stopthatgirl7Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College
65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.
danieltonThey told me in high school that the electoral college was still necessary because counting the popular vote was too hardβ¦
No. Itβs because states that have huge populations would choose the president with basically zero say from most others. Technically a non representative government.
So instead, states with populations smaller than some cities get to completely override the will of the majority of the country.
yukichigaiWhat we have now is non-representative. Rather, it's representative of land, not voters.
BuelldozerRather, itβs representative of land, not voters.
Horse feathers. There are 535 total EC votes and only 100 of those come from the Senate. The other 435 are based on the House which, as you may remember, is based on population.
The solution to this mess is upsize the HoR and tilt the ratio back to where it was prior to 1929 when we fucked it up.
AmberPrinceExcept using the popular vote means that States wouldn't decide who was president like they do now, the people would.
Under the current system if I vote Red in Chicago I just completely wasted my time. Cook County is so blue that I don't have a voice. Get rid of the Electoral College, however, and now my vote worth just as much as everyone elses.
People seem to think that if we moved away from the College that the population of a blue state will 100% vote blue or a red state will only have red votes. It's just not true. The northern half of California or the southern half Illinois votes way different than their counterparts.
The Electoral College is an outdated system designed for a time when the US had relatively low Literacy and the public couldn't be reliably counted on to be informed. There is no excuse for it nowadays.
π²πππππππ πΌπππ You solve the βproblemβ of βtyranny of the majorityβ by having a strong constitution and good rights and protections for minorities, not by switching to the indisputably worse option of βtyranny of the minorityβ. Because that causes the exact same problem, but for even more people instead.
The version of the tyranny of the majority that he's warning against is already solved in the American system. The ward against it is the Senate. Every state has exactly 2 votes in the Senate and no legislation can be passed and enacted into law without passing a vote in the Senate.
The senate is a terrible way to deal with it though. But itβs at least better than the EC.
The issue is while a strong constitution is nice, itβs necessary to have at least some people in office who would respect the constitution to be effective, including at least a partially originality supreme court.
Alternatively, more clearly written constitutional laws. Itβs wild that you have judges who cannot agree on what an article of the constitution really means, and the language should have been amended years ago.
In the Netherlands, we have a clearly written constitution, but no real βsupreme courtβ in the American sense. And that setup seems to work quite well.
Agreed some should be clarified, but a lot are pretty clear but are denied as unclear for political reasons. One obvious example is the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights. Also, keep in the mind the US constitution is the oldest constitution still in use, so language does evolve somewhat.