Let’s be explicitly clear.

The Electoral College exists because enslavers wanted to count their enslaved in their vote total without freeing them, much less giving them voting rights. That is the one purpose the Electoral College ever served.

Pro Electoral College is pro white supremacy. Abolish it.

@fonecokid @QasimRashid agree to a large extent but the flaw with direct democracy is the rural votes gets little to no voice as candidates will only go to major cities. Electoral collage gives everyone a voice so long as no shenanigans happens.

@WheresMyWater @fonecokid @QasimRashid They already have a voice: their Senators. The point here is that the Electoral College gives them an outsized voice, and that’s still not stopping candidates from hitting the population centers, but it does mean there are states that are so solidly red/blue that millions don’t vote.

Why should protecting rural voices matter more than making every vote worth the same and giving incentives to every voter to vote?

@QasimRashid @fonecokid @WheresMyWater

“Direct democracy” does not entail casting ballots for representatives who then make decisions and impose them on us.

I do think it’s fascinating how thoroughly Americans have internalized the idea that some people deserve disproportionate political power on the basis of living in lower population densities.

@WheresMyWater @fonecokid @QasimRashid

How does a candidate physically visiting a place or not have anything at all to do with the "voice" of the voters living there?

@WheresMyWater @fonecokid @QasimRashid
Why should rural votes count for more than urban ones?

@Jonstewartmill @WheresMyWater @QasimRashid

No reason at all, period, one person one vote!

@QasimRashid The Electoral College also grades the Republicans on a curve in presidential elections. So much for "one person, one vote."

@Efilroftsul @QasimRashid Here in #Minnesota , the MNGOP has publicly opposed abolishing the Electoral College because they know that without it, no GOP candidate would have been elected POTUS in the last 25 years.

But that simultaneously means that they are saying that their own supporters should have no say in electing POTUS, because Minnesota has not gone for the GOP in any presidential election in last 50 years.

Their racism extends to effectively denying their own supporters a vote.

@michael_w_busch Bush won the popular vote in 2004. The EC wasn't a factor there. I agree with you overall, but it is *possible* for the modern GOP to win by popular vote...just very unlikely.

@kerplunk Bush 43 did win the popular vote in 2004, but only because the Electoral College and voter suppression led to his initial election in 2000.

I tried to phrase my earlier post to include that. I guess I did not succeed.

@michael_w_busch Fair enough. That's certainly true about 2000. The fact remains, though: under the right circumstances, the GOP can win the popular vote. I think anyone assuming otherwise is making a mistake.
@kerplunk ~whispering~: Nobody said that the GOP can't win the popular vote
@QasimRashid not to mention it's actually antidemocratic, considering its origins and mechanics.
@QasimRashid I don’t know how we get small states to ratify the necessary amendment. It would be easier to get statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.
@Julie @QasimRashid To really set the cat among the pigeons, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands could be included too.

@Julie
By having the states that care about democracy do this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

No need to abolish the college when you can work around it.
@QasimRashid

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

@encthenet @QasimRashid The same states that would never ratify a Constitutional amendment to abolish the E.C. would also never agree to join the compact.
@Julie
The Dems are not even trying, when Massachusetts hasn't signed on yet.
@QasimRashid I've always said we should. All it does is insure that the conservatives have their fucking way For serious. It is *litterally* the only reason that orange thing tgot in office; Hilary won the popular vote. -T.

@QasimRashid

I think it's a bit more complicated than that but the EC must go.

@Dave_Goldsmith @QasimRashid You sort of have to remember that while we think of the USA as one cohesive entity it very much wasn't that at its birth. If you are a state that doesn't really stack up a bunch of people you certainly wouldn't want to join a group that does and let them say how where you live is going to be now. Jefferson actually came out and said as much--of course he owned slaves. That's not who we are so much now though. I'm too affected by your votes and America is America
@QasimRashid It served another purpose: they could also disenfranchise white people who didn't own property without penalty, magnifying the power of landowners' votes. States that let all white men vote didn't get more say than states that let hardly any white men vote.
@QasimRashid I think the shortest path is to raise the minimum citizen count for each state, to some reasonable number like 10 million, instead of the laughable 50,000 we have now. Empty states could join a compact (all of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, north and South Dakota,) to be considered as one voting bloc with a unified federal representation.
Or, maybe, a voting right act with teeth could remove representation if the state fails at voting and is under federal court supervision. Score!
@Shoebill @QasimRashid That's very radical, and not a short path at all. This stuff only happens with legislation. I don't see most Democrats supporting any of it, never mind the GOP. Telling 40 of 50 states that they're part of voting blocs now, and they'll like it? Probably not gonna go well.
@Shoebill @QasimRashid maybe like a single million. There are not 10 million people in Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, or Hawaii!
@QasimRashid @wordshaper we need an "anti electoral college" campaign in the clear blue states to vote even tho it "doesn't matter". Make it clear just how out of whack the popular vote is if it weren't being throttled by the electoral college.
@QasimRashid looks good from the outside, but diffficult to achieve as others have pointed out.
But how about reducing the length of time between the election and the inauguration at the same time. It would reduce the options of orange imposters to organize coups d'etat.
@QasimRashid Abolishing it might prove difficult, but it could be subverted if some more states could be convinced:
https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY
Select instance - Invidious

@QasimRashid Which is clearly unfair to the whites of other states so of course they compromised.
@QasimRashid also they hated idea that poor people voting proportionally would vote against slave owner interests.
@QasimRashid also article 5.5 of the constitution, which disallows any change to the Senate via the amendment process.

@QasimRashid kind of reminds me of that line in the first Pirates of the Caribbean..

In a population-based election, cities would overpower the voter count of smaller towns..

" Well, that doesn't give me much incentive to fight fair."

It's weird because you flip it around and you get gerrymandering for other political roles, but no, having all the people decide the vote is wrong because W Bush and Trump lost their first popular vote.

@QasimRashid But let’s not simply move to a first past the post popularity contest. As long as we’re fixing presidential elections, let’s break the primary system and move to ranked choice voting.

@QasimRashid
The electoral college has become only a tool to manipulate elections. An artificial barrier between voters and an open and fair election that represents the will of the people.

Or so methinks.

@QasimRashid I wasn't aware of the origin.
@QasimRashid The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The EC consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your State has the same number of electors as it does Members in its Congressional delegation: one for each Member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators.

@QasimRashid

This is sort of right—the electoral college is inseparable from the divide over slavery at the time—but the electoral college was explicitly designed by Madison et al to ensure that poor and propertyless majorities could not simply vote the elite propertied class out of its property rights.

Federalist #10 presents Madison’s anti-democratic argument pretty explicitly.

That is certainly what we were taught in school way way back when I was a student. And it is wrong.

In Federalist 10, Madison is not arguing against a democratic republic in which all voters are represented equally.

He is also not arguing in favor of the electoral college as it exists now.

He argues against the notion that government by legislature should be abandoned in favor of townhall type gatherings of all citizens who showed up, a popular idea at the time.

Actually, research into contemporary accounts of the Constitutional Convention show that you are entirely correct.