Comment by PizzaMan@lemmy.world on Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College

cross-posted from: https://kbin.social /m/news@lemmy.world/t/488620

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.

Why does that matter? The people want a better electoral system, one that treats all votes equally.

“Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States, or to the People.” -10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Restrict the federal government’s power to only those powers explicitly delegated to them by the Constitution and I’d be ok with eliminating the Electoral College.

Why would that be relevant to switching to a voting system that produces winners that more accurately reflects the will of the people?

Because the will of the people in your definition is the will of a handful of cities and our country is too big for that.

Also it’s the law. It’s literally in the Constitution.

Because the will of the people in your definition is the will of a handful of cities

No it’s not. A popular vote is a vote that reflects what the majority want. It has nothing to do with the location of the voter. We should not have the weight of our votes be effected by where we live, like we currently have with the electoral college. My vote should count the same way as anybody else’s, and so should yours.

Ideally the presidency and all other offices would be handled with STAR or approval voting, as they do not produce spoiler effects, weights by voter location, and help reduce extremist candidates.

It’s literally in the Constitution.

And it needs to change because the current system is fundamentally flawed. Our current system weights a voter’s voice by where they live, ignores huge swaths of people, has a spoiler effect, and does nothing to stop extremist candidates.

People in swing states should not get the only say.

Swing states don’t get the only say, a vote in an uncontested or lopsided race is still counted. All you are complaining about is you want your state to feel special on election night.

Swing states don’t get the only say

They effectively do.

a vote in an uncontested or lopsided race is still counted.

But they are effectively meaningless because California will always vote blue and Texas will always vote red. If you try to vote against your state’s pre-selected candidate your vote basically just gets tossed.

Actually it’s worse, since your population contribution actually ends up going towards electors that vote against what you voted for.

All you are complaining about is you want your state to feel special on election night.

No, I want all votes to be counted equally. I live in a swing state, and unless you live in a tighter swing state, my vote means more than yours ever will. That’s bullshit, and a fundamentally bad design.

My state shouldn’t be special. That’s the whole point of getting rid of the electoral college, to ensure all votes are counted equally regardless of origin of state.

Slabs of stone don’t have will. People have.

It matters which people want it. Certainly, if the sample was all in Kansas it would be different than if they were in New York.

Where people live shouldn’t effect their voice in who is president. And the majority of Americans recognize that.

The voice of a New Yorker should not be more important than a Kansan, and a Kansan’s voice should not be more important than a New Yorker.

I’m sure those peo0le in the electoral college’s area of influence agree with you…or do they?

The whole point is that the electoral college is a bad way of determining agreement.

All votes should be equal.

The whole point of the electoral college is to give equitable representation to every state.

But it isn’t equitable because presidential candidates only ever pay attention to swing states.

And people should be represented equally. The location of a citizen shouldn’t effect the strength of their voice.

Ever single other public office in the U.S is voted by popular vote. If there were problems with it then why don’t we have mini electoral colleges for each seat? The president should be a popular vote, no different than any other office.

Why does the state matter at all…?

Why should a vote be counted differently depending on the state it was cast in?

Pretty sure that’s the senate.

Ah, only certain people matter

It was designed to be unequal on purpose. The electoral is what keeps us from being ruled by the masses. It should not change.

So instead we get minority rule. Soooooo much better when the small number of loonies get to derail a functional government with a temper tantrum that ‘the masses’ want.

It’s a badly designed system, and claiming it’s like this on purpose doesn’t negate how bad the system is. Also, we should not be chained to ideas that came around 250 years ago when other people have improved on the idea and made it less shitty.

Not at all. We are ruled by the states.

The system is fine. It allows all states to have some say in the process.

Who gives a fuck about the states’ vote? States are just containers for people, and an excuse that the minority loves to use to explain how they get to rule over majority.

The electoral college is an undemocratic and broken system that makes my vote in a small state worth more than your vote in a bigger state.

A vote is a vote, and only losers need to remove the vote from the masses to be able to win. It’s literally the only reason there’s been a Republican president since H.W., and it’s no surprise they’re desperate to keep around the undemocratic voting method that allows them to steal elections they didn’t win.

