this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024

483 points (97.6% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1868 readers

467 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

483

Tim Walz calls for scrapping of electoral college to decide US presidential race (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I'm willing to switch to an electoral trial by bake off.

Here is the thing that scares me. If Republicans make every election cycle this shitty and horrible to witness over and over again I'm going to be so fucking sick of elections in less than a decade.

This exercise of over and over again deteriorating the experience of elections will wear down a part of the populace into saying "FINE! Fuck elections! Go get a king so that I don't have to listen to hateful bilious invective for 9 months out of the year."

I can't be the only one in fear of that type of fatigue to fascism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

This could actually open up the space for third parties. Just need to remove winner-takes-all.

[–] [email protected] 108 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Finally the dems are saying it out loud. They should have been yelling this from the treetops since Bush vs Gore.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It's easy to say and harder to do anything about. I believe it would take a constitutional amendment to fix on the national scale, or "opt-in" from enough states on the state level.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The first step towards change is elevating the conversation to high office, though, so this is something.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Completely agree!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The popular vote contract sounds interesting, but I like ranked voting more because it allows flexibility in sampling the public opinion of who they'd want. Think of any question a poll could ask you where you feel there isn't a clear yes/no or single answer. Isn't it better when it allows you to pick from a few choices that together reflect your answer? An election not only could turn out more voters, it could give statistical nuances on how people lean among the ones that voted in the winner. Eg., how many that voted both Democrat candidate as well as certain other parties.

Just had a thought that we could even see a person vote Democrat and Republican on a ticket. But at least they got their vote in and showed how they're torn.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The popular vote contract sounds interesting, but I like ranked voting more

Those solve two different problems. The first solves the problem of a candidate winning despite having fewer votes; the second solves the spoiler effect.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, the compact is definitely a way to get around the current system, not to overhaul it (which it desperately needs but would require 2/3 approval instead of >50% of the electoral college). I agree that if we are able to get constitutional amendments on the table, we should be looking at ranked choice or approval voting systems! But one of the big issues right now is unfamiliarity with either of those systems, and a lot of familiarity with popular choice. That's why it's so important that the many, many local and statewide initiatives for ranked choice get support!

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago

This and Ranked Choice Voting.

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wow, that's crazy a VP candidate for one of the two parties is actually saying this.

Respect.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I want Walz as president.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago

"but then it would be majority rule!! no faaaaaairrrrr"

-the party of fuck your feelings get over it

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (14 children)

If you live in a state that hasn't joined the NPVIC push your state legislature to adopt it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

Shows the list of states and each state links to a post submission to message your state’s legislature

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That'd be great!!!

I live in a deep red state. My vote won't matter as my states EC votes will go for the Republican candidate.

A popular vote would make my vote count finally.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The far easier plan is to simply increase the size of the House of Representatives. All it needs is a change, or repeal, of the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929. Replace it with something like the Wyoming Rule and done.

Not only does that fix Presidential Elections it would also fix or substantially ease a pile of other problems like Gerrymandering by giving the denser population areas the Representation they should have.

The HoR being fixed at only 435 seats is at the core of so many problems in this country.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Nah, even then the smaller populated states like mine have an outsized influence because it is senate (2) + house (population) number of votes per state. Our votes don't deserve to count more for the head executive (President) that represents everyone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I think you're missing the bigger picture. Right now there is 535 votes, 100 from the Senate and 435 from the House.

If the House were expanded to 574 (Wyoming Rule, based on 2010 population data) there would be now be 675, which reduces the relative weight of the Senate's votes by nearly 1/3rd.

Nothing says it has to be the Wyoming Rule either, we could set a fixed ratio of Citizens to Representatives say 250,000 to 1. Now the HoR would have nearly 1,000 people in it and the Senate would be down to just 10% of the EC votes.

Frankly the HoR should be 1,000 seats or larger. A body of only 435 or even 574 is too small to accurately represent the interests of almost 340,000,000 people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That would make the electoral college vote closer to proportional, but wouldn't solve the fundamental problem that small states will always have a disproportionate impact on the outcome as long as we use the electoral college system that is based on the sum of senate + house.

We should fix it as you note for the House to be truly representational of the population though.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

there wouldn't be a republican president ever again. they won't allow this

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

What if, now he's me out, they started to adopt popular policies?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Repubs want an electoral college, because it's the only way they can win

Repubs want to keep gerrymandering because it's the only way they can win

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was shocked when I first heard about some people deciding, instead of how many people actually voted for a candidate.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Apparently some Americans were, too.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Not to mention that a popular vote would be much more secure, and cheaper.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

The republicans will see this as a threat to their way of life. Idiots.

load more comments