A Growing Number Of Critics Raise Alarms About The Electoral College

A Growing Number Of Critics Raise Alarms About The Electoral College


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


The narrative is always about blue states being undermined by red states with lower population due to electoral college and obviously it's accurate, but we should also focus on blue cities being sidelined by the red states they're in.. The Constitution doesn't grant any special powers to cities, and their budgets are to a large extent dependent upon state legislatures.. due to this, blue cities in red states like Houston, Nashville, Atlanta, Louisville, Charlotte etc. suffer due to their policies and agendas being diluted by their state government


In Missouri, the state legislature constantly won't enact things ***passed*** *be statewide ballot measure* because, "it only passed because of voters in Kansas City and St. Louis" so it doesn't count. 90% yes in the cities, and 49% in the rest of the state means it failed to the legislature.


This kind of stuff is so stupid and hypocritical. Why do urban voters matter less than rural voters? I’ve never understood the argument.


Rural voters keep republicans in power, that's why they matter more to republicans.


Rural voters are white.


It's more than that. Racial animus has definitely existed and has been stirred up a lot recently. That said many rural people still firmly believe they are the true backbone of the economy and the real drivers of growth and prosperity. They see those of us in the city as "fluff" and having no real intrinsic value. In their eyes, we don't really work for a living and we're all indolent slackers basically living off their hard work and tax money and we come out with our corporate interests and increasingly take their livelihoods away from them. It's a completely incorrect assumption on their part but it helps illustrate where some of their resentment comes from.


The biggest welfare queens in the country are farmers. Dairy, corn and soybeans are all queens.


Don't forget the many gigantic, massively expensive federally-built irrigation systems all over the west, which in many places farmers are completely dependent upon. Like the [Columbia Basin Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Basin_Project), which with Grand Coulee and multiple other dams and reservoirs, over 5,000 miles of canals and drains, makes over 1,000 square miles of semi-desert farmable. Originally farmers were supposed to pay fees that would eventually pay off the project, but that plan was never realistic and the fees have been lowered and lowered over time such that today they are little more than a token payment that covers only a tiny fraction of the cost of just keeping the project operating. I mean, maybe the country is better off with the project, but let's not pretend that the people working in it are not the beneficiaries of a huge and ongoing present from the federal government, without which they wouldn't be able to live the way they do at all.


Not the farmers. The farm owners, which are increasingly large corporate interests that break the farmers financially to trap them in the job.


Ironically, not unlike sharecropping. History repeats itself.


IIRC the counties Biden won accounted for something like 70-74% of the GDP, so the characterization of cities you mentioned rural people having is pretty ironic.


To be fair that cuts both ways. How often do people in urban environments look condescendingly on their rural neighbors.


I think there's a chicken and egg factor here, pun intended.


They should be treated equally. That’s the only answer. But that isn’t happening.


In reality? Nobody thinks anything about rural people. They are the ones obsessed with hating the cities.


They’re less white. It’s honestly nothing deeper than that.


Ding Ding Ding


There's nothing to understand because it's not an argument. It's a thing people say to themselves so they can pretend to be rational in defending what they know is a fucked up system.


Yeah I don't get that. Why is it bad if everyone's vote carries the same weight?


How is that legal??


Welp, for the Medicare expansion that recently passed, [our state assembly and our governor are refusing to fund it](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/missouri-governor-won-t-fund-medicaid-expansion-flouting-state-constitution-n1267265) They know it won’t hold up when challenged in court but they can delay it for years. Jefferson City is a cesspool — because voter initiatives have been the only recourse in recent years for initiating and passing progressive legislation, they are trying to [limit voter initiatives](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article249323870.html) as well.


That same state legislature made it so.


i.e. the voters keep reelecting the state legislators


More like the legislators made it so they choose their voters. After that it doesn’t much matter what the ballots say.


Make the law then claim the law is on their side.


It's not legal, but you have to sue to get them to follow the law.


Well duh, if they passed it then it'd mean liberals and city folk have a say in politics.


It's disturbing that this doesn't come up more in national discourse. Missouri is literally a failed democracy.


Live here, can confirm. Even better than refusing to fund Medicaid expansion was last year’s Amendment 3.


That was infuriating.


Pretty sure that’s not constitutional. Which is more reason why we the people need to demand an end to this electoral college bullshit


-gestures vaguely at Omaha where 75% of the Nebraska population is, is a blue city and yet Nebraska is considered a red state-


Texas Republicans loves to shit on Austin internally, but then brag about its growth on the national stage.


I love when they block our attempts at mass transit, like light rails or high speed trains. Like, hey assholes, you are stuck here too sometimes. If someone could just invent a high speed train that runs on coal or natural gas and destroys the environment, we'd have the best transit ever.


