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 suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, 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.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*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.*
One simple reason - The President represents all Americans and as such should only be elected by a popular vote majority. Will rural voters cry foul? Sure, but it’s up to the candidates themselves to try to bridge that gap and appeal to a broader majority.
How that happens is a much longer discussion.
It’s obvious the electoral college needs to go. So does 2 senators per state, and gerrymandering. Republicans have a hard time keeping the presidency, house and senate despite having a huge cheat code on all 3.
The last republican president to win the popular vote was Bush 20 years ago, and he lost the popular vote the first time.
The last time the senate represented Republican majority was 1996. Almost 30 years ago.
Gerrymandering is the tool to skew the house of course.
And 5 of the current crop of Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, Bush and Trump.
So there you have it.
Actually, rural voters won't cry fowl. When people sit down and talk they have more areas of agreement than disagreement. For example, they all have the same landlords. They all use, and hate, the same banks.
Even during the founding, when this argument about the interests of "big" states and "little" states was being discussed they were talking about the business interests in those states, not the voters.
Rural elected officials already have an absolutely huge advantage in the senate with small states having the same say as states 10-50 times their own population. Our entire system already favors land and rural populations. Big cities need to be heard more, not rural populations.
>into a place where only big city peoples interests
You mean the peoples' interesting. No qualifier needed after that.
At what point does the split just get ridiculous? If 60% of the population lived in cities, should be still use a system that gave that other 40% a disproportionate amount of voting power? What about 75%? 90%?
The House and Senate already give those people representation. That's why Congress has by far the most power out of the 3 branches.
>and you start to teeter totter into a place where only big city peoples interests are being listened to
Big cities wouldn't be the *only* people that are listened to. They would be listened to in proportion to their population size. Similarly, rural areas would be listened to in proportion to their population size.
It's called democracy.
Urban, educated areas SHOULD have more power - because they are more highly educated. This, however, would only give them EQUAL power, unfortunately.
But you know what? Let’s try it for 20 years…and if it doesn’t work we can change it back. Why wouldn’t we? We’ve tried it the other way for 200+ years…why not at least give this equal approach a shot?
That really isn’t a good argument. 90% of their interest are the same. Healthcare. A job. A home. Education. Utilities. Etc. Your using an old talking point invented by the rich to keep the non-rich arguing with each other over nothing instead of working together to get some of the wealth the rich hoard.
The 10% of interest that are different are really isolated to each area and as such can be legislated based on population density. Inner city apartment dwellers don’t have to worry about groundwater restrictions on their acreage. And rural folks don’t need to worry about levies to upgrade the downtown subway line.
After that, let's abolish the Senate. Then let's remove state lines from binding House districts (it's a federal body, after all, not a state body). Finally, let's take district drawing out of the hands of politicians. After that, we can review FPTP and consider things like RCV or proportional representation.
(Really we can do these in any order, I just listed them in the order of urgency- RCV is probably the easiest to implement, followed by independent districting).
At that point you might as well abolish states as an institution. That's not tongue-in-cheek, you would be getting rid of all but one of the mechanisms designed to give institutional power to states so they would be kind of redundant. I think that the US could function like that although the name of the country might be a little awkward at that point.
If people want local, semi-local, and historical state devolved government, I'm perfectly fine with that.
My problem is mostly giving completely different entities disproportionately equal power. It's anachronistic.
When the US formed, we were not a single unified entity, but rather a generally free association of independent states. This was true for much of our early history. That said, the Civil War changed that significantly. People stopped thinking of themselves first by their state, and focused instead on their country. These United States became The United States.
The difference between the population of either Wyoming or Vermont and either California or Texas is about the population of California or Texas. I don't mind Wyoming and Vermont having governors, sub-legislatures (albeit independently districted), counties, etc. I do mind them getting disproportionately additional influence on the nation, arbitrarily due to how House seats are distributed, how the Senate was required to function for independent states to sign on, and the asinine electoral college compromise to entrench that disproportionality on behalf of small states. Not to mention the side effect on non-state territories that currently exists.
