I think John Oliver did a piece on how many states have signed a deal of some sorts saying their electors will always vote according to the popular vote, effectively removing the electoral college without any federal law change required.
That doesn’t result in the popular vote matching the electoral college vote because the electoral college votes are not directly proportional to population and the margin of victory doesn’t matter.
Small rural states have an outsized impact as long as a candidate has a plurality of the votes. Something like 25% of the total national votes is all that is needed to win the presidency in the most extreme case. That is how the Republicans have won the presidency without the popular vote twice in the last few decades.
Well no it won’t address the discrepancy between the number of electors and number of voters, but it does address the fact that the electors could just vote whatever they wanted, which is why there’s been a few presidents in the US who lost the popular vote. You know, like Trump in 2016.
If the electors can vote against the will of the people, then it doesn’t really matter what relationship the people are represented at. So that has to be fixed first, then you can possibly address the discrepancy in the amount of people. Hopefully.
Oh I sorry I just realised you don’t actually understand.
See in pretty much every “first world country” we use direct presidential elections and if the US did too, the result of those elections would’ve been different.
Not the “will of the people”.
The US isn’t a democracy. (And republics are types of democracies btw)
Small rural states have an outsized impact as long as a candidate has a plurality of the votes. Something like 25% of the total national votes is all that is needed to win the presidency in the most extreme case. That is how the Republicans have won the presidency without the popular vote twice in the last few decades.
What the fuck are you trying to argue? My point for the entire time has been that unlike modern first world democracies, the US uses indirect elections, ie the electoral college. This is a massive problem in democracy for the US and luckily, it can be circumvented entirely through state legislation without any need for involvement of the federal government.
Your counter-argument has been “WYYAAA WYYAAA WYAAAA”. Not really clear what you’re trying to say with that, so please, do elaborate.
I think John Oliver did a piece on how many states have signed a deal of some sorts saying their electors will always vote according to the popular vote, effectively removing the electoral college without any federal law change required.
That doesn’t result in the popular vote matching the electoral college vote because the electoral college votes are not directly proportional to population and the margin of victory doesn’t matter.
Small rural states have an outsized impact as long as a candidate has a plurality of the votes. Something like 25% of the total national votes is all that is needed to win the presidency in the most extreme case. That is how the Republicans have won the presidency without the popular vote twice in the last few decades.
Well no it won’t address the discrepancy between the number of electors and number of voters, but it does address the fact that the electors could just vote whatever they wanted, which is why there’s been a few presidents in the US who lost the popular vote. You know, like Trump in 2016.
If the electors can vote against the will of the people, then it doesn’t really matter what relationship the people are represented at. So that has to be fixed first, then you can possibly address the discrepancy in the amount of people. Hopefully.
No state in 2016 awarded Trump electoral college votes without him winning that state’s popular vote. What are you talking about?
Oh I sorry I just realised you don’t actually understand.
See in pretty much every “first world country” we use direct presidential elections and if the US did too, the result of those elections would’ve been different.
Not the “will of the people”.
The US isn’t a democracy. (And republics are types of democracies btw)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
I don’t understand the thing that I already said that you seem to be trying to explain back to me?
k
So you do understand that if the popular vote was the thing that mattered and not the electoral college, Trump would’ve lost in 2016?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote
Yes, that is the thing we are talking about.
So you do understand that if the popular vote was the thing that mattered and not the electoral college, Trump would’ve lost in 2016?
Yes,. that is why I said:
Do you have a brain injury?
You seem to.
What the fuck are you trying to argue? My point for the entire time has been that unlike modern first world democracies, the US uses indirect elections, ie the electoral college. This is a massive problem in democracy for the US and luckily, it can be circumvented entirely through state legislation without any need for involvement of the federal government.
Your counter-argument has been “WYYAAA WYYAAA WYAAAA”. Not really clear what you’re trying to say with that, so please, do elaborate.