wyoming 3 vs California 55? I would say California has about 18 times the power of Wyoming
ChuckIHadADoubleBuurgerrr
Depends on the number of voters per electoral vote, actually. Each individual voter has more power.
UnfortunatelyTheHighKingofSkyrim
I think he's referencing the ration of population to electoral votes.
UnfortunatelyTheHighKingofSkyrim
ratio*, not ration
Luscus
Not per capita
TheDickofDestiny
Divide both by the amount of voters per state, you'll see that through pro-rata a dude from Wyoming's vote is technically worth more %
biolologist
Except that there are more than 18 times more people living in California.
ontimegreg
As they should
Justchuck
On behalf of all wyomingites on Imgur thank you for the acknowledgement of our superior state
TreesAndShit
There are dozens of us, dozens!
TheDickofDestiny
So all 27 of you guys are happy, I guess...
Ikasnu
Theres 28 guy.
Ikasnu
Now lets get rid of frontier days
Justchuck
Sheridan Wyo Rodeo for life
gegging
Yeah tell them like it is
madetheaccountjustforyou
That has nothing to do with change over time though. There's just a set minimum number of votes a state can have in determining it's leader.
bamcockseverywhere
The determination of what becomes a state and how large the states were was a political process designed to protect existing power.
bougie
But why?
madetheaccountjustforyou
Because we are a collection of States, not provinces? Each state gets to help pick the leader of it's federal organization?
bougie
But why disproportionately to their population?
madetheaccountjustforyou
For the same reason Sweden has the same vote in the EU as France does?
AGroupOfPugsIsCalledAGrumble
Plus it is theoretically possible to win the EC with less than 25% of the popular vote. Very improbable, but a sign of a broken system
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
3-So allowing the states to elect the president by giving them more pull than the popular vote is important. If we were to abolish the
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
2- states coming together and giving up a LITTLE power to unite into a stronger nation. Those states reserved the rest of the sovereignty.
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
4-electoral college then Rhode Island, who gave up absolute sovereignty to join the union would get ripped off simply because another state
petgoats
Even Canada isn't that bad, but we still insist on electoral reform every election because making Democracy more representative is important
Cncnorman
Wow. Wish we did this inAmerica. Maybe then it wouldn't be a good ol boy system.
Zegot
is it now actually happening or are they dragging their arse?
terithian
The electoral riding where I live was split into two separate ridings for the latest election, so that's something.
cloak71
It's in motion at the moment according to trudeaumetre.ca
petgoats
He has a board looking into it. Only two things holding him back I'd his popularity and whiny Conservatives worried about losing AB.
SepticStorm
30% and while technically possible it has never happened. it has only differed from popular vote 5X's in history and by very small magins
AGroupOfPugsIsCalledAGrumble
22% and this video shows the math https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
SepticStorm
ok, but still
zidiouz
Actually it is possible to win with just 21.91% of the popular vote, and those 5 times is 7% of all presidential elctions which is a lot
SepticStorm
7%, since when is 7% a lot?
zidiouz
It is a lot when that is the amount of times the least popular option won, imagine if in 7% of all soccer games the team with the fewest 1/2
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
5-has more people. That wasn't the bargain when the union was formed and it shouldn't be crapped on now.
Dicho83
Well, then you are ok with someone in the more populated states, having a less valuable vote? Say, about 3/5's?
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
Are you ok with people in california having less representation in the Senate?
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
Hilarious. But seriously, I am ok with it in the presidential election because the voting power is in the states not the people.
radas86
value, but why not change it to a fairer system where all votes count equally? 2)
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
2- And that's why I love our system. It avoids the many pitfalls of direct democracy and limits federal power.
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
I just explained that your concept of fairness is fairness to the individual. Our system was designed for fairness to the states.
ruthayy
Shouldn't the individual matter more than the state
radas86
It shouldn't be crapped on when your votes may mean significantly less because of where in the country you live? I get the historical 1)
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
Right, because the vote of the individual citizen isn't relevant. It's the vote of the STATES that matters in the presidential election.
radas86
But why, if that doesn't proportionally represent the population? Why not change it?
madrussian190
People keep forgetting we're not a democracy, rather a representative republic.
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
1-Not a broken system. People forget the president wasn't designed to be elected by the people. Our nation was created by several SOVEREIGN
Beepity
To whomever downvoted them: The Articles of Confederation formed the "federal" gov before the Constitution, and it was a shitshow. 1/2
Beepity
The 13 states were separate countries, because that's what "state" meant. See also, "coup d'état," and "l'état, c'est moi." 2/2
Beepity
Also each of the states had their own currency and inter-state trade was subject to tariffs, import tax, and export tax. 3/2
iLynux
This. The POTUS is President of the United STATES. Not the people. We don't directly elect the POTUS. The States do.
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
It's funny how we don't hear the same complaints about the Senate, which also was designed to give states equal power.
DougJones
That how it was and should be, the 17th amendment was a very bad idea.
iLynux
Because your average American doesn't really understand the Congress, State or Federal.
PasswordReset
This argument makes no sense in modern America. Used to be I was a Virginian first and an American second, but who thinks like that now?
UnpopularOpinionPuffinPersonified
We should. The circumstances and culture of our nation is SO diverse, a central government doesn't work well.
PasswordReset
The cultural divide is between rural and urban; it's just that some states are more rural. Under your logic power should rest with counties.