Can you use food coloring in a fog machine? Let's just set up electric vehicles across the board but add a muffler or chimney that spews dark grey/black propylene glycol fog. Middle America won't know the difference and will still be able to pretend they're rolling coal.


Not good enough. Don't forget, the Texas Lege overruled our plastic bag ban because it was hostile to the oil industry. Gotta make sure we're actively fucking the planet for their support. Texas is on a mission to melt Alaska down until we're the biggest state in the union again.


FWIW, in San Diego they passed a plastic bag 'ban' but what really happened is stores started charging $.10 for slightly thicker plastic bags, and then we got a big Hepatitis breakout because homeless people had been using those free bags to shit into, and without them a lot of that infected poo instead went onto the sidewalks.




In California voters have generally gotten behind addressing homelessness, but it's still a constant uphill battle to get things done. Trying to get homeless services, or low cost housing built can seem damn near impossible. The NIMBY is real. Where I live, an admittedly affluent part of LA county, people freak out if a park restoration will add bathroom facilities. They are convinced bathrooms will draw the homeless.




Probably. Having been to India though, I will say we really don't have anything comparable here. Until you have walked out of the opulent palace of a Raj, right into abject poverty, it's hard to grasp just how stark the division is. The worst parts of LA county are a paradise compared to the slums of Kolkata. In my travels I've seen some desperate places, but India has them all beat in shear magnitude. There are worse conditions in refugee camps, but that's about it.


Very few people think of themselves as villains / evil / immoral. So, of course they will acknowledge and disavow 'evils' like the India caste system, that are far away and that they can do nothing about. But if it involves actual change or sacrifice on their part, they'll go right on with the course of action that results in torture and torment for others instead while still thinking about themselves as though they're holy and intrinsically better than those they trod upon. Feels like we need educational reform at the lower grades, to ensure that empathy and societal cooperation are greater focuses, start undoing some of the 'I got mine so fuck everyone else' that is rampant in our society.


Give them homes, shit. In Texas they're criminalizing homelessness, as though locking them up was cheaper than to give them some food stamps, a little apartment/studio bungalow and a social worker to check up on them one a week and offer assistance/support. Prison guards aren't cheap, and even prison food isn't free, especially once you tack on the for profit prison's cut/fees. Purely on an economic level it's cheaper to treat them like people instead of pests. Even if you don't want to get into the whole 'morality' side of it.


So for us citizens, the economics are clear. It's more expensive to clothe, feed, and house prisoners than it would be to provide basic healthcare and housing to the same people in ways that support them and let them be productive. But the economics are also clear for oligarchs. Public funding is fun money. They don't care how much is spent or on what as long as they can make a dollar. Literally. They'd spend every single dollar that the federal and state governments spent if it made them a single cent more than they could make without it. So yes, prison is expensive. But the benefits to the very rich are that they've got a huge tax funded slave plantation that's effectively scattered across rural America, meaning they can lease very cheap labor, turn straw into gold, and sell it at market rates to pocket the profit. I expect to see a lot more criminalization of homelessness, especially as their easy supply of drug charges dries up. They will always go after populations that don't have a voice and aren't getting mainstream support.


On top of that, the average voter doesn't care how much it costs to *punish* someone that they find undesirable but absolutely cares about every penny spent to "reward" someone that they find undeserving.


Private prisons need those slave laborers to work on things, especially now that there is a movement to decriminalize drugs - have to find new ways to lock people up.




WWJD--right? Unless we're actually taking Supply Side Jesus as canon (they do in private), Jesus would definitely be for helping the homeless instead of locking them up... but, you know... Gaslight. Obstruct. Project. and all that...


The 13th amendment is why. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Legal slavery right there in our Constitution.


Add some loud VROOM VROOM engine noises to show how big your pecker is and you got yourself a fine idea!


To show how small your pecker is* FTFY




> dark grey/black propylene glycol fog We get it, your car vapes.


I feel like switching to a year-round legislature would be one of the best things for Austin, if for no reason other than our state representatives having to live here the whole time.


Just tell them the overhead lines will be powered by coal plants and actually require more energy because of the transmission loss.


> a high speed train that runs on coal The Mallard steam engine could go 125 miles per hour!


OK. Now find a way where we can make it run on endangered species and we'll be in business.


Same. Atlanta.


These cities drive the economies of their states, and then the Republican state governments do nothing but shit on then.


Las Vegas, NV enters the chat edit: actually we've only recently got a democratic state government so maybe things will change?


St. Louis and Kansas City: Allow us to introduce ourselves.


STL: Goes to raise minimum wage to 12/hr MO State Govt: No, I don't think you will.


The entire US. Same.


Atlanta. Same.


Jackson, MS definitely feels your pain.


