2 out of the last 5 US Presidential Elections have had the popular vote winner be a different candidate than the electoral vote winner. Is it a coincidence it benefited the republicans both times?
The popular vote is meaningless
No. Because Republicans are located all across the country. Democrats seem to be concentrated in certain areas. The point of the electoral college, is so the country isn’t ruled by a couple of states.
No, and it's also not a coincidence that out of the last 11 elections for the US House that Democrats have won the popular vote 4 times and only won the House 2 times.
instead of going to a popular vote, keep the electoral college, but make it proportional to the popular vote. ie. if 60% of people vote right and 40% vote left, 6 electoral votes go red and 4 go blue.
I would be ok with this. I would also like to see the default 2 votes to be removed as well
I would like to keep that, especially as a tie breaker in this scenario.
I think the electoral college was a genius idea. But you can't say that the popular vote would have turned out the same if the electoral college didn't exist. Trump had a better electoral ground game. Hillary flat out ignored certain states, to her detriment. To assume both candidates would have campaigned exactly the same and the results would have been the same if the rules were set up differently is just inaccurate.
No, its the way the system is set up to be.
This way major metropolitan areas don't just decide things for everyone else. For example California is dominated politically by LA and Bay area which are heavily Dem. Take away Cali from the popular vote and Trump wins the popular vote of the other 49 states.
Ok, but California is part of the us and her citizens get a voice.
Also, Trump voters in California don't get a voice because of the EC.
Yes they got a voice, they just don't get to dominate, that's the point.
Actually by electoral vote has the biggest voice ...
As far as Trump voters in Cali being disenfranchised, that is absurd. They got to vote and have their voice, they lost in that state, losing does not equal not being heard.
I would be for electoral reform but their are many better options then a flat popular vote. Democrats act like this so progressive and get really snobby and annoying. For advocating for a basic dumb system that would be just as bad if not worse.
But no one thinks outside the box, the problem isn't oh no the electoral college! How about the fact it's impossible to have third parties be competitive in congressional and presidential elections? Lets do a percent based national system for determining congress, instead of county first past the post. Meaning If libertarian candidates get 3% nation wide they get 3% of the congressional seats. This would solve half of americas corruption right of the bat and end the two party system.
And republicans before you tell me district first past the post is better because your congressman respresents you bs, you know your congressman doesn't give a shit about you.
Idea #2 round presidential voting, make third parties competitive. Just like In France and many other countries. The two candidates who get the highest percentage in the first round move too the second where they are the only two options. This way their would be an actual debate on wether the democrats and republicans would even be the two default parties ever election. This would let us have ACTUAL democracy
Not all of them support flat popular vote, I’m pretty sure most prefer the two-round alternative.
The First looks more like something for local and state elections.
I mean I guess the system we used in France is okay but sometimes multiple parties are just as annoying
At least the people have fair representation. For every step to fairness, a price must be paid. We just need to make sure that price is small.
A simple solution for the two party problem is to use alternative voting. That way, everyone ranks their votes in order of preference. Then, when tallying the votes, if someone gets over 50%, they win. If nobody does, the least popular candidate is eliminated, and all the people that voted for them get their votes moved to their number 2 choice. Repeat until someone hits a majority. That way, you can vote for, for example, a libertarian, but still put your major party on there so you don't get the "voting for a third party lets the other person win!" problem.
True, but that makes extremely complicated and annoying. It will be full of recounts and might even delay the inauguration.
I think the American system works. The fifth republic in France hasn't gotten any better since we abolished the electoral college back in the early 1960's
Electoral College Math
The population of California is 38,800,000
The population of Wyoming is 584,153
It takes 705,454 Californians to equal 1 EC vote.
It takes 194,717 Wyomingites to equal 1 EC vote.
That makes every vote from Wyoming worth 362% what each vote in California is worth.
You can call it whatever you like, but that’s not right.
The electoral college provides an unfair advantage to republican states. A vote in wyoming is worth three in California.
More, but the Republican party just appeals to smaller states. If the Democrats has an issue with that they would change policy.
Why are we giving small states sometimes up to four times the voting power in the first place?
Vermont. Rhode Island, Maine, the reason the college favors republicans is because, the democrats will get 65% in California (largest state by far) anf much higher percentages in their core areas, New England and the west coast. So the republicans win the swing states but since the margins are so one sided in liberal states they win the popular vote. Not a hard concept
Swing states are pretty evenly split between the parties, and that doesnt answer the question.
That's not what I said raging. I said liberal states have a much larger margin then many the states that go republican. 65% in California isn't equivalent too 65% in Utah.
Thank God for the Electoral College.
You are proving my point. Republicans don't care, the just want to be in charge
I'm not Republican but last time I checked our country is a REPUBLIC not a democracy
I don't care. We claim to be spreading democracy around the world, yet we aren't one ourselves? Regardless, we should be a democracy.