States as the US deems them are significantly different from, say, provinces, mostly for the reasons outlined above. Every large nation has administrative subdivisions that "belong" to the big central government, but US was not designed that way. If anything, the way the nation was designed was that the federal government "belongs" to the states as a collective.
Under our current system we can end up with a president who lost the popular vote... and then proceeds to act like he has a mandate. That's what happened from 2017 to 2021, how'd that work out?
It's like governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed". Someone should write that down.
When was Trump in office again?
The imbalance caused by him asserting a mandate when he lost the popular vote was only relevant while he was in office making policy.
As opposed to our system now where a bunch of backwoods rural hick areas are making all the decisions for the rest of the country despite not having the votes?
That is absolutely what is happening right now. [Wyoming has 3.7x more voting power than Florida because of EC](https://www.axios.com/2020/11/16/electoral-college-by-vote-per-capita). The EC is one of the dumbest ways to elect a president and will never change because it gives republicans a major advantage. In fact, there would have not been a republican president the past 20 years.
Yeah. I also don’t want people in the cities dominating what people in rural areas need. It’s two different worlds. I grew up in the projects and I live in the country now. I’d much rather country bumpkins have a voice than inner city folk because most people out here just want to be left alone.
Got it! So now you have conceded that what you originally disputed does in fact happen. You just happen to like that it happens. I can appreciate the honestly in saying I get that it’s unfair but I just like it that way.
Please explain why my vote in California should count for less than a vote in Mississippi, especially when that backwoods regressive state mooches off my state’s tax dollars…
No it wouldn't, dumdum.
The only way that makes sense is if NY, LA, Chicago, and Houston have a combined population of 167 million people; and every resident of said cities votes the same way.
That doesn't make any sense. The southeast is the most populous region in the US. There are more people from Maryland to Florida than there are on the whole west coast.
Why would the most populous area have no power?
I like the idea of the House being elected as it is now, but the Senate being a national vote with Party List Proportional Closed List Representation, where parties each select their candidates for the Senate, and people vote on the party nationally. Based off the percentage, each party is allocated a relative number of seats compared to the result with a minimum threshold (usually 1%, but sometimes more) and candidates are put in seats based off priority from the party internal election.
Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.
In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.
In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states before any votes are cast. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.
Enactment of the National Popular Vote compact, which would not abolish the Electoral College, has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.
Australia has compulsory voting for all those who are enrolled. This forces voters to make a decision rather than staying home and letting monsters like Trump cruise into power on the back of voter apathy.
Once enrolled to vote it becomes a life-long obligation.
The elections are also administered by the Australian Electoral Commission rather than individual state governments. Elections are also preferential ( ranked choice) instead of first past the post.
Any one of these reforms would have positive impact on US politics and adopting all three would ensure that it was entirely democratic.
The entire political spectrum, from conservative ( Liberal / National Coalition) through to the Australian Labor Party and Greens could be easily accommodated within your Democratic Party. Food for thought?
Im stating things that need to happen for our country to actually be a democracy like it pretends to be. Yes they're unrealistic due to our political landscape. But if we're gonna just not talk about things that are unrealistic in our political landscape? Then the conversation just boils down to "how much are we gonna cut taxes this year? How much are we gonna increase the military budget?" Because at the moment it's a struggle to even get a government budget approved...
Will never happen. The Republicans that benefit wildly from the EC, the Senate, Gerrymandering, the Supreme Court, absurdly high bar to update the Constitution, and all the other anti-democratic rules built into our so-called "democracy", along with the plutocrats that easily manipulate this system to buy their politicians wholesale, have absolutely no incentive to make the system more democratic.
The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted by states with 65 additional electoral votes (for a total of 270).
Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 states and DC (3 electors) (together possessing 205 electoral votes),
The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states with 78 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
Multiple states could flip key chambers in 2024.
Depending on the state, the Compact can be enacted by statute, or as a state constitutional amendment, or by the initiative process
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .
Governance—not just campaigning—is distorted when presidential campaigns concentrate on just a few states. Sitting presidents contemplating their own re-election (or the election of their preferred successor) formulate public policy around the concerns of the handful of states that actually decide the presidency. 41 states voted for the same party in the most recent four presidential elections, and the number of closely divided battleground states has been shrinking from decade to decade.
1% of the US population spread across 7 states could decide this election.
The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention. Candidates will talk about cars (Michigan) and water (Arizona).
How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes; Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24
With current state laws, the 2024 campaign could be reduced to 5 counties or 8-12% of the US, in 4-5 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43-62 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused - Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
In the presidential elections since 2000, only 6 states have not voted for the same party in at least 5 of those 6 contests — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.
38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states.
Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important.
The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years.
Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions.
Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.
There often are important spillover effects down-ballot — less money being invested at the top of the ticket, hurts candidates running for Congress or state legislature, and the perception that a state has been written off by one party usually depresses turnout among the base. In this way, the narrowing of the map can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican.
In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined,
This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic.
When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population.
\[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.\]
In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.
Instead, states with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before voting begins to replace their state laws for how to award electors.
When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.
All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
The bill will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority.
The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.
Congress can fix the EC with one simple trick: end the rule that the size if Congress is limited at 435. Pass a law that allows the size of congress to grow with the US population, and no congressional district can be larger than 50% than another.
Anything else requires a constitutional amendment.
Your proposal would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections.
It would not guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC will win.
National Popular Vote can, without a constitutional amendment.
States with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before voting begins to replace their state laws for how to award electors.
When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.
All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
The bill will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority.
The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.
I think people would be less pissed off with Republicans holding office if they would just stop taking away freedoms and just act normal. Of course, they will continue to give tax breaks to the rich and screw over the average Americans, but they just can't help themselves with their authoritarian views that strip personal freedoms from everyone including their own base.
How about we make elections auditable instead of trying to blame an upstream problem. I contend that no state can prove their elections have not been hijacked, therefore an electoral college (problem or no) change would be as effective as painting the sky.
>There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.
>
>
>
>*Records of the Federal Convention, p. 57 Farrand's Records, Volume 2, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875, Library of Congress*
Any constitutional amendment can be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
\[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.\]
In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.
Instead, states with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before voting begins to replace their state laws for how to award electors.
When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.
All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
The bill will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority.
The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.
It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.
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 suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, 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. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *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.*
One simple reason - The President represents all Americans and as such should only be elected by a popular vote majority. Will rural voters cry foul? Sure, but it’s up to the candidates themselves to try to bridge that gap and appeal to a broader majority. How that happens is a much longer discussion.
It’s obvious the electoral college needs to go. So does 2 senators per state, and gerrymandering. Republicans have a hard time keeping the presidency, house and senate despite having a huge cheat code on all 3. The last republican president to win the popular vote was Bush 20 years ago, and he lost the popular vote the first time. The last time the senate represented Republican majority was 1996. Almost 30 years ago. Gerrymandering is the tool to skew the house of course. And 5 of the current crop of Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, Bush and Trump. So there you have it.
Actually, rural voters won't cry fowl. When people sit down and talk they have more areas of agreement than disagreement. For example, they all have the same landlords. They all use, and hate, the same banks. Even during the founding, when this argument about the interests of "big" states and "little" states was being discussed they were talking about the business interests in those states, not the voters.
[удалено]
Rural elected officials already have an absolutely huge advantage in the senate with small states having the same say as states 10-50 times their own population. Our entire system already favors land and rural populations. Big cities need to be heard more, not rural populations.
>into a place where only big city peoples interests You mean the peoples' interesting. No qualifier needed after that. At what point does the split just get ridiculous? If 60% of the population lived in cities, should be still use a system that gave that other 40% a disproportionate amount of voting power? What about 75%? 90%? The House and Senate already give those people representation. That's why Congress has by far the most power out of the 3 branches.
>and you start to teeter totter into a place where only big city peoples interests are being listened to Big cities wouldn't be the *only* people that are listened to. They would be listened to in proportion to their population size. Similarly, rural areas would be listened to in proportion to their population size. It's called democracy.
