The way our elected officials are elected was designed to prevent one group from taking over, even if 51 percent of the country agree with them.

The House of Representatives is elected by popular vote of the individual constituencies.

The Senate was originally chosen by the governor of the state whenever there was an opening.

And the President is chosen by a group of electors chosen by the people of each state.

The senate was already changed to match the house of reps voting method. Let’s not change the presidency to match the house and senate. The whole system was designed so that it gave everyone equal representation in our government.

[removed]

Hooray for Socialism

Tell me you hate America without telling me you hate America.

Ah Reddit spreader of the socialist bullshit

The Electoral College is in place to force presidential candidates to broad their appeal to different parts of the country and not just rack up votes in one region or a handful of cities, which would inevitably lead to polarization. No other advanced form of democracy has a popular vote without some form of mediating process designed to filter out those unqualified. Not to mention, a simple recount would suddenly become a national recount, and represent a logistical nightmare of having to verify every cast ballot.

Our electoral process is far from perfect, but a national popular vote is not the solution.

Please explain how this is socialism. It simply makes every person's vote count whether or not they live a swing state.

Every person vote already counts

That’s just not a truly accurate representation of how the plan works. The founding fathers intended to deny true democracy so that it was easier for the aristocracy to hold power.

In order to realize the potential of the opening statement of the constitution, “We the People of the United States …”, we need to evolve… we need to actualize what “We the People” means and that warrants a true democratic process. The current process is rigged via gerrymandering on the local/state level so why not remove the electoral college since it was designed to favor the wealthy

[removed]

Not equally with the electoral college and the Senate

Hahahhaaaa

Should the wealthy not have a say in politics?

We’re not supposed to have true democracy. The system was designed as a republic for a reason.

> The Electoral College is in place to force presidential candidates to broad their appeal to different parts of the country and not just rack up votes in one region or a handful of cities

Said with complete confidence, about a society that was >95% rural and farming-based when the electoral college was formed.

Also ignores that the EC was originally intended to be proportional, which fundamentally altered how it functioned.

Crazy how little certain people understand anything at all about US history.

Great example of why the word socialist means exactly nothing anymore

Get rid of the electoral college, get rid of voting districts, make it majority rules. Except that will never happen because no Republican would ever hold office ever again.

[deleted]

The wealthy do. They get one vote on election day like everyone else. Do they need more say?

Also, what reason are you referring to?

It’s Reddit not a spelling bee

[deleted]

Eat a fat dick.Is that better ?

Ranked choice voting would be amazing

[removed]

[removed]

Democrats are all for defending the interests of minorities, except when those minorities are political.

Also, the electoral college is only for the presidency, so that wouldn’t result in no Republican ever holding office again. Not sure what you mean by “get rid of voting districts.” The entire point of our governmental system is representation. Getting rid of voting districts would mean people in Philly voting for politicians that would represent Altoona, places that have distinctly different ideologies. That doesn’t seem very Democratic to me. It seems to me that, in a state that’s as close to 50-50 politically as any other state in the country, you want a political party with a narrow margin to rule over everyone. Why don’t you just make it easier and get the democrats to create one ring to rule them all in the dumpster fires of Philadelphia?

They definitely should not operate the entire system which currently portrays a plutocracy

Pure democracies end up becoming mob rule. In a true democracy, every person would have a vote on every decision of government. This may work on a small town, or even county level, but you start getting into entire states or even entire countries, it’s not plausible.

According to the Hoover Institution, -

“A “pure democracy,” explained Madison, “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” But a republic, he continued, “by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, . . . promises the cure for which we are seeking.” The Framers believed that cooler heads would prevail if the people’s impulses were funneled through elected representatives in government. And, in fact, representation was only one part of the Founders’ remedy for the mischiefs of faction. They also separated the powers of government among three branches, established a Senate in which states, not people, have equal voice, established the electoral college rather than direct popular vote for the selection of the president, divided powers between the national and state governments, and allowed that individual rights would prevail over national (and later state) power.”

The whole separation of power was not just the 3 branches of government, but also the types of representation.

[deleted]

People act like a Republican will never win the popular vote again. There is a solid chance, if DeSantis is the GOP candidate, he will win in a landslide.

Also, I can’t imagine a state- one considered a swing state, for that matter- would give up its influence in an election by signing on to such a plan. Imagine a very real scenario in which DeSantis wins the popular vote, but PA goes to Biden by a narrow margin. Under such a system, the will of the majority of PA voters would be disregarded. This is a terrible idea.

[deleted]

[removed]

[deleted]

I'm hung over so I'm just gonna call you an idiot and be done with it.