Jackson is fucked so hard - shame for a state’s capital city to be in such poor shape


It might stand a slight chance of improving since we finally repealed that “any candidate for statewide office must **also** win a majority of counties” Jim Crow era law that was designed to make sure no black person could ever win.


What else are they gonna brag about? All the success and prosperity going on in rural Texas? Lol.


The… waning opioid epidemic maybe? If it is waning, that is. Did that legislation Trump passed concerning the opioid crisis actually do anything?


Remember Kellyanne Conway was the Opiod Czar and was going to bring Appalachian America around. 🤢🤮


Right after she investigates the Bowling Green Massacre


They could brag about how many people were gunned down this month by civilians standing their ground. Oh wait…..


Atlanta. Same.


Texas Republicans love to shit on everything that's not them and then brag about whatever/whomever is capable of thriving despite their attempts to suppress/oppress. Good example: Simone Biles. Texans, especially politicians, are embracing the GOAT she is this week (US Nationals were last week) while passing oppressive legislation against women and making it more difficult for people of color to vote.


Same… Orlando, Miami, and Tampa.


Jacksonville too! It’s growing by leaps and bounds economically and went blue in 2020.


Seminole County just went Blue, voted for Biden in the last election.


One of the top 10 swamp cities in Northern Florida!


Atlantis. Same


El dorado. Same


Shangri-La. Same.


Camelot. Same. Tis a silly place.


It's only a model...


Middle-Earth, same. ​ In fact, we all just wanted one small piece of jewelry destroyed and we united in our cause to see that end. A single hick delayed that for nigh half a millennium. Democracy dies to individualism.


Moon Base 2 samme


Moss-Eisley. Same.


Atlanta. Same.


The cities of Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff are having similar issues. They are trying to pass a flat tax in the legislature that would cut city budgets. The flat tax is in response to a ballot initiative that was voted on that would take the very rich in out state.


In Nashville the state legislature (GOP supermajority) has a history to saddling the city with purposefully bad policies and budget realities. Specifically because they want to prove how bad Democrat policies are.


It’s basically the domestic version of our foreign policy in Latin America - “How many times do we have to overthrow your governments to prove socialism doesn’t work!?”


These cities are also often as large or even *considerably* larger than entire states, but left at the mercy of the state government, that they can at best swing a couple of state legislative reps for in many cases. Even states that are overall democratic have suffered from this at the hands of *both* republicans and democrats, although the latter is much rarer. In the former case to allow a massive massive minority to control the state through state level gerrymandering, and in the later case to manipulate regions in order to prevent left leaning and grass roots candidates from winning elections over machine politicians. Also heck, sometimes to prevent really conservative regions from getting a conservative candidate, which is still bad on principle.


Why not give more power to state/city/localities that can craft policy around the demographics of their constituents. A one size fits all policy is either undermining more populated cities or less populated rural areas.


There are more Republicans in California than there are in Texas and more Democrats in Texas than there are in New York. Make it easy for everyone to vote and then count those motherfathers.


This. Republicans love to point to the cities to say how badly they are run but even NYC had to deal with a state legislator that voted Republican EVEN though it was majority Dems. In large part because a few Dems had to cater to a more conservative base. Luckily I believe that changed with Trumps elections but for the longest time NYC was fucked because of conservatives.


Why should the city people pay for your schools and roads? You know your tax base doesnt cover half of it.


But also if we divided the population of blue states among red states we’d still have more people voting blue Either way you slice it the “I don’t want blue states deciding fly over state outcomes” argument is bunk


Im fine with blue states deciding flyover state outcomes. We pay the taxes that run their ag subsidies and crop insurance, and because of that we get a say in how they conduct themselves. Especially when the type of outrageous tyrannical oppression that we impose upon them is that “Black people can vote as easily as white people” and “you have to teach actual history in history class”.


Exactly this. There is nothing in those empty red states and there is nobody living in those red states for a reason. Blue states and cities should decide the fate of the empty spaces around them.


There is a reason why they are empty. The largest states and cities all have access to oceans or rivers. And states that used to be empty, like Florida, are now huge due to advances like AC for one


Honestly though, it works the other way around too. Nearly 35% of California voted for trump in 2020. That’s more than 6 million people. There are millions of people who simply don’t vote because they don’t live in a swing state and they feel their vote wouldn’t matter. Abolishing the electoral college would allow everyone’s vote to matter. Republicans are just afraid because they know they have a losing platform and are too afraid to update their policies. They would rather invest their time in skirting the rules to ensure victory.


Milwaukee, WI too Milwaukee is being drained of the public funds it needs to properly operate the city and the money is going to red counties who contribute less overall to the state economy. Guess which party has been systemically ensuring that it happens for the last 20 years?


Shit, Minnesota doesn't have legal weed because our rural red fucks still won't vote on it because they control the state senate


Omaha. Same.




