And a coastal state with a huge population and no understanding of things people in a landlocked state 700 miles away shouldn’t get to have more of a say in who controls the country. Without the electoral college, pretty much every president would come from one of the same 5 states every time, and the rest of the country would always get placed on the back burner, because “they never win elections”.
Each state should have more of an equal say in who the president is.
And a coastal state with a huge population and no understanding of things people in a landlocked state 700 miles away shouldn’t get to have more of a say in who controls the country
Agreed, that’s why a 1-person, 1-vote system unlike the EC is a good idea!
Without the electoral college, pretty much every president would come from one of the same 5 states every time
Lol, what the FUCK gives you that idea? Why is it that EC supporters imagine states vote as a unified block if we end the EC? Are you literally incapable of understanding that different people in a state vote differently (an idiot), or are you purposefully pretending that you are (faking being an idiot, which is being a bigger idiot)
Each state should have more of an equal say in who the president is.
Agreed, that’s why a 1-person, 1-vote system >unlike the EC is a good idea!
No. Coastal states are vastly more populated by a large margin. Texas, Florida, and California hold 1/3 of the entire population. A straight vote means that those will be the states that swing and win elections.
Lol, what the FUCK gives you that idea? Why is >it that EC supporters imagine states vote as a >unified block if we end the EC? Are you literally >incapable of understanding that different people >in a state vote differently (an idiot), or are you >purposefully pretending that you are (faking >being an idiot, which is being a bigger idiot)
Because it’s a gimme that politicians from their home state do very well when running for a higher office. Democrats and Republicans will always nominate a candidate from a very populated state for this reason, because it’s always free votes. Surely you aren’t too dumb to have not noticed that?
Exactly, end the electoral college
Lol. No. I guess you are an idiot. The electoral college is literally in place to give states a more equal power in picking the president. That’s literally the reason it exists.
Putting aside the absurdity of the idea that people’s voices should be worth less if they live closer together… One of the most significant features of the electoral college is the existence of a handful of swing states. You don’t want a situation where the most populous 5 states decide every election, so your solution is to take like 5 less populous states and have them decide every election. Genius.
There’s currently about 5 to 7 swing states because that’s currently how all the other areas vote, and those change a lot more often than population by state. By your argument of doing away with the electoral college, California, new York, Texas, and Florida would decide the elections and no one running for office would care about doing anything in about 40 states.
Areas with larger populations would have more influence, because there are more people there to represent. That’s how democracy works. It’s not, I don’t know, landocracy.
But every vote would be equal, so there would be more incentive than there is now to campaign across a wider cross section of people, including in less populated areas, because as it is now, the majority of those areas are in safe states where there is zero advantage whatsoever to a politician trying to win their votes.
You only think in short terms. You have a problem now, so you want it changed now. Later, it will turn into a bigger problem and you’ll want it changed again, only it will be harder.
You think the answer to get democrats to win is to change a process to something that would currently benefit democrats. There’s no reason to believe that it would continue to benefit democrats after the change, and it also doesn’t get rid of the 2 party system, because while the demols are a bit better overall for most of the country, both parties are still bought and owned by the wealthy. The rich have been on a downward tax paying slide for the last 75 years, regardless of who was in office.
It wouldn’t fix the system at all but it would still be a move in the right direction.
I have no idea how this could be called “thinking short term” or how getting rid of the electoral college would “turn into a bigger problem later.” It’s possible that at some point in the future, it could benefit Republicans, somehow, but only if a majority of the people were voting Republican. There is never going to be a situation where I would miss the electoral college, lol, get rid of it and it’s gone forever and we can continue addressing other ways our elections are messed up.
Geography has nothing to do with it. If your state has more electoral votes per capita than mine, then my vote doesn’t count as much as yours.
And a coastal state with a huge population and no understanding of things people in a landlocked state 700 miles away shouldn’t get to have more of a say in who controls the country. Without the electoral college, pretty much every president would come from one of the same 5 states every time, and the rest of the country would always get placed on the back burner, because “they never win elections”.
Each state should have more of an equal say in who the president is.
Agreed, that’s why a 1-person, 1-vote system unlike the EC is a good idea!
Lol, what the FUCK gives you that idea? Why is it that EC supporters imagine states vote as a unified block if we end the EC? Are you literally incapable of understanding that different people in a state vote differently (an idiot), or are you purposefully pretending that you are (faking being an idiot, which is being a bigger idiot)
Exactly, end the electoral college
You have a broken interpretation of things.
No. Coastal states are vastly more populated by a large margin. Texas, Florida, and California hold 1/3 of the entire population. A straight vote means that those will be the states that swing and win elections.
Because it’s a gimme that politicians from their home state do very well when running for a higher office. Democrats and Republicans will always nominate a candidate from a very populated state for this reason, because it’s always free votes. Surely you aren’t too dumb to have not noticed that?
Lol. No. I guess you are an idiot. The electoral college is literally in place to give states a more equal power in picking the president. That’s literally the reason it exists.
Yawn, more garbage arguments
Keep arguing for the system of minority rule while claiming you’re against exactly that, the rest of us will point and laugh at you as you deserve
Putting aside the absurdity of the idea that people’s voices should be worth less if they live closer together… One of the most significant features of the electoral college is the existence of a handful of swing states. You don’t want a situation where the most populous 5 states decide every election, so your solution is to take like 5 less populous states and have them decide every election. Genius.
There’s currently about 5 to 7 swing states because that’s currently how all the other areas vote, and those change a lot more often than population by state. By your argument of doing away with the electoral college, California, new York, Texas, and Florida would decide the elections and no one running for office would care about doing anything in about 40 states.
Areas with larger populations would have more influence, because there are more people there to represent. That’s how democracy works. It’s not, I don’t know, landocracy.
But every vote would be equal, so there would be more incentive than there is now to campaign across a wider cross section of people, including in less populated areas, because as it is now, the majority of those areas are in safe states where there is zero advantage whatsoever to a politician trying to win their votes.
You only think in short terms. You have a problem now, so you want it changed now. Later, it will turn into a bigger problem and you’ll want it changed again, only it will be harder.
You think the answer to get democrats to win is to change a process to something that would currently benefit democrats. There’s no reason to believe that it would continue to benefit democrats after the change, and it also doesn’t get rid of the 2 party system, because while the demols are a bit better overall for most of the country, both parties are still bought and owned by the wealthy. The rich have been on a downward tax paying slide for the last 75 years, regardless of who was in office.
It wouldn’t fix the system at all but it would still be a move in the right direction.
I have no idea how this could be called “thinking short term” or how getting rid of the electoral college would “turn into a bigger problem later.” It’s possible that at some point in the future, it could benefit Republicans, somehow, but only if a majority of the people were voting Republican. There is never going to be a situation where I would miss the electoral college, lol, get rid of it and it’s gone forever and we can continue addressing other ways our elections are messed up.