https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a34532264/trump-popular-vote-fans-wont-pretend/
"Not Even the President's Most Shameless Lackeys Are Pretending He'll Get More Citizens' Votes on Tuesday"
No one says Donald Trump will get a majority of Americans to support him. No one.
"The Republican Party has for years fought tooth and nail to stop people from voting, and make their votes count for less. The captured Court, let by Chief Justice John Roberts, gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and unleashed a wave of voter suppression in Republican-controlled states. (This, after the Court unleashed unlimited money into our elections with Citizens United.) To dilute the influence of inconvenient people who do vote, the Republican Party has ruthlessly gerrymandered themselves into power, both at the congressional level—where Democrats took back the House in 2018 only through extraordinary margins of victory at the ballot box—and at the state level, where Democrats in states like Wisconsin regularly win a majority of votes but a significant minority of seats.
"The Republican Party has also leaned on the most undemocratic elements of our constitutional system, controlling the Senate despite, again, winning many millions fewer votes, thanks to its ingrained preference for rural representation. The majority that confirmed Barrett represent 14 million fewer Americans than the minority that voted against her confirmation. Mitch McConnell has turned the national legislature's upper chamber into a right-wing judge-confirmation machine that no longer concerns itself with passing legislation. And of course, thanks to the anti-democratic abomination that is the Electoral College—a feature tied to the Senate's construction—they've won three out of the last five presidential elections despite winning more citizens' votes just once."
@cheesemaster saidYour side claims that this is necessary to "preserve" a "representative republic", and yet all it does is change the favored states from those with more population to those with least population. This is just more voter suppression.
The framers put in place a protection for small states to keep large, heavily populated states from shutting them out. Each state elects representatives who hopefully defend their views in Congress, making us a representative republic.
An ideal system would retain the concept of "one person, one vote", as any true democracy requires.
@Cheesemaster the Electoral College was put in place to protect the southern slave holding states. That's also why slaves were considered 3/5th of a person. It's just one more example of how slavery and racism have shaped our country. The Founding Fathers had lengthy arguments over the electoral college.
@cheesemaster saidActually it's four times in history: 1888 was another example of this, when Grover Cleveland (the incumbent) lost to Benjamin Harrison despite a majority in the popular vote.
The electoral college has chosen a president against the popular vote totals only three times in history: 1876, 2000 and 2016. All three times the electoral college ended up with the Republican as President – which is why Democrats, all of a sudden, don’t like the system.
Proponents of the electoral college say it enfranchises small states. However, Harrison owed his victory to a narrow win in two large swing states, New York (36 electoral votes, won by 15,000 votes out of 1,319,748 cast) and Indiana (15 electoral votes, won by little more that 2000 votes out of 536,949 cast) - just as, notoriously, George Bush Jr owed his victory to a dubious outcome in Florida. In fact, the electoral colleges encourages presidential candidates to devote all their time and energy to campaigning in swing states, ignoring Red and Blue states large or small.
You say that "All three [actually four] times the electoral college ended up with the Republican as President – which is why Democrats, all of a sudden, don’t like the system." The reverse can be just as easily stated: that's why Republicans, all of a sudden, love the system.
@phranny saidWyoming has only 500 thousand people.
@Cheesemaster the Electoral College was put in place to protect the southern slave holding states. That's also why slaves were considered 3/5th of a person. It's just one more example of how slavery and racism have shaped our country. The Founding Fathers had lengthy arguments over the electoral college.
You think its fair that one democrat city can cancel out the votes of an entire state?
People in one state should not be deciding how people in another state live.
@cheesemaster saidSo you think it fair that those 500 thousand people get a larger voice than another 500 thousand who happen to live in a city?
Wyoming has only 500 thousand people.
You think its fair that one democrat city can cancel out the votes of an entire state?
People in one state should not be deciding how people in another state live.
People in one state should not be deciding how people in another state live.
@cheesemaster saidWhich four states and how? The most populous four states add up to 151 electoral votes, far short of a majority.
By your logic 4 states would control every election.
Then all of the other states wouldn't even vote.
That would be a dictatorship in a way 🤔
Stop trying to change the rules because you are losing.
In 2000, Al Gore would have won (even without Florida) had he managed to hold on to (then traditionally Democratic) West Virginia, with its modest four electoral votes. Every electoral vote counts. It's surely just a small step from this to move towards a sensible system where every vote counts!
And it works both ways. Bear in mind that in 2016, 4,483,810 Californians voted for Donald Trump (more than did in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas and Iowa combined), but all of them were effectively disenfranchised, since their votes had no representation in the college.
@cheesemaster saidOne person, one vote.
By your logic 4 states would control every election.
Then all of the other states wouldn't even vote.
That would be a dictatorship in a way 🤔
Stop trying to change the rules because you are losing.
I live in a red state. When I vote, my vote is thrown to the wind because all of the electoral votes of my red state go to another candidate that I did not choose and so my vote means NOTHING. Do you think this is how the founding fathers meant it to be?
Would you still tout the disenfranchisement of your electoral college if every state gave a "representative" proportion of electoral votes to the candidates in proportion to the actual popular vote? If my state's 9 electoral votes were divided 5-4 in a close race, at least my vote would not be sterile like the ashes of the pyre of democracy.
@Teinosuke
We are talking about population votes.
So California, New York, Texas and Florida would decide every election if they got rid of the EC.
Follow along.
@Suzianne
I wouldn't disagree with the EC votes being split in each state in proportion to how the popular vote went 🤔
It would be interesting to see the numbers and how past elections would have turned out.
@suzianne saidArizona is considered a swing state for the Presidential election get out there and vote
One person, one vote.
I live in a red state. When I vote, my vote is thrown to the wind because all of the electoral votes of my red state go to another candidate that I did not choose and so my vote means NOTHING. Do you think this is how the founding fathers meant it to be?
Would you still tout the disenfranchisement of your electoral college if every state gave a ...[text shortened]... 5-4 in a close race, at least my vote would not be sterile like the ashes of the pyre of democracy.