The way the Texan AG talked it sounded like he completely screwed over Houston and the like by blocking mail in ballot application. He knew doing so would hinder literally millions of voters in a state where Trump won by a few hundred thousand.


Margin by which Biden won the vote: 7,000,000 Margin by which Biden won the election: ~~65,009~~ 42,918 Split just the right way, that's all it would have taken in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, ~~and Nebraska~~ for the presidency to go to the guy who never even cracked a 50% approval rating. That is why no matter how obvious the outcome seems, everybody needs to vote in every state, every time. Edit: As pointed out below, Nebraska wasn't even necessary because at the time a 269-269 tie would have gone to Trump.


You don't even need Nebraska. Without it, the count is 269-269. It then goes to the House, which votes per state. There were 27 states on Jan 6 that had GOP majorities for their House delegations. Trump wins that vote. Which means the total vote difference wasn't 65k but rather about 43k.


To be fair though, that's just messing with numbers. Arizona and Georgia were not necessary for victory. It was just icing on the cake. Biden needed to rebuild the blue wall to win. If Biden won those 3 states, there was no mathematical way for Trump to win, just as when Trump won those in 2016, there was no mathematical way for Hillary to win. Biden won these states by: Pennsylvania: 80,000 Michigan: 154,000 Wisconsin: 20,000 250,000 votes. But it still shows the flaws of the EC where .00015% of people who voted determined the election.


I just picked the states with the narrowest margins. Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia would have gotten the electoral count to 269-269. As another user pointed out to me, even Nebraska wasn't necessary, because the tie-breaker would have gone to Trump.


Damn he won MI by over 100k? Hillary really was worthless


The alarms have been ringing for decades.


>In the runup to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, *twelve House Republicans issued an extraordinary statement* that acknowledged "Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years" The Senate allows states with a population of 500,000 to control the same votes as states with a population of 40 million (California has 100x the population of Wyoming). Gerrymandering empowers Republican legislatures to rig all state elections in their favor. Add in the electoral college and you have complete Minority Rule. Republicans know they can't win democratically, so the only option they have is to destroy it.


It's such a bullshit copout too, because in reality there will always be disgruntled Americans looking at the opposition party as a possible fix. Conservative ideology isn't dead or dying, just the fabricated identity that they've found works best for them. In other words, they say there won't ever be another republican president again because they're too short-sighted to recognize that they only need to concede on a few things to appeal to a broader base. But that in itself is conceding defeat to "wokeism" and so they are digging themselves their own graves.


> Conservative ideology isn't dead or dying, just the fabricated identity that they've found works best for them. What IS Conservative Ideology? Other then the BS culture wars issues what's in it that matters to anyone who isn't a millionaire?


>What IS Conservative Ideology? "Fuck everyone that isn't me"


> What IS Conservative Ideology? - Authoritarianism - In-group mentality (tribalism) - "Purity" https://youtu.be/8SOQduoLgRw?list=LL&t=510 I don't agree with 100% of what Jonathan Haidt has to say, but I find his arguments on the difference between conservatives and liberals pretty compelling. The spot on the above link is from a survey of thousands of Americans who self-identify as conservative or liberal, and essentially conservatives are feudalists who crave in-groups/tribalism, authority, and purity. Using these 3 values, I think you can explain a lot of conservative thought and actions. Trump cheats on wives (traditionally an impure value among Christianity) well that can be explained away by his status in the hierarchy. Trump is rich and powerful and thus he is pure, he is right. So whatever he did he MUST have had good reason to do so. It's the same with how conservatives justify their own moral inadequacies. "My way is the right way because I'm in the right group and I'm the moral one here" no matter what they do. They have to try to believe that because they believe purity is important. Essentially... my takeaway is that these people are a bit broken. I haven't read research on what it takes for someone to value harm (do-no-harm) or fairness more than purity, in-groups, and authority more but man we need some of whatever makes that happen. Some of the foundations of American Democracy as it is *written* are literally the antithesis of conservative beliefs in that "all men are created equal" (well there goes in-groups who should have more authority). You can see some conservative values in there too, but it's evident that the founds felt them to be less important than do no harm and equality. >Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


what does it take? A larger Amygdala (fear/anger area of the brain...yes other emotions too but a larger amygdala is associated with greater fear/anger responses)


> I find his arguments on the difference between conservatives and liberals pretty compelling. Of course he's "compelling", that's how he sells himself and makes his money Honestly think it's much more simple than that, conservatives love revenge, all that "owning the libs" is factually accurate The thing with revenge is that even if one gets the revenge they want it still doesn't make one happy, should maybe for one hot minute, but then it's worse and they are in search of their next revenge instead of doing something pleasurable Think about all those Trump supporters on reddit back in 2016 who were angry literally the next day after Trump won the presidency, they succeeded in denying a qualified woman president and proving that inequality reins in the US, that unqualified men still get the job before qualified women, but for most, that sweet feeling of revenge didn't last twentyfour hours


That's why I don't use the word conservative to describe republicans anymore.




