cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/488620

65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

  • @jimbolauski
    link
    -59 months ago

    Swing states don’t get the only say, a vote in an uncontested or lopsided race is still counted. All you are complaining about is you want your state to feel special on election night.

    • @PizzaManOP
      link
      5
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Swing states don’t get the only say

      They effectively do.

      a vote in an uncontested or lopsided race is still counted.

      But they are effectively meaningless because California will always vote blue and Texas will always vote red. If you try to vote against your state’s pre-selected candidate your vote basically just gets tossed.

      Actually it’s worse, since your population contribution actually ends up going towards electors that vote against what you voted for.

      All you are complaining about is you want your state to feel special on election night.

      No, I want all votes to be counted equally. I live in a swing state, and unless you live in a tighter swing state, my vote means more than yours ever will. That’s bullshit, and a fundamentally bad design.

      My state shouldn’t be special. That’s the whole point of getting rid of the electoral college, to ensure all votes are counted equally regardless of origin of state.

      • @jimbolauski
        link
        -29 months ago

        Applying your logic to a popular vote, people’s votes won’t matter as the margin will be more than 100,000 their vote makes no difference. Is your goa tol make everyone’s vote not matter?

        • @PizzaManOP
          link
          39 months ago

          people’s votes won’t matter as the margin will be more than 100,000 their vote makes no difference

          But each of those votes are counted the same, and I don’t want FPTP like you seem to think.

          Instead I want STAR or approval voting. So that complaint doesn’t really apply because with both STAR and approval, each vote is counted equally, and give you more control over how your vote contributes to the final count.

          • @jimbolauski
            link
            -19 months ago

            Votes are counted equality in the electoral system, popular voting, ranking systems, or approval. Your perceived value of a vote in the swing states vs a vote in solid states is just that. The votes still count no matter which state they are from.

            • @PizzaManOP
              link
              2
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Votes are counted equality in the electoral system

              No they aren’t, they are weighted by state, and if your state votes against you your vote essentially gets tossed out in favor of the candidate you voted against.

              https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280

              They literally are not counted equally.

              The votes still count no matter which state they are from.

              A red vote in a blue state gets ignored. A blue vote in a red state gets ignored. That is a terrible design.

              And votes shouldn’t just all count, all of them should be counted equally.

              • @jimbolauski
                link
                09 months ago

                So you’ve shifted from votes only matter in swing states to votes only matter if their side wins and smaller states have a higher elector to population rates.

                None of that matters, each person’s vote is counted once. You are conflating the outcome of the election to whether the vote counts. It’s like saying everyone who voted against an issue that passed vote did not count.

                • @PizzaManOP
                  link
                  29 months ago

                  So you’ve shifted from votes only matter in swing states to votes only matter

                  No, I haven’t shifted, I’m describing several different problems.

                  • Swing states are the only ones that make a difference. That’s why candidates only visit swing states for the most part.

                  • Votes are ignored when your state votes against you (Ex: California votes 51% blue 49% red, but 100% of the electoral votes go to blue, effectively ignoring half the voters). Your vote should go to your choice, not the opposition.

                  • Each vote is weighted differently based on citizen location, which is antithetical to democracy

                  None of that matters, each person’s vote is counted once.

                  This is irrelevant, the issue is not the number of times counted, it’s how it’s counted.

                  You are conflating the outcome of the election to whether the vote counts.

                  That is quite literally how the electoral vote works. Blue votes from Texas are ignored, with the electoral votes going to red.

                  It’s like saying everyone who voted against an issue that passed vote did not count.

                  Maybe that’d be true if electoral votes reflected the actual vote within a state, but they don’t, it’s almost always winner take all.

                  • @jimbolauski
                    link
                    09 months ago

                    Swing states are not the only votes that make a difference. If enough people believed that in a solid state and didn’t vote the outcome would change ie their vote counts.

                    Your vote should go to your choice, not the opposition.

                    Your vote doesn’t get changed based on the outcome it stays the same. It is still counted.

                    Issue voting is winner take all and unless I missed it you don’t have a problem with that.

                    What you are asking for is a more granular representation for votes, not to “make everyone’s vote count”.