Nice retort.

Yea, the GOP is fine with it when it works their way.

​

>Said with complete confidence, about a society that was >95% rural and farming-based when the electoral college was formed.

Yes, said with confidence because it is true. Regardless of our country's composition in the late 1700's, present day, our country is largely concentrated in a handful of cities. Your rebuttal is like arguing to maintain a max limit of 50 states because our country started with 13 colonies.

>Also ignores that the EC was originally intended to be proportional, which fundamentally altered how it functioned.

The Electoral College was created during a tumultuous time in our nation's history. There isn't one reason or intent as to why the Founders adopted the Electoral College. Did you know that Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that he and the Founders shared a collective opinion that state viewpoints were actually more important than political minority viewpoints, and that individual state populations were more important than the opinion of the national population taken as a whole? Believe it.

And as you probably know, Mr. History Buff, in those same Papers, Hamilton wrote that he feared of a tyrant being able to manipulate public opinion and rise to power, so I find it entirely ironic that OP said, "...if we act now we won't be under another authoritarian threat in the near future." Made me laugh out loud.

>Crazy how little certain people understand anything at all about US history.

I'm well aware of my history, but thanks for your concern.

If I were to have it my way… benevolent dictator because our current system was never designed to represent the people, it is designed to represent the wealthy and business interests. However, no one is arguing for a pure democracy, you’re using standard lame propaganda to maintain the status quo which yields more power to the wealthy and corporations. Allowing for a more democratic approach wouldn’t remove the three branches… you’re grasping at straws.

You’re a brave soul

Not sure what your point is here my friend. This post is purely about presidential elections, not about everybody voting on every decision of the government. Your argument is indeed a straw man and I hope you can see that.

Also, nobody is going against states rights here. States can allocate electoral college votes however they wish to. Historically, it has been typical to allocate votes by whichever presidential candidate leads in the state. However, if states wish to allocate electoral votes based on the leading candidate in the national popular vote, that is entirely their choice. Nothing in our Constitution prohibits them from doing so. This is a view I agree with because it means my vote will matter even if my state is consistently a "red" or "blue" state.

The electoral college actually works very well at doing just what it was designed to do. Balance power between states and make sure that each state has a proportional representation in selecting a president

What’s broke is the two party system that decides the best path to the magic number. The two party system ensures that some states are never going to matter in a presidential election because they don’t have enough votes to make a difference

What are the pros and cons?

I’ll give you an answer. Because everybody in this sub are left wing idiots that can’t develop a full thought on their own.

The electoral college is horse shit. It was created so bigger states with far fewer people like Virginia wouldn't get over ruled by smaller states like new York even though new York has way more people. We should be doing this by majority rules. If we actually went by the will of majority of people in this country then the last Republican presidents term would have ended 30 years ago.

Clean up voting practices in Luzerne County.

I like most of your post, but you lost me when you settled for the usual Philly shit talk. As with any massive city, there are incredibly different experiences and areas, and people who are dumb enough (or think their audience is dumb enough) to water it down to a single instance of bullshit lose their credibility in my eyes.

I also have no clue what you mean by “when those minorities are political,” but I would love to know.

It’s been 19 years since a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote.

DeSantis barely won his first run for governor in Florida, and anyone who has seen him speak in person can tell you he is as tantalizing as whole wheat bread on 98-degree summer day.

If he refuses to grow his platform beyond “teachers and vaccines kill people,” I earnestly hope he becomes the Republican candidate.

DeSantis will not win the popular vote if he runs for president. Please bookmark this post or whatever this place lets you do.

What I meant by that statement is that sometimes Democrats are guilty of caring about the interests of minorities, except when those minorities are white, Christian, hillbillies.

You’re missing the point. Replace DeSantis with any other Republican candidate. There will undoubtedly be another Republican win the popular vote in the future, as these things ebb and flow. Either way, my point still stands, that in a swing state, you run the risk of making the majority of your votes not count, by signing on to such an agreement. This thing makes sense for a state that is firmly red or blue, but not a purple state. What would be better would be proportional distribution of electoral college votes. Winner take all seems silly.

I never spoke about getting rid of the electoral college, so you don’t need to waste time on that with me. I agree that the system needs to be tweaked, for sure, but if you tweak it to be granted more in proportion with population than land, republicans as we currently know them likely would never win the presidency again.

When are white Christians the minority?

Term limits while we’re at it!

The Senate does this. And the house does, as well, if you compare reps per capita between California and Wyoming, for example. Why do rural states need even more voting power in the executive branch, as well?

Only legitimate con is that it takes longer to count… aside from that it’s all upside.