*unborn babies. Babies don't matter once they're born.


Theoretically, conservatism is the belief that change should come about slowly, organically, and with deep respect for the lessons of history. Instead of relying on the bright ideas of radical thinkers -- and thus the weaknesses of human beings -- conservatism works on the assumption that history represents one long series of experiments and that our current systems are the result. Under this view, we should then change those systems only after fully understanding them, and only with due care -- though, to be clear, conservatism would allow those systems to change in response to developments in the world, new learning, etc. Just... carefully. It's not a bad idea, in theory. But if you can find me a Republican who actually follows it, I'll trade you a squirrel who shits dollar bills.


Conservative ideology is valuing tradition over progress. Religion, history, and family are core to that ideology, which is simultaneously antithetical to science, change, and non-traditional family structures.


Preservation of wealth.


I would argue that that *is* their ideology. They are a dying breed in this country, and will go to any length to prevent that from happening. They don't care about the people or the issues, they are just trying to survive in a world that doesn't want them anymore.


I’ve always believed what your comment indicates - republicans aren’t in danger of dying out, only the current iteration of republicans. If they could concede on a few issues and, ya know give the voters what they are asking for, they would be competitive to win legitimately. They are just clinging so much to their current ideas that they aren’t allowing any changes of philosophy or policy and creating the reality that they are unpopular. Rather than change they would rather cheat.


> Republicans know they can't win democratically https://i.imgur.com/FxI6I7L.mp4


Could always change the constitution and abolish the senate if you wanted, I suppose


fuck the electoral college, one person = one vote A small subset of swing vote states are determining our elections, that’s fucking ridiculous. we have presidents that can’t even carry a popular vote, that’s fucking ridiculous red states are altering their electoral system to override the will of the people when they sniff an outcome they don’t like, or get intoxicated over the latest conspiracy of the month, that’s fucking ridiculous get rid of it, one person = one vote


We can't even get basic voting rights in place. Like we can handle constitutional issues. Well, if we are just filling out wish lists: . Electoral college . Senate . FPTP voting . Gerrymandering . Citizens United . Political Party spending limits . Voter Access . Fundraising of incumbents


The fact that Republicans are calling the voting rights act “a power grab” (like they’re not playing the exact same game with their BS election security bills at the state and local level where they hold the power. Election security my ass, those bills about putting as many annoying obstacles in the way of apathetic/overworked/jaded voters that they can continue to win elections with a minority of the vote) gives the whole game away. How can they justify wanting LESS people to vote? They’re claiming that they’re trying to preserve democracy, but what they’re actually doing is preserving the status quo. And this country can’t take another decade of inaction and gridlock. Global warming, crumbling infrastructure, out of control healthcare costs, fucking domestic terrorists… these are very real problems that NEED some kind of solution, whether it be liberal or conservative. I’d rather abolish the filibuster and pass something, anything, just to try and start chipping away at these problems, then confirm for all the jaded Americans out there that federal government is incompetent/corrupt/ineffectual and never gets anything done. And Republicans LOVE doing nothing important. It’s their fucking platform at this point. Social issues as distractions to rile up their base and distract them from their real problems. If abolishing the filibuster means the Republicans will have to pass legislation that’s not just tax cuts, then let’s do it. Let’s force Republicans to try and solve our problems too, and if they fail, then it will be all the easier to vote them out. I don’t think Manchin realizes the irreparable harm he is doing to the country by preserving the filibuster and letting Republicans suppress the vote. I don’t know if he’s naive, stupid, or bought and paid for… but I hope and pray he comes to his senses before it’s too late.


Statehood for DC/Puerto Rico Split California into six states Expand the Supreme Court


You don’t need to split the states really, just remove the House cap and maybe rework the Senate. Creating or merging states would be easier because it likely wouldn’t require any constitutional changes, but it would get very political very quickly.


I think you could uncap the house with no constitutional issue but reworking the senate would probably need one


The Senate just needs to go or be completely neutered like the House of Lords


Sorry, but the issue is FPTP allocation of electors for the EC. The senate is locked in constitutionally to "equal" representation for the states and that "equal" part can't be changed without the states being willing. Adding states has always been political. Recent articles have gone through and shown that Republicans have added large numbers of states specifically to maintain political power. edit: For people not understanding, according to the 2016 election if we set the number of house reps at full multiples of WY population, Democratic states would have gained 50 representatives and therefore 50 additional votes in the Electoral College. Republican states however, would have gained 66 representatives and increased their Electoral College win despite absolutely NO CHANGE IN VOTE. **increasing the size of the house WILL NOT solve the Electoral College problem**


Expanding the House would make the EC better match the popular vote. That’s if we keep the EC though, which I think we should probably do away with too.


legal bribes/lobbying


6? fuck it, make 50 and they'd all still be larger than Wyoming


We should also split each NYC borough into it's own state. All but Staten Island have a population bigger than Wyoming.


