Ranked choice voting is a sort of popular vote, and it should be illegal. So I disagree, we need the electoral college. I do not want New York in California deciding for me
4 Likes
God those men were so brilliant.
3 Likes
The idea of “one person, one vote” sounds good, except for the fact population is not distributed evenly across the United States. This is true everywhere in the world. Most people live in a metropolitan area (urban or suburban) near a large water body of some kind. That’s simply how our modern civilization works.
People with similar lifestyles tend to be heavily ideologically aligned because they largely face the same kinds of challenges and share the same value structures through which they see the world.
I asked ChatGPT the following (and supplied the critical sentence response):
“how much of the us population live in cities that are governed by the democratic party?”
Overall, it’s estimated that roughly 50% to 60% of the entire U.S. population resides in cities governed by Democrats.
By forcing national campaigns to focus on the “swing states” what you’ll notice is the swing states themselves actually have a more balanced distribution of people with misaligned interests (they have about equal numbers of people in metropolitan and rural areas). That’s how they generally become a swing state in the first place. This forces campaigns to adopt policies that balance all those competing interests, which results in a better result for the country overall.
Without the EC you don’t change the fact that campaigns will concentrate their efforts in only a handful of states, you simply change which states get their attention and shape their agendas.
Another pretty good map was already given, but I like this one to make the point even clearer:
without the EC, your goal, as a campaigner, would be to get over 50% of the popular vote.
The spikes represent population density.
To get elected president without the EC requires you to focus on the spikes.
According to the map maker’s analysis, 53% of the population lives in the top 20 cities, and 75% of the population live in a metropolitan area (the spikes).
These people, more or less, all have generally aligned interests (policies that are good for the “city folk”).
Campaign wise, that means the rural farming communities are almost always irrelevant and this same principle is going to hold true for Senate seats, governors, and most of the other “top jobs” that are decided by large geographies using a direct popular vote selection method.
3 Likes
The intent was to give equal voice to those in rural and sparsely populated areas equal to those within our major cities. As the above map posting shows, we would have all elections dictated by the east and west coasts, with no voice for middle America were we to do a simple one vote per, rather than the electoral college.
Also, why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy as so many call us.
4 Likes
Eliminating the electoral college is basically destroying the foundation of our founder’s Nation. The States created the federal government - States have rights. it’s the UNITED STATES of America. Each State is a sovereign State. The electoral college protects smaller states and minorities from being ruled by the goliaths. Perhaps the fact that the federal government has gained more and more power due to court rulings than intended by the founders has clouded the judgement of those wanting the popular vote to supersede the states. We are NOT a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. I would assume then that if those in favor of elimination the electoral college, would be in favor of changing the makeup of the United States Senate, solidifying entire mob rule. .
7 Likes
Well said!
It is explained in the federalist paper writings. Electors were never meant to be controlled by political parties or government entity and told how to vote. The people should be voting for an elector they trust in their district to make an informed vote for the best, most qualified candidate for president. Electoral votes go directly to congress, they do not need approval from political parties, state government or anyone else. One reason for this process is to limit voting corruption/interference which is easier to control in local districts over a short period of time than in state or federal arenas which prolong the process.
4 Likes
that is what it was meant to be as explained in The Federalist Papers.
4 Likes
@Freddy I have to say absolutely not. There were two points of the electoral college. One was to equalize the voices of states with small land mass or that are sparsely populated and not allow 8 or 9 major cities to rule the election. The other was the belief that the President should not be elected based on population centers but have broad appeal across the entire country and to force them to run on national issues not “ginnies” and free stuff, but on what authorities the federal government was granted That would mean they had to go to most or all of the states and face the voters and plead their case. It protects your vote and your voice if you live in NV or CT or RI against what a handful of big cities want that you do not. It does not discourage voters-remember just a few decades ago CA was Red and TX was blue and now they are the opposite. We live in a Republic and a pure democracy is mob rule where 50.1% can win over 49.9% and then no matter who wins half the nation is unhappy. This is a part of the Constitution I would not change. There have only been 4 times in history when the Popular Vote and the EC did not match anyway. The electoral votes go in states to the winner of the popular vote in that state as it is. And your theory is incorrect because when you talk about outsized influence, it can best be shown by the fact that 5 big cities in CA runs the whole show there since states electors are based on the popular vote in that state. And the only time the democratic legitimacy is ever questioned is when when extreme liberals don’t get their way based on 1 more vote than the other side got.
2 Likes
This is a bad Idea. It is unconstitutional because it would turn america into a democracy, where the majority rule. Democracy’s fail! In america we have a constitutional republic. This mob rule would turn america into socialist or communist country, and would turn america against individuals rights, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. In history i believe ceaser did this and ruled by controlling the mob and removing his opposition. He ruled the mob by having the colosium. I believe there was a phrase that went keep the people fed and distracted and you can do whatever you want.
2 Likes
Its simple in theory, but the EC likely needs reform. The EC is based on decisions made from how large the states population is and we need to make sure that states arent being influenced by ILLEGAL immigrants. A census needs to be done far more often than every decade. We need to be as accurate as we can with how many legitimate U.S. citizens are in each state in this country, so that each person really feels that their vote ACTUALLY matters. Voting needs to be encouraged more, and we need to educate people better on how voting genuinely effects them. Im 37 years old, and I just cast my very first vote this year for the man who will help us fix this country. The whole system needs a massive rework.
2 Likes
Pure democracy has often been described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.
The Electoral college exists to protect minority rights, Without it we wouldn’t have had a country as smaller states would never have joined the union. If it were to be eliminated, the country would dissolve.
This is an idea promoted by those who want centralized power, which always leads to tyranny.
4 Likes
You lost me at the phrase democratic governance. This is anti-constitutional and would create a completely unfair representation of We The People!
3 Likes
This is the WORST IDEA EVER!! Never Abolish Electoral College. 
4 Likes
I completely disagree it was set up to ensure the populations of each state has a say in elections.
3 Likes
I don’t agree, If not for the electoral College you will have cities like NY,LA etc with large poplulation be determining our president all the time… Our fathers new what they were doing when this was established. everyone has a vote and not just places that are densly populated…
3 Likes
This issue would cause a Constitutional Crisis. It would because the electoral college is in the Constitution and would require for ALL states to ratify it.
The founders looked at this and decided that the minority wouldnt have a say. Meaning smaller populated states would be not represented, hence we are Representative Constitutional Republic, Democratically elected by the people to represent us in DC. The electoral college is in place to not give one state more power over others based on population. We are the United States, but made up of individual states, think of your state being its own country per say.
The founders knew that if they went to a full democracy tyrannts could be elected and that animosity between the states having more power over smaller ones, just based on population. This would cause war among the states, and cause some to leave the union. As it we’re five states in America would rule over the rest, 45 states would not be represented in our Representative Republic, if we had a true democracy. That word actually is a falsehood by the media and politicians because we are not a democracy. A Democratic Constitutional Republic is what America is. The National Popular vote is for those that never want out of power. We have checks and balances and the Electoral College protects that balance of power.
1 Like
Terrible idea. Explained in previous comments.
1 Like
NO! We need the Electoral College process to keep elections fair and to give citizens in rural areas and smaller states a voice. If eliminated, people in big cities and bigger states would decide elections and there would be no need for the rest of America to vote. We live in a republic, not a democracy and this protects the rights of the minority.
3 Likes
1000% No
2 Likes