this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024

680 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19047 readers

3980 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

680

Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College (www.pewresearch.org)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

135 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 3) 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I can already hear it...

wEr,E a REpUbLiC nOt A dEMoCrOcy111

Alternatively, with a simple bill we can establish an EC so large or doesn't effectively matter. We would just repeal the inter-war bill freezing the size of the House of Representatives and set the ratio to something that means even Montana gets 20 EC votes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Alternatively, with a simple bill we can establish an EC so large or doesn't effectively matter.

Well it's still up to the states to determine how electors are determined. That's because the president was intentionally designed to not be a prime minister (speaker of the house) because they are intentionally not elected in the same way as the house

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In theory a state could decide to just have the legislature vote. But in reality most, if not all states, have constitutional rules about having to have an election.

But that's a tangential consideration to expanding the EC. If someone needed 5,000 votes for the EC then it would be very hard for the middle states to swing that election with their land, no matter how they selected their electors. And at the end of the day, that's the point. People should vote, not land. We already have the Senate that gives equal representation to each state and acts as a representative for land. There's no reason to have the EC doing the same and it wasn't the EC's original purpose.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I admit I have a ideological bias in favor of the current system because it makes a full sweep more difficult, limiting the federal government.

But,

There’s no reason to have the EC doing the same and it wasn’t the EC’s original purpose.

Yes it partially was. The point was to have the president basically be the middle point between state representation in the Senate, and popularish representation in the House.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It was a compromise but not between the Senate and House. Otherwise they wouldn't have involved the people and states at all. It was a compromise between the House and a popular election. Between Congress and the President being too close and a democratic mob running things. It was also part of their idea that land ownership mattered.

But nothing in the Constitution requires us to remain tied to the land and the house was supposed to keep expanding. It expanded slower and slower over time though until it straight up stopped expanding in the 1930's. Representation in the house was supposed to be far more personal, you were supposed to be able to sit down and talk with your rep.

That's why the EC has started diverging from the popular ballot. We're too big for the current cap on representatives to effectively represent. With the original ratio we'd have around 10,000 members of Congress. Even a tenth of that would go a long way to restoring the electoral system and breaking the power dynamics in Congress that favor mega donors.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was a compromise but not between the Senate and House.

I wasn't saying it was. I was saying it was designed to be representative of the people(also represented by the house) and the states(also represented by the senate).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (7 children)

You're thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises. At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago

Pew Research Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Pew Research is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pew-research/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

load more comments