7 ms·

People should consider that campaigning, platforms and candidates would be entirely different in a world run by popular vote. It may or may not ultimately be b

People should consider that campaigning, platforms and candidates would be entirely different in a world run by popular vote. It may or may not ultimately be better, but it certainly wouldn't be a simple one variable change from the current political climate to the benefit of one party today. I'm largely in favor of popular vote over the EC, but it would not usher in a huge change to the status quo, more likely a slightly different flavor of what we have today. The stances of both parties has drastically changed over time under the EC model, and would continue to do so under the popular vote model

hacknews6 2y ago
It would absolutely be better. Think of how many Trump voters are disenfranchised in California. Think of how many Harris voters are disenfranchised in Alabama. The president represents everyone, and yet, seven random states will actually move the needle in the contest this year. This is only controversial because it benefits one party that would otherwise consistently lose in an election that uses sane math where "greater than" hasn't been redefined to let the loser win, so now everyone who's into that is going to come out of the woodwork to explain how a minority-rule system from back when we had slavery is actually super great, guys.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Alabama won't see another candidate if the US went by popular vote ...
  - curiousgal 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    Who cares about "Alabama"? Or "Texas"? Or "California"? The point being made is that the presidency shouldn't be weighted by states. It should be a selection by the people. To your assumption that Alabama will always be lopsided conservative while the country will always be lopsided Republican: Why should the Democrats in Alabama never have their voice heard? I support electoral reform for the legislature... but the EC is trash.
glimshe 2y ago
This is correct and Trump said that himself in 2016. According to him, he would spend a lot more time and money campaigning in California and New York instead of battleground states if the system was different. And we would then see the very issue the electoral college tries to fix: small states wouldn't matter. It would be a lot more efficient in terms of vote acquisition to put in place policies benefitting Los Angeles than Green Bay, WI. Los Angeles is already extremely powerful as it is; the electoral college shifts some power away from huge cities.
- azemetre 2y ago
  Small states already don’t matter, with EC only “battleground” states matter; which feels way way worse. We also already have weird dynamics when it comes to policy. More people are likely employed by Wendy’s than all the coal workers, but something tells me that coal workers are given way more policy proposals to help them than fast food workers.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Any state with a near 50/50 vote can become a "battleground" state. Only states with one party autocratic rule lose out.
    - azemetre 2y ago
      Not if you go by popular vote, not necessarily at least. There are millions of voters for the other political parties in say California, Texas, New York, Florida; none of these voters will get their voice heard because of how they typically vote (CA going blue, Texas going red). Popular vote ensures that all votes matter, not just whatever happens to be a battle ground state which change every 10 years or so. BTW saying that one party having a trifecta of governance as autocratic is fucking moronic and not accurate. Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want.
      - leereeves 2y ago

hacknews6 2y ago

It would absolutely be better. Think of how many Trump voters are disenfranchised in California. Think of how many Harris voters are disenfranchised in Alabama. The president represents everyone, and yet, seven random states will actually move the needle in the contest this year. This is only controversial because it benefits one party that would otherwise consistently lose in an election that uses sane math where "greater than" hasn't been redefined to let the loser win, so now everyone who's into that is going to come out of the woodwork to explain how a minority-rule system from back when we had slavery is actually super great, guys.

readthenotes1 2y ago
Alabama won't see another candidate if the US went by popular vote ...
- curiousgal 2y ago
  [flagged]
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  Who cares about "Alabama"? Or "Texas"? Or "California"? The point being made is that the presidency shouldn't be weighted by states. It should be a selection by the people. To your assumption that Alabama will always be lopsided conservative while the country will always be lopsided Republican: Why should the Democrats in Alabama never have their voice heard? I support electoral reform for the legislature... but the EC is trash.

glimshe 2y ago

This is correct and Trump said that himself in 2016. According to him, he would spend a lot more time and money campaigning in California and New York instead of battleground states if the system was different. And we would then see the very issue the electoral college tries to fix: small states wouldn't matter. It would be a lot more efficient in terms of vote acquisition to put in place policies benefitting Los Angeles than Green Bay, WI. Los Angeles is already extremely powerful as it is; the electoral college shifts some power away from huge cities.

azemetre 2y ago
Small states already don’t matter, with EC only “battleground” states matter; which feels way way worse. We also already have weird dynamics when it comes to policy. More people are likely employed by Wendy’s than all the coal workers, but something tells me that coal workers are given way more policy proposals to help them than fast food workers.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Any state with a near 50/50 vote can become a "battleground" state. Only states with one party autocratic rule lose out.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Not if you go by popular vote, not necessarily at least. There are millions of voters for the other political parties in say California, Texas, New York, Florida; none of these voters will get their voice heard because of how they typically vote (CA going blue, Texas going red). Popular vote ensures that all votes matter, not just whatever happens to be a battle ground state which change every 10 years or so. BTW saying that one party having a trifecta of governance as autocratic is fucking moronic and not accurate. Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want.
    - leereeves 2y ago