My left buttcheek has a higher population than Wyoming, that's a terrible measure.


It takes 3/4 of states to amend the constitution, more than 1/4 of states benefit from this bullshit, I don’t see how we fix it anymore.


States can join interstate compacts without requiring a Constitutional amendment, so the easiest path forward would be to pass the [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) in a few more states. That's not a trivial hurdle, but way easier than a Constitutional amendment.


If you are a Republican voter who lives in California, you might not vote at all because you know it will go blue and your vote will not matter. I believe the system not only disenfranchises voters, but also undermines democracy in more subtle ways aswell.


The same thing happens to Democratic voters in my state.


I live in a state where the only motivation in most of my state for Republicans to vote is in local elections.


People say that, but Cali has 10 republican in the house of representatives, including David Nunes and Kevin McCarthy. Republicans control some very large areas of the state.


CA has the largest Republican population [EDIT: just drive down hwy 5 for a few hours and you’ll see] in the USA. There are just more Democratic voters. A good example of it’s Republican influence is how CA voted to allow Disneyland to continue paying the same property tax rate they have since 1978 last year.


We also locked in 1% property tax at time of sale which has turned housing into investments for rich people instead of shelter people can own instead of rent. We also gave y'all Reagan.


Don’t forget - those tax rates can be passed on to kid/grandkids ad infinitum, too. Libertarianism at work, ladies and gentlemen!


I did not mean to look biased towards either party. Just used them as an example for how the electoral college system is not a great way to run democracy


> Sure, the election may be decided by just a handful of states — swing states that can shift red or blue. But Smith, a Republican, says the battleground is diverse Nah, what this means is that the president often ends up winning on a technicality that involves a combination of voter purges, how many ballots can be *omitted* from the count, and now, more direct interference by state legislatures.


2024 will be a farce.


look I'm not a scholar or anything, I don't know all the minutiae of how the entirety of the American electoral process works but as someone who has been following American politics pretty closely since 2015 even I can tell something is off. No matter how the seats are divided, the GOP always seem to be the ones in charge. When they're in the majority they plow through their agenda because they supposedly have a "mandate" but when they're in the minority they need to be catered to because of a need for bipartisanship. Whether that's inherent to the system, the GOP is just evil, key players in the Democratic party are complicit in preserving the way things are or a combination of all 3 idk but either way this is unsustainable


There's a fundamental bit of history that you're missing. Both parties had progressive and conservative wings before 1964. After the Civil War, progressive Republicans went scorched earth on the newly reintegrated South. The entire South was Democrat until then. This allowed FDR to pass substantial progressive legislation because he had supermajorties in the Senate (over his four terms as President, but that's another story). Then the Civil Rights Act passed, lead by the efforts of a Southern Democrat, LBJ. He said that would cost the Democrats the South for a generation. He was optimistic. Starting with Nixon, guided by a guy named Lee Atwater, the Republicans undertook the Southern Strategy, where they courted the disgruntled South and successfully flipped the entire South from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. The Republican Party has gone full on conservative since that time, and has extended that same approach by bringing the Evangelicals and now to the populists (or right wing reactionaries) into the fold. Even now, when a few lone voices have spoken out against the Trump cult of personality, the Republican Party has managed to crush dissent. You have to admire the Republican Party's dedication and persistence to move in a given direction, even if that direction is terrible. The Democrats, on the other hand, are not a left wing party. They are still divided between progressives and conservatives. Maybe the Democrats need a left-wing version of Lee Atwater, driven by the outrage of current events to cause a sea change in the Democratic Party. Also, the Republicans operate on the principle of destroying the government. The Democrats are trying to actually accomplish something. It is easier to destroy, than to create. The Democrats can no longer count on supermajorities, because of aforementioned history, so they have to throw Republicans a bone in order to get a few to come over, otherwise nothing will get done. Also also, there's a guy named Rahm Emmanuel. The Democrats were trying a 50 state strategy under Howard Dean (the guy whose Presidential bid was tanked by being too enthusiastic on TV, how times have changed), to fund Democrats running in every race, everywhere. Rahm thought this was a waste of time and money, and redirected the DNC to only fund races where the Democrats had a chance of winning.


I've always said the Republicans are the strongest party because they are absolutely united, every step is in complete coordination. Even when they're doing nothing, they all do nothing. Democrats hate to admit they are splintered. Clinton and Sanders was that speration on a federal level. Now they mostly bicker between each other, not usually getting either


> Democrats hate to admit they are splintered That's common knowledge. As Bill Clinton said, getting Democrats to work together is like herding cats. Or, as Will Rogers put it: > I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.