Wow fascist much?

States are entities under the government with their own laws.

We are not a democracy fascist. We are a constitutional republic. The founding fathers had no interest in a rule by the masses nor do i.

Maybe you should learn the history of our government and why it was designed the way it was rather than pushing weird fascist ideology that states don’t matter and only the federal government counts.

We’d break as a nation quickly under your ideology.

Wow fascist much?

Lol, you don’t know what words mean and are just trying to sound cool. ProTip: just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it fascist.

But I would love to see your melted brain actually explain how ‘every citizen having an equal vote’ resembles fascistic tendencies like only protecting the in group, but that would require an actual understanding of fascism.

The founding fathers had no interest in a rule by the masses nor do i.

They also didn’t want anyone other than landholding white men to vote, but we’ve realized that’s a stupid idea. The founding fathers didn’t give you a holy document to be reversed, they wrote a framework they expected us to modify.

Maybe you should learn the history of our government and why it was designed the way it was rather than pushing weird fascist ideology that states don’t matter and only the federal government counts.

Bold of you to think I don’t understand why they did what they did and still think it’s a bad system. Also, again with the uneducated claim of fascism.

And you really need to work on your reading comprehension, I said the states’ votes don’t matter, because I think every citizen should vote, not land.

We’d break as a nation quickly under your ideology.

Ahahaha, you clearly don’t see how the nation is breaking down around us under the current system.

So you don’t want democracy?

We are ruled by the states.

Lines on map can’t rule. Only people can.

It was designed to be unequal on purpose

What a convincing argument of its continued existence.

The electoral is what keeps us from being ruled by the masses.

It doesn’t do that, all it does is give people in swing states a bigger voice than anybody else, which is a terrible thing for our country.

Everybody should have a voice, instead it’s just a handful of people in a small set of states.

Doesn’t sound like you’re a conservative or believe in a republic.

A popular vote would mean the costal areas would have the largest vote and rural areas would get ignored.

It would quickly lead to a breakup up of the union.

Doesn’t sound like you’re a conservative

I’m not.

or believe in a republic.

I do. But ours is in need of reform to make it a better republic that more accurately reflects the will of the people.

A popular vote would mean the costal areas would have the largest vote and rural areas would get ignored.

That’s already what happens under the electoral college.

And every single other electected position in government goes by what is essentially a popular vote, if this was such a problem, all other positions would also be electoral college.

It would quickly lead to a breakup up of the union.

The U.S. is the only country that uses an electoral college. All other countries that exist, and are democratic republics use a popular vote and they’re just fine.

If a popular vote for presidency would cause the destruction of this country, why hasn’t popular vote for all other positions done so already? It’s because this is just fearmongering based on zero evidence. Actually it’s worse, because there is plenty of evidence it wouldn’t do this because of the aforementioned other countries that use popular vote.

Not sure you understand what a republic.

Every other vote is at a state level. What other position is elected nationally?

They’re not fine. They’re ok. America is unique and why we are the only super power.

We only do popular votes at the state level.

What other position is elected nationally?

The level at which the election runs is not what I am getting at.

We only do popular votes at the state level.

And they don’t destroy our country despite our states having a rural/urban divide. So our federal elections should be no different.

We have the senate, which is needed to pass any law and gives equal representation to the states. We have the supreme court, which can strike down any law as unconstitutional. We have plenty of checks on mob rule without disenfranchising a gigantic swath of voters.

Then why don’t we institute the “” It’s not “rule by the masses” but much more representative of what the population wants.

Or why don’t we just keep the system that works and has kept the country running. Why change something when it works as designed ?

Why change something when it works as designed ?

This argument could unironically have been used to support the continued use of gas chambers in Nazi Germany.

Just because something is “working” as designed doesn’t mean we should keep using it. If the design is terrible then it needs replaced.

Godwins law.

The design is fine. It keeps us stable as a nation.

Also it’ll never pass. 3/4 of the states will never approve it. It’s a non-starter

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

No racism or bigotry.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
No spam posting.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
No trolling.

Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College(www.pewresearch.org)

conservative

!conservative@lemmy.world

Community stats

Community moderators