3 ms·

If the US electoral system didn't drastically disadvantage the popular vote this would certainly be different. Defending free speech is meaningless if one pers

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• bko 5y ago
  The political game is optimized for the current system. If the rules changed to something like popular vote, the strategies would shift drastically. You can't just take the popular vote from the current system and assume it would carry over with a new set of rules. There's also tradeoffs to a purely direct democracy that have to be weighed. It's not a clear-cut win for governance
  • juve1996 5y ago
    It's true we can't "really" know. But I would bet a lot of money that republicans would be severely disadvantaged without an electoral college. Not much would change. The nation would still be 2 party. We'd simply have a president elected by popular vote like every other (senators, reps, etc.) Strategies can change but that doesn't mean the current system does not significantly benefit one party over another. The very existence of the senate is a blocker to true democratic rule and for good reason. But I don't think changing the election of the president to one person gets one vote would usurp the current system. It's simply more fair. But of course more fair is not what any party truly wants.