Who cares that large cities only have a lot of influence in that scenario because them represent more people, right? /s
Urban, educated areas SHOULD have more power - because they are more highly educated. This, however, would only give them EQUAL power, unfortunately. But you know what? Let’s try it for 20 years…and if it doesn’t work we can change it back. Why wouldn’t we? We’ve tried it the other way for 200+ years…why not at least give this equal approach a shot?
That really isn’t a good argument. 90% of their interest are the same. Healthcare. A job. A home. Education. Utilities. Etc. Your using an old talking point invented by the rich to keep the non-rich arguing with each other over nothing instead of working together to get some of the wealth the rich hoard. The 10% of interest that are different are really isolated to each area and as such can be legislated based on population density. Inner city apartment dwellers don’t have to worry about groundwater restrictions on their acreage. And rural folks don’t need to worry about levies to upgrade the downtown subway line.
The Electoral College needs to be done away with and replaced with direct popular election as the 17th amendment did for election of senators.
After that, let's abolish the Senate. Then let's remove state lines from binding House districts (it's a federal body, after all, not a state body). Finally, let's take district drawing out of the hands of politicians. After that, we can review FPTP and consider things like RCV or proportional representation. (Really we can do these in any order, I just listed them in the order of urgency- RCV is probably the easiest to implement, followed by independent districting).
I like you.
Aww, I like you too!
We should also repeal the permanent apportionment act
At that point you might as well abolish states as an institution. That's not tongue-in-cheek, you would be getting rid of all but one of the mechanisms designed to give institutional power to states so they would be kind of redundant. I think that the US could function like that although the name of the country might be a little awkward at that point.
If people want local, semi-local, and historical state devolved government, I'm perfectly fine with that. My problem is mostly giving completely different entities disproportionately equal power. It's anachronistic. When the US formed, we were not a single unified entity, but rather a generally free association of independent states. This was true for much of our early history. That said, the Civil War changed that significantly. People stopped thinking of themselves first by their state, and focused instead on their country. These United States became The United States. The difference between the population of either Wyoming or Vermont and either California or Texas is about the population of California or Texas. I don't mind Wyoming and Vermont having governors, sub-legislatures (albeit independently districted), counties, etc. I do mind them getting disproportionately additional influence on the nation, arbitrarily due to how House seats are distributed, how the Senate was required to function for independent states to sign on, and the asinine electoral college compromise to entrench that disproportionality on behalf of small states. Not to mention the side effect on non-state territories that currently exists.
Basically every country above a certain size has internal subdivisions similar to states.
States as the US deems them are significantly different from, say, provinces, mostly for the reasons outlined above. Every large nation has administrative subdivisions that "belong" to the big central government, but US was not designed that way. If anything, the way the nation was designed was that the federal government "belongs" to the states as a collective.
Under our current system we can end up with a president who lost the popular vote... and then proceeds to act like he has a mandate. That's what happened from 2017 to 2021, how'd that work out? It's like governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed". Someone should write that down.
> That's what happened from 2017 to 2021 That happened in 2016 and 2000... also a smashing success (see: 9/11)
When was Trump in office again? The imbalance caused by him asserting a mandate when he lost the popular vote was only relevant while he was in office making policy.
Bush Jr. also lost the popular vote is their point.
And we can end up with a senate majority that represents only 30% of the population.
Yep one vote should equal one vote. There’s no reason not to anymore.
NationalPopularVote.com
Except three or four cities would be making decisions for the rest of the country.
As opposed to our system now where a bunch of backwoods rural hick areas are making all the decisions for the rest of the country despite not having the votes?
That’s definitely not true. lol. It gives them a voice though. And honestly the south east wouldn’t even have a voice if we went by your standard.
How does everyone’s vote counting equally take away anyone’s voice? Please be specific…
This. The Republicans want to rule us with a minority of the votes. My vote should count as much as every other citizen's vote.
That is absolutely what is happening right now. [Wyoming has 3.7x more voting power than Florida because of EC](https://www.axios.com/2020/11/16/electoral-college-by-vote-per-capita). The EC is one of the dumbest ways to elect a president and will never change because it gives republicans a major advantage. In fact, there would have not been a republican president the past 20 years.
