[Molitor5901]

I still can't support changing the electoral college. A few cities deciding the election for everyone feels horribly unfair, and undemocratic. Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but it certainly forces politicians to at least care what people in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada have to say. It works because of the state system.

[throw0101d]

> Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but it certainly forces politicians to at least care what people in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada have to say.

In 2020 there were more Republican presidential votes in California (6,006,518[1]) than there were in Texas (5,890,347[2]). The Republican votes in California basically had no say in determining the outcome of the election. Was that fair to them?

There were more GOP votes in New York state (3,251,997[3]) than in Ohio (3,154,834[4]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

[yongjik]

Vermont has been voting Democrats straight since 1992. You got it backwards - EC allows any presidential candidate to completely and comfortably ignore Vermont because nothing they do would change any outcome. (Hell, after this election, I'm not even sure if either candidate going on live TV with "Fuck Vermont!" would have changed anything.) If you are a presidential candidate and you spend an hour thinking about what Vermont needs, then you're wasting one hour of your precious time.

Ditto for, say, Oklahoma (straight R since 1968).

[hagbard_c]

Indeed, I don't see any of the popular vote alternatives - no matter which name they carry - solve the problems the electoral college in combination with the state vote depending on population density solves. Here's what I wrote in an earlier post on this subject. This was an answer in response to the idea that a few densely populated coastal cities should determine who became the president:

No, the local elections should - and will - be determined by those cities, the state elections should be determined by the inhabitants of the states and the federal elections by 'the states' in a weighted manner so as to make sure less densely populated states also have a say in all things federal. If you think this gives too much power to the less densely populated states I'd suggest this is caused by the idea of the federal state having too much power, not by the electoral college or anything related to it. Don't want to have people from 'fly-over states' to have a say in ${issue}? Make sure ${issue} is handled at the state or local level and those rednecks, deplorables, 'garbage' and hillbillies don't get to have a say in it while thanking you for keeping out of their affairs.

The federal state should be as small as possible and only busy itself in things which by their nature can not be handled at the local, county or state level. Nearly all if not all of the issues of importance to those who are in favour of having the popular vote decide who becomes president should be decided at state or lower level.

[atmavatar]

Could you elaborate why it's more fair and democratic for a candidate losing the popular vote to win an election (e.g., 2000 and 2016)?

Additionally, why is it more fair for a voter in Wyoming to have 3x the electoral impact of a voter in California?

The latter is a particular problem borne from the fact that we've capped the size of the House at 435 in 1929, thus giving increasingly disproportionate power to low-population states in both the House and Electoral College as the difference in population between states continues to grow.

> but it certainly forces politicians to at least care what people in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada have to say.

The problem is that it disincentivizes politicians to care about what people in deep blue or deep red states have to say, and there are many more of those than there are swing states. Both Democrat and Republican presidential candidates should have to campaign in all 50 states rather than a single-digit number of potential swing states.

[valval]

The word “fair” would need to be defined first. Direct democracy is not used anywhere in the world because it’s problematic. Me and my friend can’t vote to beat you up and take your money even though it’s two votes against one. That would be immoral.

Large cities grow their own cultures. People become alike in some aspects, and adopt similar ideologies. There’s no guarantee those people know what’s best for some village far away. There’s also no guarantee they wouldn’t vote to raid that village and put it to the torch, with 30 million votes against 2000.

I think it’s fair that sparsely populated areas get say in nationwide topics as well. When it comes to your longing for a system “more democratic”, well, the US is a constitutional republic and the founding fathers thought about this stuff long and hard.

[krapp]

>I still can't support changing the electoral college. A few cities deciding the election for everyone feels horribly unfair, and undemocratic.

... unless those cities are in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada, in which case you're fine with it?

I mean, the EC is so unfair and undemocratic that Presidential candidates avoid states entirely where the political calculus says they simply won't matter. And it's ridiculous to assume that when a candidate does show up in a diner in Iowa to order whatever meal their campaign staff says will most appeal to the locals, work on an assembly line, or whatever, that they actually care about anything those voters have to say.

They don't have to care about the voters, they just have to care about the numbers. Remove the EC and the voters actually matter.