I hear this argument for the way things are apportioned all the time from republicans and how it's unfair for rural districts. Instead, we are dealing with a situation where legislation is being past that is against the will of the majority of voters. That isn't fair either. When this system was first proposed, the majority of the population were living in rural areas. It was never about making sure that the minority had a fair say in legislation or elections. It was always about making sure that the rural communities held sway over city dwellers.

You're talking about the writings of one individual. As you pointed out, things have changed. The present system minimizes the will of the majority and it is time to reconsider how the populace is represented. I find it especially egregious that the religious right holds so much sway over our society, legislating with a single focus.

Even as a democrat voter, majority rules is a terrible fucking idea and a direct democracy is a horrible idea. The people who founded the US set up the electoral college specifically as a check to ensure that certain states didn’t control the elections of the entire country. What affects the 49% is as important as what affects the 51%, an avoidance of the tyranny of the majority is important and they specifically designed our electoral process to ensure that everyone is represented.

The electoral college being in place was initially what allowed minorities to have an actual voice in the United States when it came to voting. It meant that majority white regions of the country couldn’t completely be dwarfed by larger white populations, the same generally goes for districting states rather than just having two representatives and two senators.

We added more representatives to the states to represent smaller populations. Someone is always gonna lose an election, but our entire electoral process ensures that everyone’s voice is ultimately heard.

If we go majority rules, than 51% of the country basically controls the federal government and the presidency and there is no room for the other 49% to hold any level of power.

The liberals of the time knew majority rules was a really terrible fucking idea for the ENTIRE US and it remains a really terrible fucking idea. Small scale? Sure it works for districts and even states, but on a federal level without the electoral college a massive population of the US wouldn’t even try to vote because it would be pointless.

It’s a really good way to turn us into a one-party state, and even if that party is my party I don’t like that at all.

Mfs out here actually advocating for dictatorship 💀

Everyone’s vote already does count, eliminating the electoral college and creating a popular vote majority-rules state would make even less people’s votes count

And yet certain states DO control the elections of the entire county. It's almost like the system doesn't work at all.

lol the system literally does work and people who think it doesn’t are coping. Primarily, all those dumbfucks who assaulted the capital building when they didn’t get a result they liked. Idk if you noticed but it’s working, more often than not our systems work.

PA has a good representative and a good governor, the people spoke. Same goes with the presidency. The people wanted something different, it didn’t work out, they brought Brandon in.

The only time our system didn’t work was when Woodrow Wilson was elected, because two candidates 60% of the country liked split that vote in half and Wilson won with less than 50% of both the popular and electoral college.

And he was the worst president we have ever had, and it’s not close.

>The present system minimizes the will of the majority and it is time to reconsider how the populace is represented.

The present system actually does the opposite and protects minority interests.

You’re really out here pretending you wouldn’t want a benevolent dictator of a country with the same rights and abilities as US citizens but with funded healthcare, education, housing and social services?

Oh and you don’t have to vote

Let's just tally all the counties. "How much of this country wants those people to represnt them?" Counties are a great representation of your community and where you live and operate and pay taxes. So if your county has a majority one way...then that gets tallied to the one of two sides. The party/candidate with the most counties wins.

Democracy as in not squashing free speech on social platforms or being cancelled for voicing opinions that aren’t popular?

I support the rights of political minorities. Just not their right to rule and push through unpopular policies that fuck over most of the people. Trying to make the government less representative of the will of the voters is the definition of corruption.

If you are a voter in Delaware, then sure, your vote will count less. Currently they get 1 electoral vote per 333,000 residents. However, if you are in Texas, you get 1 vote per every 718,000 residents. So residents in Texas would have their vote count more whereas residents of Delaware would have their vote count less. Overall though, going by popular vote for presidential elections is a much more fair, especially for residents of populous states.

[deleted]

But "proportional" representation isn't really "proportional" in this country.

Read the literature from Common Cause; it will clarify things for you.

Please read the Common Cause information before venturing opinions. It will clarify things for a lot of you who have just voiced opinions.

Why aren’t elections term limits?

That’s like the electoral college. No thank you.

No, alongside with eliminating the electoral college, implementing term limits for roles like senators and Supreme Court justices.

Terms are already limited., voters just need to do their jobs. The Supreme Court needs a mandatory retirement age, there has been a group advocating for that for years.

If PA limited the terms of those we send to DC, it would put us at a severe disadvantage.

I’m all for getting rid of folks who aren’t doing their job, but there’s something to be said for those who know how it all works and are good at it.

Get the dark money out of politics.

Yeah no fuck that, I’m absolutely telling you that.