It's because at least 10-15 Democrats are just Republicans. They'll ask if we want Mitch McConnel back, as if anything is being passed with Schumer anyways.


While I agree with this statement, i think the real issue is that the Republican party doesnt really have a platform other than cut taxes for wealthy and obstruct any progressive policies. Since their main goal is to supress/obstruct - its much easier to control since its harder to pass a bill than it is to kill a bill. The republicans dont ever need a 60-40 majority to pass anything because they dont have anything to pass or push forward that they cant achieve through executive order or reconciliation because they arent really interested in governing.


imagining a Bernie style leftist majority leader who wields his power as unapologetically and decisively as Mitch does gets me hard. I've only become more leftwing as a result of following the happenings in America. At the start I was this naive boy scout looking at Senate Dems like yaaaay these are the good guys, once they get a majority everything will be okay! whereas now I'm like lol fuck all these pandering corporate bootlickers


Lots of hot takes from partisan Republicans in this thread, since having a hopelessly partisan brain is the only way to continue backing the EC. What these people miss is that this very obvious reform would actually help the GOP long-term: instead of doubling down on fearmongering and ideological extremism, the party would finally have to come up with a new strategy that helps them appeal to the majority again. They'd actually need to craft a popular message, field popular candidates and start addressing real-world problems to build up a positive track record.


It's antiquated and should be dumped.


> But Smith, *a Republican*, says the battleground is diverse. Uh huh.


The Senate is anti-representative. The House is hobbled by a cap on the number of reps and corrupted by state-level gerrymandering. Whether the Electoral College is representative or not depends on arbitrary chance. Inequality was baked into our Constitution as an expedient to form a union; small states wouldn't join if they didn't receive outsized power. Hundreds of years later, do we still need this inequality to remain united? If we *don't*, then the inequality is unjust and should be ended. If we *do*, then we need to ask whether the Union is worth that price.


We can’t even agree that people should be able to vote. This will go nowhere.


It really only matters what Joe Manchin says.


Which is what the Koch brothers tell him to say


brother. one is dead


Have you ever realized that there's no right to vote actually written down anywhere? It's messed up! I think that's part of why states can play all sorts of games and make it inconvenient, convoluted, and difficult to do so. Citizens voting is sacred! It's what makes the government legitimate. Maybe this is something we need an amendment for.


Yet these critics never seem to point out why the electoral votes don't better reflect population distribution. The number of votes a state has comes from combining their representation in Congress and the house of Congress intended for proportional to the population representation hasn't been correctly adjusted by increasing the number of representatives since Congress froze it in 1929.


Everyone here is saying that the electoral college will never change, but I disagree. I think it's possible (not necessarily likely). If the Republicans are ever on the wrong side of an electoral college/popular vote split, then they will flip to being against it. People thin the electoral college always helps Republicans, so that would never happen, but it isn't so. The reason the electoral college helps Republicans is that there are more slightly-red states than slightly-blue states - Florida, NC, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan were all more Republican than the country as a whole in the last two elections and hold the balance of power. So the battle is fought on more red-friendly turf. But the partisan lean of the states changes over time, and has shifted before, and we can easily go from "lots of slightly-redder-than-average states" to "lots of slightly-bluer-than-average states".


The bottom line is that any changes to the electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment. And that will not happen, unless the Democrats can expand their reach to controlling 36 state Legislatures


I thought the electoral college was a dumb idea when I learned about it in Mr. Durbin's 6th grade social studies class, and at the time, so did Mr. Durbin. He was a republican if I recall, so I'm guessing he feels differently now.


Electoral college could be kept if we strike down "all or nothing". Instead of winner take all, candidates should "earn" their votes; meaning (for example) if a state has 10 electoral college votes and 1,000,000 people vote in the state then a candidate would receive an electoral college vote for every 100,000 votes they receive.


The problem is two fold. One, each state would have to do that and only Democrats actually want this. Two, Republicans prefer to "fix" the electoral college by making it per house district and two votes for the state winner.


You’re absolutely right that this would have to be done in every state. There is an argument to be made that the practice of all or nothing is voter suppression and if judges took that point of view it could be struck down by the courts rather than counting on congress to take care of it. The courts couldn't impose how votes are counted (I don't think) but they could end the atrocity that is all or nothing


The equal number of seats in the senate was intentional. It was designed to PROTECT smaller states from bigger ones. Great idea! The problem now is we have a disingenuous party that faces no consequences from its voters. In fact, they are rewarded for being dysfunctional.


> It was designed to PROTECT smaller states from bigger ones. Great idea! It's affirmative action for smaller states, which tend to be more [rural, white, and conservative](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senates-rural-skew-makes-it-very-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/) than the nation as a whole.


