Yes, I like this idea too. It would make every vote count.
Easy to say; hard to do.
1 Like
Can you imagine 2004, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, or 1968?
(And other elections, like 2012 and 2000 may well have been quite different if it was the popular vote that mattered. The campaigns would have been different.)
I feel like we are a lot more divided now. But I hear your point.
The two party system with the electoral college already leaves a lot of people without a voice, even within those parties.
That is true.
as stated in the opening post, thatâs one of the things I am wondering the most. How many Rs are not voting in CA or NY because their votes really dont matter. Same for all of the Ds in traditionally very red states. Heck, even Ds and Rs in those states probably dont vote for the same reasons.
Obviously. Otherwise states wouldnât be able to do it. It doesnât change the fact that that it isnât what was originally done and was not what was originally envisioned. EC votes were originally apportioned according to house districts.The shift was purely a political decision that resulted in a race to the bottom to attempt to make sure your state (and generally the state legislatures favorite candidate) wasnât the one that was screwed by not doing it that way.
Your point is the better point. 2004 was a long time ago, and I think the Republican brand is a lot less popular than in 2004.
Granted, itâs apparently a lot more popular than I would have guessed last week ago, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.
I have a hard time believing the electoral college will be changed. There are problems with every voting system.
I think overall the current system works well enough.
I think changing the supreme court is much more likely, although I am not sure how likely that is either.
- Voting should be as easy as buying beer from a drive thru. Two times a year isnât asking much from your voting populace.
- Separate voting days forces people to look at each level of government separately, thus making a better educated public.
It would be interesting to see if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would hold up in court. Thatâs about the only chance I see of âgetting rid ofâ the EC.
I think eliminating the EC is a terrible idea since it would simply result in people living in rural areas losing any sort of voice for POTUS. If the popular vote was wildly different than electoral college, I would say that reform would be mandated, however.
Agree that federal/national elections should be done uniformly across the US. Congress pushing for âfederal equipmentâ (which could be secured by Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard components) to be used in every state can also facilitate this. I agree with funkingdedâs #2 statement about giving the voting population better educated when theyâre not forced to deal with national, state, and local issues all at the same time. Also, the voting process can be better streamlined.
I know this would never happen. But, if we could vote on our phones and have three or four authentications and ability to check our tallied vote that would be amazingâŚ
I feel like we are still in the stone edge with voting by mail and ballot. I do understand that we canât protect everything from cyber attacks or fraud.
It just would make everything so much easier.
What? Like the rural people of NY, CA, OR, WA, IL? Right now they literally have no voice whatsoever. With popular vote, they at least will have a say like everyone else.
I guess - why should less people get more voice? I get that they should be represented in some way, but why should they get more representation than other people?
I really like the idea of creating Wydahotana and California1/California2 and the like. The first isnât really feasible constitutionally, though.
The best way to get rural populations (as well as everyone else) better representation is to push government as local as possible. When the president can spend 30 minutes writing an order that can effect everyone in the nation or a handful of people on one rural route in one county, that is a problem. To access the people, feds should have to work through the states, and on down the line.
1 Like
The worry that NY will dictate what WY should or shouldnât do is stupid. Those are never the issues that the president decides. The president only decides things that affect all americans, thus every american should have equal voice.
The president should never be allowed to have a say in, say, WY should be a nuclear waste dump. That will indeed give legitimacy to the worry that bigger states will crush smaller states.
They have their local politics, which are not a branch of the federal government.