I don’t care how many benefits they bring, benevolent or not, if I get no say in who is governing me than they shouldn’t have the right to govern. The governed should choose their governors

If we want universal healthcare, education, etc. we vote for someone who will implement it. They do it because the will of the people matters first. If the people don’t vote for it, if it doesn’t pass, we don’t get it.

Benevolent dictators isn’t worth the risk, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The chances of finding someone infallible to become a dictator is so slim and so rare, if 1/10 dictators was benevolent, but I had a 9/10 chance of them being brutal and oppressive, that chance isn’t worth it.

In a perfect, utopia society where humans aren’t flawed, sure

So the basic cope now is that my vote already doesn’t matter, so I should get rid of the only safeguard making sure I have a voice to make it matter even less because the entire country is gonna be controlled by California and New York?

So rather than have multiple swing states we should just have urban population centers control the executive branch?

It's actually nothing like the electoral college. There are more counties represented in comparison to population.

We are a Republic, and Biden has been the biggest Authoritarian Dictator in American history.

Electoral college is genius and we are a representative democracy. Electoral college prevents two cities from making every decision for the rest of the state.

And that is exactly why we have an electoral college. Most of the state is rural. Why should two cities decide everything? They don’t know nor do they care what is happening in the rest of the state.

I read the literature. It doesnt clarify any of the side effects of eliminating the Electoral College, probably because Common Cause is a left-wing organization packed with partisan shills.

So many contradictory statements but in the end you agreed. A benevolent dictator makes sense

[removed]

An insane statement, if I've ever read one.

Democracy as in reasonable discourse, not insane rants or total lies.

A benevolent dictator basically doesn’t exist in our reality

In a perfect utopia world sure it would be great

I don’t understand how anything I said went over your head

Dictators bad, no matter what, nobody stays benevolent for long unless the stars align perfectly to create the absolute most infallible human to exist.

If people were perfect, a dictator would be fine, because he wouldn’t be corrupted by power.

But in the real world, that isn’t really possible, there is quite literally only one historical example ever in the history of humanity of a benevolent dictator and it was two and a half millennia ago, and even he isn’t a perfect example of a leader, and all modern examples are either elected or were actual pieces of shit like Ataturk or Tito. Even better guys like France-Albert Rene actively suppressed any criticism of his regime and didn’t begin liberalizing until the 1990s.

Any presidency with unchecked power is dangerous, and unless you find a literal perfect human, it’s far to dangerous to give that power to anyone. Because they will use it to violate the rights of the people. Democracy exists to protect the basic rights of the people.

That’s a lot of words to say you agree.

Why should the minority decide everything? If that's not fair to Rural communities, then it's not fair to population centers.

Its not two cities making decisions, its every person having an equal say. You shouldn't get extra votes just because you opted to live in the middle of nowhere.

That's what I said? Read my comment again.

That’s why every county should only get one single vote. Everyone in Philly has the same interest. They don’t each get a vote. We aren’t a direct democracy. What if Philly runs out of water. And they decide to take it from the poconos and pipe it in. Ok let’s put it to a vote. Well there are more people in Philly so we are just going to take the water.

This is why we have a bicameral Congress. One house based on population and one given a set equal amount of votes.

Learn your history.

Awh. Why should one tiny area of the state get to make decisions for the entire jigsaw area? The population of Philly and Pittsburgh combined is 2 million. The population of PA is 12.5 million. I just cannot do the work for you. Look it up. We are not and never will be a direct democracy. Google great compromise.

I mean if you’re willing to concede that it literally isn’t possible than we agree, because that’s my position

Yes, that is what you said. I copy and pasted your text.

I'll reiterate what I said:

The present system does not minimize the will of the majority. The present system actually protects minority interests.

>The population of Philly and Pittsburgh combined is 2 million. The population of PA is 12.5 million

Okay, then they wouldn't be able to control the entire state. So what are we talking about?

And remind me what seats in PA's government are even chosen by an electoral college again?

No. Do your own research. Your education is lacking.

That is absolutist; we're already living this when the counties in the rural areas are dictating gun safety laws that are detrimental to the cities, and also undermining womens rights, setting minimum wage and not allowing additional funding for public transportation.

I understand history enough to know that the current system is inequitable, and your solution of a vote per county is ludicrous.

Fine, couch it in those terms, because it protects your priorities while the majority has to bow to what benefits only you.

As is yours. Why on earth would my county subsidized your public transportation?

And this is why we have a bicameral Congress.

Thank you for illustrating the point so well.

If you’re willing to agree our current system allows for the hoarding of power into the hands of the wealthy and is a plutocracy which makes voting nothing more than an act of accepting your servitude.