Intentionally terrible. Because of the way lines on the map are drawn some people are more represented than others. It's a perversion of democracy.


Gee, maybe perpetuating a tax-evasion racket put together by slave owners is *not* the best foundation for a system of government. After all, once you buy that fundamental lie, the rest of the excuses we make for profoundly dystopian governance don't seem like such a big stretch.


Doesn’t matter. It’s not going anywhere.


> But Smith, **a Republican**, says "Those states include some of the states with the heaviest minority populations in the United States, some of the states with the fewest minority populations in the United States," he said. "They include states from every region of the country, and that forces candidates to try to go out and have a platform that will appeal to the huge, diverse sections of America — or at least not grossly turn them off." And right there is the difference between the two parties, Democrats want **the people** to decide, Republicans are afraid **THOSE people** will decide. And their platform appeal sre slogans; "drain the swamp", "lock him/her up", MAGA.


Off topic but I think it says a lot about the state of our nation that the highest office of the legislature has a shitty cheap nylon wrinkled flag in the background. Seriously, they couldn't be arsed to put out a nice ironed cotton one!?


Considering no republican president, that wasn't an incumbent at the time, has been elected by winning the popular vote in my lifetime? yeah. I could have told you it was broken a long time ago.


It should absolutely be relegated to the past. Only the popular vote should elect the President.


How about taking a shit ton of power away from the executive branch so the college isn’t as critical and we don’t have to constantly worry about who the president is or what theyre up to?


It wasn't as a big of a deal back when the GOP was moderately sane but now the electoral college is a serious threat to democracy


https://www.history.com/.amp/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention >Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency. >But determining exactly how many electors to assign to each state was another sticking point. Here the divide was between slave-owning and non-slave-owning states. It was the same issue that plagued the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives: should or shouldn’t the Founders include slaves in counting a state’s population? In 1787, roughly 40 percent of people living in the Southern states were enslaved Black people, who couldn’t vote. James Madison from Virginia—where enslaved people accounted for 60 percent of the population—knew that either a direct presidential election, or one with electors divvied up according to free white residents only, wouldn’t fly in the South. >The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which enslaved Black people would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46). The roots of the electoral college are literally built on racism and slavery, but on brand, the United States continues to use it to decide the Presidency. It will never change, because Republicans will complain that they'll never win another election, because they're allergic to doing things that actually help anyone who isn't wealthy.


It’s so complicated now we ought to just do what is right from now on and count all the votes and winner of the popular vote wins every time no matter what. End the electoral college it’s a redundancy of Congress, essentially robbing the majority of the people from obtaining what ever it is they are actually voting for.


My Texas relatives always scream "WE DON'T WANT CALIFORNIA DECIDING ALL OF OUR ELECTIONS!" It really says something when your side has lost the popular vote as much as you have...


You mean, what everybody with half a brain and a backbone has been saying for decades?


The *President* shouldn’t prioritize one area over another. The President executes the laws Congress enacts. The things the President can do is limited by what Congress and the Constitution allows. Which means the whole concept of “the little states being overrun by the big states if the President is popularly elected” is meaningless with a 2 vote per state Senate and an at least one vote per state in the House. It’s not the President’s job to look out for local issues. That’s the local government, then the state government and whatever federally *Congress* decides on. One person=one vote.


So, teh US suffers from rampant gerrymandering, lacking an independent and impartial body to draw electoral boundaries, a voting system that, for the upper legislative chamber and for the executive government, favours land over people and a Senate that is hamstrung by an undemocratic fillibuster rule? The United States of America is a failed democracy. I don't get why the founding fathers are treated as infallible, almost god-like: they designed some pretty crap systems that might have made sense for all of about 5 minutes after they were actually put into place. Great in an ideal world; a disaster in the real world.


From the beginning the constitution was set up to keep white rich landowning men in power. I’m mean, sure as time went on, we can change and past laws to undo that. But they didn’t make it easy.


If republicans had to appeal to the majority of Americans it would be better. But electoral college prevents that.


I personally feel that the only change that needs to be made to the electoral college is that delegates within a state should be divided up according to how a candidate did in that state. So if the Democratic candidate wins 75% of the vote in that state, that candidate gets 75% of the delegates, while the Republican (or other party candidate) gets the remaining 25%. ​ This problem occurs in both directions. A Republican in California may as well not vote in the Presidential election, and traditionally a Democrat in Texas is in the same boat. Texas has been changing some, but is still a long way away from being a sure thing for a Democratic candidate.


Of course with that kind of change you get issues when the number of delegates doesn't smoothly split along the vote percentages, so why not just toss the delagate system out entirely at that point and use the votes directly


Yeah winner takes all for the EC is bullshit. If we are going to continue using the EC, then the electorates need to represent the vote distribution for their state.