Um.... but we aren't. So the system clearly works with what we represent. I'm suggesting you move to Switzerland if you want direct democracy because I'm from Europe and although Americans have the illusions that everything here is directly voted on, that's not the case. Even democracies aren't fair and it's a perfect example that life isn't fair so just live t and move on. The only place that "true" democracy ( if there is even such thing) exist is in Switzerland but good luck with the high taxes and prices. Better stock up on some Swiss Francs.
smh... Sad to have youth abounding in ignorance and apathy.
You are TOTALLY a Republican.
A person does not have to be a Republican to recognize foolishness. Libertarian, especially, would recognize those elements in the above comments.
I am leaning no because Republicans tend to attract rural voters and the electoral college gives an unfair advantage to rural areas.
Popular vote gives an unfair advantage to city areas. That's why most popular votes go to democrats, because that's how cities mostly lean.
The popular vote doesn't give an unfair advantage to any place or anyone. It's a system in which each vote has an equal effect on the outcome - that's the very definition of "fair."
New York City alone has more citizens in it then most US states. Combine that with LA, Chicago and every other big city in get US and you have a nice ripe mix of cities decide everything. The thing is, most cities are condensed with many many people. It does not make every vote equal when a city can do more then a state, that is not fair in any meaning of the word.
Except when you consider groupthink. I guess the fact that every city with a population over 100,00 is Democrat has nothing to do with anything. If we went to popular vote, whatever Manhattan and Southern California wants, that's what the country will get. The electoral college has ensured a more or less 50/50 split since we became a country. If 50/50 is not enough Democrat control you can get right out of here and find somewhere you'll be happy. Nobody will stop you
Imagine there are three countries - Ruralistan, Urbanistan, and Neturalistan.
In Ruralistan, the government privileges rural areas over cities. If you live in a rural area, you get two votes in every election; if you live in a city, you get one vote in every election.
In Urbanistan, the government privileges cities over rural areas. If you live in a city, you get two votes in every election; if you live in a rural area, you get one vote in every election.
In Neutralistan, everyone is treated equally. If you live in a city, you get one vote in every election; if you live in a rural area, you get one vote in every election.
Which country, of the three, is fair? Neutralistan, of course. It doesn't how many people live in cities vs. how many people live in rural areas. The only thing that matters is how much say each person gets in the government.
Federal governance was not designed to be a democracy. Each state was to receive equal representation not each citizen. We should repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Cole, New York City can out vote multiple US states combined. That means if people in multiple states want something, New York City can just say no and shut them down. Does that sound fair to you? Where a multiple states can be shit down by one damn city?
Y'all are just butthurt that Hillary lost. If I need to sit here and explain to you like children why the electoral college is a good idea, maybe you should do a little research on the topic and then get back to me.
Of course that sounds fair. A city is made up of people and a state is made up of people. 10 million people who live on a little island should be equal to 10 million people who live in an area with more land. I mean, why does the amount of land mean anything? The only difference is density. Why should the votes of people who live in a high density area count less than the votes of people who live in a low density area?
Why don't you ask the founding fathers?
But here's the thing, it's not an equal number of people between states and NYC, it's a huge difference. More then half of the states have less people then NYC. It's not that they shouldn't have an equal say, it's just that NYC can shut down basically anything they want if it was popular vote. People in rural areas and even whole states wouldn't matter. Only cities voted would matter, because that is the majority voting. We don't even claim ourselves a democracy anyways, we're a republic.
If every single person in the top 500 largest cities voted for a candidate, it would not reach half the popular vote.
Cole is right, in a fair democracy even person gets one vote. It shouldn't matter where you live, you don't get more than 1 per person. In the electoral college, a person's vote in Wyoming is worth almost 1.5 times that of a vote in California, is that fair?
And no, I'm not butthurt Hillary lost. I was never a supporter of her. I just think it's dumb that the person with 3 million less votes won.
It matters where you live because the resources are explored from the large parcel owners. You are supporting a aristocracy by supporting the popular vote.
How? That's literally the opposite of an aristocracy? An aristocracy is where a few people have an unfair amount of power. In the popular vote everybody gets the same vote.
Let's say I'm running for president, in a country where only the popular vote matters.
Would I ever campaign in small cities? No, I need to reach as many people as fast as possible, I'm going for the big cities. Would politicians *ever* do anything to benefit rural communities? Probably not, because who cares what those people think when I have most people living in cities? The electoral college exists to protect the interests of rural areas who, without the electoral college, would have their voices be completely lost.
Btw here's your homework. I did it for you.
And I don't necessarily support a popular vote system. I would be fine with the EC if we gave votes proportionally to the people. For example if candidate a gets 1/3 of the votes in a state, they get 1/3 of the electoral points. That and get rid of the 2 senate points.
Bower and Cole, this sums it up:
"Many say this system (electoral college) is “unfair,” and that the total number of individual votes from all the states is a more accurate gauge for who the president should be. But, would it be fair for America’s chief executive to mostly be the product of a few urban centers in California, New York, and Texas?