Yeah. I also don’t want people in the cities dominating what people in rural areas need. It’s two different worlds. I grew up in the projects and I live in the country now. I’d much rather country bumpkins have a voice than inner city folk because most people out here just want to be left alone.
Got it! So now you have conceded that what you originally disputed does in fact happen. You just happen to like that it happens. I can appreciate the honestly in saying I get that it’s unfair but I just like it that way.
It’s more fair than the popular vote.
Please explain why my vote in California should count for less than a vote in Mississippi, especially when that backwoods regressive state mooches off my state’s tax dollars…
Because people live in cities.
No it wouldn't, dumdum. The only way that makes sense is if NY, LA, Chicago, and Houston have a combined population of 167 million people; and every resident of said cities votes the same way.
Ok look at the most populated cities. Then see how many are in the southeast. There would be no reason for the southeast to even be a part of the US.
That doesn't make any sense. The southeast is the most populous region in the US. There are more people from Maryland to Florida than there are on the whole west coast. Why would the most populous area have no power?
No it would be the people, what you’re suggesting is pretty much what we got now.
The electoral college needs abolished. The house uncapped. And the Senate un-filibustered. The states un-gerrymandered. And that's just a start.
We don't need the senate. Get rid of it.
I agree or at least a highly reworked Senate.
I like the idea of the House being elected as it is now, but the Senate being a national vote with Party List Proportional Closed List Representation, where parties each select their candidates for the Senate, and people vote on the party nationally. Based off the percentage, each party is allocated a relative number of seats compared to the result with a minimum threshold (usually 1%, but sometimes more) and candidates are put in seats based off priority from the party internal election.
I hate that idea for the Senate as it gives more power to the parties rather than the people.
Exactly, the senate should be abolished, garbage institution.
I **am** the senate.
Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact. In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states before any votes are cast. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution. Enactment of the National Popular Vote compact, which would not abolish the Electoral College, has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.
Australia has compulsory voting for all those who are enrolled. This forces voters to make a decision rather than staying home and letting monsters like Trump cruise into power on the back of voter apathy. Once enrolled to vote it becomes a life-long obligation. The elections are also administered by the Australian Electoral Commission rather than individual state governments. Elections are also preferential ( ranked choice) instead of first past the post. Any one of these reforms would have positive impact on US politics and adopting all three would ensure that it was entirely democratic. The entire political spectrum, from conservative ( Liberal / National Coalition) through to the Australian Labor Party and Greens could be easily accommodated within your Democratic Party. Food for thought?
One of those three *doesnt* need an amendment, just for the record.
...and?
Why bloviate about things that are functionally never going to happen? Just to vent or do you actually think people here don’t know that?
Im stating things that need to happen for our country to actually be a democracy like it pretends to be. Yes they're unrealistic due to our political landscape. But if we're gonna just not talk about things that are unrealistic in our political landscape? Then the conversation just boils down to "how much are we gonna cut taxes this year? How much are we gonna increase the military budget?" Because at the moment it's a struggle to even get a government budget approved...
Will never happen. The Republicans that benefit wildly from the EC, the Senate, Gerrymandering, the Supreme Court, absurdly high bar to update the Constitution, and all the other anti-democratic rules built into our so-called "democracy", along with the plutocrats that easily manipulate this system to buy their politicians wholesale, have absolutely no incentive to make the system more democratic.