The answer is that PA doesn't use an electoral college for internal election, so your whole point is irrelevant.

Reflect on the fact that you're so eager to tell people to educate themselves without even understanding the topic yourself.

Translation - No tyranny by majority; the majority cannot unilaterally create and promulgate law without considering the interests of the minority.

This is why we need a new system. As it stands, we have minority rule.

Then why should the majority subsidize your roads? After all, we don't live in your county. That is completely asinine.

Our executive branch is (D), and presently Congress is majority (D). Arguing that we have "minority rule" would be like conservatives using that as an excuse when Trump was POTUS and Republicans had a majority in Congress, and yet Democrats were able to stand firm on their commitments to their voter base with a few bills that never passed.

It ebbs and flows throughout history. Always have and always will.

The Republicans have held majorities in state houses for decades. They have done everything to stay in power, including gerrymandering. Look at what Republicans are trying to do with SB8 here in PA, or what they attempted with this last election and trying to steal the majority back from democrats.

Mastriano and several other lawmakers tried to submit an alternate slate of electors for the 2020 election. Republican in PA have held power for decades on one level or another in PA for decades.

95% of incumbents are re-elected.

The problem with the Electoral college is that states like California have too much power. Electoral votes should be capped at no more than 20 per state.

California is a bigger state and has more people than a place like Virginia, so all of those people in California should just be overruled because Virginia says so? Pennsylvania has more power than either of those states because it's just the right population, should either of those states have less of a say in what happens? Majority rules is at least fair.

>Authoritarian Dictator in American history

Can you give some examples? I am genuinely curious what makes you think this.

I won’t, because we live in a liberal democracy where voting matters and believing that it doesn’t is just cope

Ahhh damn, we’re so close!

Voting in our current system has little positive impact for the greater good. We don’t have enough politicians fighting for more freedom, we have a political system that has been taken over by corporations, lobbyists, and nutjob religious fanatics… Freedom in America has been slowly dying since neoliberalism was kicked into high gear by Reagan. Your vote is nothing more than giving a corporate puppet power over you.

Edit: sure we stopped overt fascism from winning the executive branch in 2020 but fascism is still churning away!

Voting in our current system has a lot of effect on people especially if you vote in state and local elections. Voting for your governor and representatives is gonna have way more effect on your life than people realize, and the system literally still works

Also Neoliberalism is absolutely fucking based. capitalism, immigration, globalism, liberalism, secularism, anti-populism anti-fascism and anti-fascism, horrendously based. Social democracy is pretty rad too but they’re pretty similar anyway. We dominate the planet in soft power and culture and no force has been better for humanity than capitalism, globalism and liberalism in all of human history.

Pros:

You know how we constantly have to pick the "lesser of two evils" because of our two-party system? A two-party system is only guaranteed in a first-past-the-post voting system.

Ranked choice voting gives (typically) three choices and you rank them in order of preference. If, after the first tabulation, a candidate does not have a majority of first-preference votes, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. If the eliminated candidate was one of your choices, your vote transfers to your other choices. This cycle of tabulation, elimination, and transference continues until a candidate has a majority. This system would allow third parties to exist and be electorally competitive, as people will be able to vote for them without "wasting their votes."

Cons:

Honestly, it takes longer and could potentially be confusing.

You clearly do not understand what any of those words mean.

“Fox News says California libruhls bad.”

It sounds to me like you want the same thing he wants, you just want it the OTHER way.

You don't want the rural parts of the state dictating how the cities live. That is fair and understandable.

But you seem to be okay with the idea of the cities dictating how the rural part of the state live. That is not fair and is rather hypocritical.

There is no easy solution to this situation.

I live in a red county that has 30-40% democrats. You would basically be telling them their vote would no longer count for anything. Bad enough I have to put up with the misogynistic self aggrandizing schmuck they installed for the state legislature.

They keep saying "save our democracy". That sounds like a democracy to me.

Alaska is three times the size of California yet California gets 18 times the votes. Sorry that you don’t think the jams and environment is important. Encouraging states to grow population is bizarre.

Maybe if you had bothered to read at all you'd know that I don't care how big the state is geographically, California probably has 18 times the population of Alaska and therefore should have more say.

Land doesn't vote. People vote

I'm with you 100%, but it's also valid to question who defines "reasonable". We'd be happy if the people we agree with define that favorably, but by the same token that's leaving room for malicious intent to redefine "reasonable" to something harmful.

Just food for thought. (I can definitely get on board with censoring straight up lies coming out of our so-called leaders' mouths, though!)