The Electoral College system was designed to ensure that presidents would have to receive support from a diverse array of people around the country.
Modern candidates have to accommodate farmers in rural states, factory workers in industrial states, and software engineers in tech-dominated states. The president must consider the needs and opinions of people across the country instead of just the views of a few, highly populated urban centers."
Alcerus, read this
Why would Trump bother ever going to California, since it's a solid blue state.
You have candidates spending an unfair amount of time in certain areas anyways. It makes more logical sense for them to spend that time in areas that actually have more voters, no?
I also encourage you to watch that video, since it debunks the idea that you could just campaign in big cities under a popular vote system.
Zach, I understand this. But it isn't fair for the person with the most votes to not win. It's just not fair. Under any circumstances.
Bower, welcome to life, where nothing is fair.
It's also not fair how small states under the popular vote are completely disregarded.
Jz, but shouldn't it be? Shouldn't our goal be to create a country where every citizen gets an equal say?
Zach, it's not. I'm not arguing the popular system is perfect, but the electoral college is completely broken.
Bower, if you don't like the system, then leave. Seriously, the system is almost 100% not changing anytime so. People are not going against the constitution without a fight. We as Americans, are this way. We fight to hold what is in our constitution to the highest regard and we hold every law we can to it's standard. There are many nice places in the world with the system you like, the EC is America's system.
Thanks for the link, bower, I'll read it. My slow Internet doesn't allow me to watch videos though so I'll have to skip the second link you provided
You're right, jz. If I could leave I probably would. And I probably will still. As much as America is my home and I would like to help fix it, you are correct on the nearly holy status of the constitution.
In regards to "all the major cities would decide everything!", if you add up the 10 largest cities in the country (which are about 7:3 blue to red), you don't even get to a tenth of the population of the country.
Meanwhile, one vote in Vermont is worth three votes in texas, and one vote in worth four in California.
meanwhile, if the goal is getting the candidates to visit all the states, its failing at that too, in 2012 only 18 of the 50 states received even a single visit from either candidate, and of those almost all of them were in OH, FL, and PA.
The only small states that were visited were Maine and new hampshire, with maine being visited 12 times and new hamshire only once, compared to Ohio's 62.
And, going by population, even if you won 100% of the votes in the top 100 biggest cities (all the way to the massive spokane WA), you still only get 20% of the vote, hardly election winning.
and, if you exploit the electoral college, you could become president with only 22% of the vote.
By the way this is a great poll. Lots of discussion!
Alcerus, I regret posting it, arguing about this is exhausting😂 I'm going to bed, mystic can take my place lol
How so? I've not heard of this statistic before. When you cast your vote, you're not actually voting for the president, you're voting to allow a representative to vote for you (the electoral college). If only 22% of people allow their representative to vote for their side, how could they win when the other 88% voted for their representatives?
Oh gosh. Embarrassing math failure there, but you get my point hahaha
You just win 51% of the smallest states
Thats more recent, the numbers gone up to 27% of the vote, but the point still stands
How does it make up an aristocracy? Cities of well off and their extended families wielding all or the power while the people work in middle/rural America pay for the resources to make that possible. It is a national aristocracy, pretty obvious when you look at the property values
Well....I live in a rural area so that doesn't upset me as much as it might someone else. I get it though. However, I still feel like we wouldn't get any fair representation.
Like if you had a community with 1,000 people and 1 representative per 100 people. 9,000 live in the city and 1,000 live in the country. So there are 9 city reps and 1 rural rep.
In town hall meetings, everything is put to a vote. Unfortunately the rural rep never gets anything he asks for because his voice is only 1/10th of the total opinion. So you basically completely shut out that 1,000 people. Those people who provide food, housing, and clothing to everyone who lives in the city.
Rural areas provide everything for the city, and the city gives nothing back to us but a bill for the privilege of living near them. That's why I don't like cities, and that's why I truly appreciate the electoral college for giving us a chance at having anything at all.
Bert, winning the popular vote with only the cities is a mathematical impossibility. And even if it wasnt, the electoral college doesnt stop that, you can win the election with only the 11 biggest states.
If 9000 people live in the cities and 1000 people live in the rural areas, then more people are satisfied when the person that pandered to the city’s needs wins. If the rural people had decided who won then 90% of the population would be ignored. It just doesn’t make sense for rural people to be “more equal” than those that live in urban areas
It's such a simple solution. The founding fathers already decided how elections would take place , and it's wasn't until recently that the losing parties started to argue over its efficiency. It has worked for several centuries it is still working today
It's balanced and it can either work for you or against you. The beauty of the system. And like I always say , this is just another reminder how life isn't fair so you just move on and live your life. Seriously guys it's just 4-8 years. You can survive
People have been arguing against in since the first time it awarded the presidency to someone who lost the popular vote in 1880.
Although Charles Geutau made it kinda a moot point. He wrote a play while on death row, its like three paragraphs long and I find it hilarious
Haven't seen it. Is there a link to read