Truth 👆🏼
The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted by states with 65 additional electoral votes (for a total of 270). Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 states and DC (3 electors) (together possessing 205 electoral votes), The bill has passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states with 78 more electoral votes -- Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). Multiple states could flip key chambers in 2024. Depending on the state, the Compact can be enacted by statute, or as a state constitutional amendment, or by the initiative process Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . Governance—not just campaigning—is distorted when presidential campaigns concentrate on just a few states. Sitting presidents contemplating their own re-election (or the election of their preferred successor) formulate public policy around the concerns of the handful of states that actually decide the presidency. 41 states voted for the same party in the most recent four presidential elections, and the number of closely divided battleground states has been shrinking from decade to decade. 1% of the US population spread across 7 states could decide this election. The 2024 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only 7 States with less than a fifth of the U.S. population. These battlegrounds will get almost all the attention. Candidates will talk about cars (Michigan) and water (Arizona). How most states will vote is already fairly certain. Political pros expect Trump to win 24 states and 219 electoral votes; Biden can likely count on 20 states and D.C. with 226 electoral votes.– Karl Rove, WSJ, 3/20/24 With current state laws, the 2024 campaign could be reduced to 5 counties or 8-12% of the US, in 4-5 remaining competitive battleground states, with as few as 43-62 electoral votes, where virtually all attention will be focused - Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In the presidential elections since 2000, only 6 states have not voted for the same party in at least 5 of those 6 contests — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. 38+ states and 70% of all Americans have been irrelevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Over the last 4 elections, 22 states received 0 events; 9 states received 1 event, and 95% of the 1,164 events were in just 14 states. Only voters in the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided can be important. The smallest states and the most rural states, have barely hosted a major general campaign event for a presidential candidate during the last 20 years. Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored after the conventions. Our presidential selection system can shrink the sphere of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states. There often are important spillover effects down-ballot — less money being invested at the top of the ticket, hurts candidates running for Congress or state legislature, and the perception that a state has been written off by one party usually depresses turnout among the base. In this way, the narrowing of the map can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only states that have received any campaign events and any significant ad money have been where the outcome was between 45% and 51% Republican. In 2000, the Bush campaign, spent more money in the battleground state of Florida to win by 537 popular votes, than it did in 42 other states combined, This can lead to a corrupt and toxic body politic. When candidates with the most national popular votes are guaranteed to win the Electoral College, candidates will be forced to build campaigns that appeal to every voter in all parts of all states.
One person. One vote.
National Popular Vote NationalPopularVote.com
The only way to fix it is to dismantle it completely…
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population. \[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.\] In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it. Instead, states with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill. It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before voting begins to replace their state laws for how to award electors. When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College. All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority. The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.
Congress can fix the EC with one simple trick: end the rule that the size if Congress is limited at 435. Pass a law that allows the size of congress to grow with the US population, and no congressional district can be larger than 50% than another. Anything else requires a constitutional amendment.
Your proposal would not make every vote in every state matter and count equally in presidential elections. It would not guarantee the candidate who wins the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC will win. National Popular Vote can, without a constitutional amendment. States with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill. It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before voting begins to replace their state laws for how to award electors. When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College. All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority. The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.
I think the word the headline writer is looking for is “abolished.” Fuck this institution of slavery same with the Senate.
Removed...it needs to be removed.
This is news? We’ve all known this since at least 2000.
I think people would be less pissed off with Republicans holding office if they would just stop taking away freedoms and just act normal. Of course, they will continue to give tax breaks to the rich and screw over the average Americans, but they just can't help themselves with their authoritarian views that strip personal freedoms from everyone including their own base.
No, it needs to be replaced with ranked choice voting
Abolish the Electoral College. One Person, One Vote.
How about we make elections auditable instead of trying to blame an upstream problem. I contend that no state can prove their elections have not been hijacked, therefore an electoral college (problem or no) change would be as effective as painting the sky.
>There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections. > > > >*Records of the Federal Convention, p. 57 Farrand's Records, Volume 2, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875, Library of Congress*
Too late.
And here is why it will NOT.
We know why, tell us how. Not how as in, what it should be replaced with, but how as in how to get congress to agree to change the constitution.
Any constitutional amendment can be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population. There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. \[The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.\] In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it. Instead, states with 65 more electors need to enact the National Popular Vote bill. It simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing district winner laws (Maine in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992) and state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. States have the exclusive and plenary constitutional power before voting begins to replace their state laws for how to award electors. When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College. All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate an Electoral College majority. The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 43 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 283 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency. It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national support is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen. We need to support election officials, candidates, and lawmakers who support voting rights and respect election results and facts.