This is just ignoring basic math. As it is right now, it's drastically easier to win a national election with far fewer voters in the most populous states than it is to win a direct election - and in each of those populous states, with the electoral college you only need to win a plurality, meaning you can ignore up to half the state.
Consider it another way - to win the electoral college, you only need to win the 10 most populous states with a plurality. To win the popular vote, you still need to win basically the exact same set of 10 states but now you would need to win every vote in them (which is functionally impossible).
We also have to agree that even with the EC candidates don't care about the majority of the country. Any voter in a state that goes consistently opposite to them is made completely irrelevant, with no point to trying to reach out to them. If the EC was gone suddenly all those voters actually get a voice.
Basic math suggests that a place with more population would have an outsized say that overrides a place with lesser population (and generally with very different ideas of what is important to them). You want representatives to represent the populace, look no further than the House of Representatives. The Senate is disproportionately represented on purpose. It was designed this way, on purpose.
> Basic math suggests that a place with more population would have an outsized say that overrides a place with lesser population
Keep in mind we're talking about the EC, which makes the problem you're describing _worse_. Like I mentioned, the EC is still largely dependent upon state population, so it doesn't actually force you to win more states or even a substantially different set of states compared to the most populous ones. But since almost all states give out EC votes based on plurality vote, it means winning those population centers you talking about _does_ actually override the votes of the entire rest of the state. In NY, ~37% of the state voted for the Republican in 2020, but 100% of the EC votes went to the Democrat.
You're complaining that NY would get an outsized say if the EC was gone, but are ignored the fact that due to the EC cities like NYC are _already_ getting an outsized say in the presidential election. They benefit from getting to effectively control all the EC votes given to their state, even though a substantial portion of that population doesn't even agree with how they are proportioned. Same thing with California and various other states.
If your concern is instead just that small states won't get represented during the presidential election, then I hate to tell you that they're already completely ignored. I think switching to a direct vote could actually help them get more say, as the proportion of the vote you get from those states could be relevant.
> You want representatives to represent the populace, look no further than the House of Representatives. The Senate is disproportionately represented on purpose. It was designed this way, on purpose.
Sure, but the comment above was specifically about the EC, as was mine. The EC is a completely different beast from the Senate, and arguably was not designed to work this way anyway.
No. I don't even know how you get to this idea. First of all, there is only one national election, you still have your Representative and 2 Senators in addition to your State, County, and Local governments. Second of all, there are more Republicans in New York and California then in a significant amount of the middle states combined. The idea that NY or California has some singular voice that will be force upon you is just a ridiculous concept.
The country clearly leans slightly center left as a whole, but we are trending hard right right now and that is a recipe for disaster and the electoral college is in large part to blame.
Depends on the topic. Gun rights, for example, have gone decidedly to the right. Few people now remember that Ronald Reagan signed some significant gun control legislation without losing support of his voters.
Democratic wobble is about shifting political demographics. In other words, the majority of the country wobbles between center right and center left. This isn't that.
i can understand not wanting power to be centralized in the hands of a faraway federal govt. but i dont understand the fetish of states rights. why not city rights or county rights. or heaven forbid maybe even individual rights
This is just ignoring basic math. As it is right now, it's drastically easier to win a national election with far fewer voters in the most populous states than it is to win a direct election - and in each of those populous states, with the electoral college you only need to win a plurality, meaning you can ignore up to half the state.
Consider it another way - to win the electoral college, you only need to win the 10 most populous states with a plurality. To win the popular vote, you still need to win basically the exact same set of 10 states but now you would need to win every vote in them (which is functionally impossible).
We also have to agree that even with the EC candidates don't care about the majority of the country. Any voter in a state that goes consistently opposite to them is made completely irrelevant, with no point to trying to reach out to them. If the EC was gone suddenly all those voters actually get a voice.
Basic math suggests that a place with more population would have an outsized say that overrides a place with lesser population (and generally with very different ideas of what is important to them). You want representatives to represent the populace, look no further than the House of Representatives. The Senate is disproportionately represented on purpose. It was designed this way, on purpose.
> Basic math suggests that a place with more population would have an outsized say that overrides a place with lesser population
Keep in mind we're talking about the EC, which makes the problem you're describing _worse_. Like I mentioned, the EC is still largely dependent upon state population, so it doesn't actually force you to win more states or even a substantially different set of states compared to the most populous ones. But since almost all states give out EC votes based on plurality vote, it means winning those population centers you talking about _does_ actually override the votes of the entire rest of the state. In NY, ~37% of the state voted for the Republican in 2020, but 100% of the EC votes went to the Democrat.
You're complaining that NY would get an outsized say if the EC was gone, but are ignored the fact that due to the EC cities like NYC are _already_ getting an outsized say in the presidential election. They benefit from getting to effectively control all the EC votes given to their state, even though a substantial portion of that population doesn't even agree with how they are proportioned. Same thing with California and various other states.
If your concern is instead just that small states won't get represented during the presidential election, then I hate to tell you that they're already completely ignored. I think switching to a direct vote could actually help them get more say, as the proportion of the vote you get from those states could be relevant.
> You want representatives to represent the populace, look no further than the House of Representatives. The Senate is disproportionately represented on purpose. It was designed this way, on purpose.
Sure, but the comment above was specifically about the EC, as was mine. The EC is a completely different beast from the Senate, and arguably was not designed to work this way anyway.
No. I don't even know how you get to this idea. First of all, there is only one national election, you still have your Representative and 2 Senators in addition to your State, County, and Local governments. Second of all, there are more Republicans in New York and California then in a significant amount of the middle states combined. The idea that NY or California has some singular voice that will be force upon you is just a ridiculous concept.
The country clearly leans slightly center left as a whole, but we are trending hard right right now and that is a recipe for disaster and the electoral college is in large part to blame.
It’s what I call the Democratic wobble.
We’ve been trending left for fifty years. Maybe it’s time to go the other way for awhile. And hand some power back to the states, where it belongs.
"We’ve been trending left for fifty years."
Depends on the topic. Gun rights, for example, have gone decidedly to the right. Few people now remember that Ronald Reagan signed some significant gun control legislation without losing support of his voters.
6 replies →
Democratic wobble is about shifting political demographics. In other words, the majority of the country wobbles between center right and center left. This isn't that.
1 reply →
i can understand not wanting power to be centralized in the hands of a faraway federal govt. but i dont understand the fetish of states rights. why not city rights or county rights. or heaven forbid maybe even individual rights
7 replies →