What if every single eligible American voted in the presidential election this November?
Hahahaha, good one! But how do you circumvent the electoral college? Popular vote doesn't matter beyond appeasing the masses who think they have a choice. Just like the parties don't have to nominate the most popular candidate (see Bernie/Hillary in 2016 DNC).
I'm of the UK so I don't know. As far as I can tell the electoral college should probably not exist.
The Electoral College was implemented as part of the United States Constitution for several key reasons:
Compromise Between Large and Small States: The Electoral College was a compromise during the Constitutional Convention between delegates from larger states and those from smaller states. It balanced the influence of states with larger populations against those with smaller populations, ensuring that smaller states still had a significant role in the election of the President.
Federalism: The framers of the Constitution wanted to reinforce the federal structure of the government, where both the states and the national government have distinct and significant roles. The Electoral College ensures that states, as political entities, participate in the election of the President.
Protection Against Direct Democracy: The framers were wary of direct democracy and the potential for mob rule. By having electors, rather than a direct popular vote, they aimed to create a buffer between the general populace and the election of the President, with electors who could exercise their judgment.
Concerns Over Information and Travel: At the time of the Constitutional Convention, there were concerns about the difficulty of conducting a nationwide popular vote due to the vast distances, lack of quick communication, and the varying levels of information available to citizens in different parts of the country. The Electoral College system was seen as a way to manage these practical challenges.
Historical Precedent: The concept of electors had historical precedents in other systems of government, such as the Roman Republic and the selection of the Holy Roman Emperor, where leaders were chosen by a body of electors rather than by direct popular vote.
Overall, the Electoral College was designed to create a balanced system that considered the diverse interests of the states, mitigated potential issues with direct democracy, and accommodated the practical realities of the 18th century.
Interesting and very well said.
That's 100% a ChatGPT response
Whenever people complain about the College, it’s like they never took US History
One can definitely oppose the electoral college after taking US History. Sure, history gives insight as to why it was implemented in the first place, but the Framers also knew that society’s ideals for its government would change over time. Our system has gotten more democratic in other ways: Voting is no longer limited to white male property owners. Senators are elected by popular vote. The voting age is now 18.
So the question to ask now is whether the electoral college is still a good idea and, if not, what should replace it.
I believe the electoral college is still a good idea and it should not be replaced or modified personally. We don’t need larger states bullying smaller states into living the way they do in larger populated areas.
Exactly, and it’s frustrating to hear constant cries for democracy when the founding fathers themselves had reservations about the concept. We are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. Interestingly, the word "democracy" doesn't even appear in any of our nation's founding documents.
I understand why the Electoral College was created but the reasons that made it make sense in 1787 don’t make sense anymore.
Like what?
Like difficulty of communicating across the country, illiterate voters and slavery.
The Electoral College reinforces the federal structure of the United States by ensuring that states, regardless of size, have a role in electing the president. This system acknowledges the sovereignty of states and encourages presidential candidates to address the needs and interests of a diverse range of states rather than focusing solely on populous urban areas.
By requiring candidates to gain broad geographic support, the Electoral College helps to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections. This encourages candidates to build coalitions across various states and regions, promoting national unity.
The Electoral College can provide a more definitive outcome in close elections. It is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College, but the inverse can also avoid scenarios where a candidate wins by a narrow margin nationally but lacks broad support.
Given these reasons, it becomes clear that the Electoral College remains necessary, even if those in populous urban areas may disagree.
The Electoral College reinforces the federal structure of the United States by ensuring that states, regardless of size, have a role in electing the president.
All states would have a role in electing a president under a popular vote system too.
This system acknowledges the sovereignty of states and encourages presidential candidates to address the needs and interests of a diverse range of states rather than focusing solely on populous urban areas.
Lol, what? The EC has nothing to do with urban areas. When it was created, there were no populous urban areas. Something like 95% of Americans lived in rural areas. Also, if the goal was to get candidates to focus on a diverse range of states, it’s failed miserably. The EC ensures that candidates focus only on swing states. In 2016, two thirds of campaign events occurred in just 6 states, with the majority of states seeing zero campaign events.
This encourages candidates to build coalitions across various states and regions, promoting national unity.
What it actually encourages is candidates to appeal exclusively to swing states at the expense of the majority of the country. In 2016, 3 of the 4 most populous states (California, Texas, and New York) representing more than a quarter of all Americans, saw a combined 2 presidential camping events. For comparison, Arizona, with less than 2% of the population, saw 10 events.
The Electoral College can provide a more definitive outcome in close elections.
It literally does the exact opposite of this. In 2000 and 2020, Gore and Biden won the popular vote fairly easily, by 500,000 votes and 7 million votes respectively. Instead of cruising to victory, they both had long extended battles in the courts because of the Electoral College.
but the inverse can also avoid scenarios where a candidate wins by a narrow margin nationally but lacks broad support.
This has never happened and will never happen.
You forgot slavery.
Of the 13 colonies, why did the ones with smaller voting populations need protection? Because they had large populations of enslaved people that could not vote. But I wasn't there-- here's James Madison's take on it.
“There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”
More than 90% of enslaved people lived in Southern states. The Northern and Southern states had nearly equal populations-- except that 1/3 of all Southerners were enslaved. The 3/5ths compromise gave the Southern states nearly half of the Congress and, thereby, nearly half the electors.
Talking about what motivated the Founders to write the Constitution without acknowledging slavery is a weird take on history. They knew what they were doing and talked openly about it.
Yes, slavery did play a role in the creation of the Electoral College, but it was not the primary reason for its establishment. The main concern was to balance the political power between states with larger populations and those with smaller populations. While slavery influenced certain aspects of the Constitution, it was not the primary motivation behind its drafting. To suggest that slavery was the main reason for writing the Constitution is an oversimplified view of U.S. history.
okay chatgpt
Have you ever used a tool to aid you or another in a task? That’s all that was done here AbbreviationsTrue677.
ChatGPT ahh comment
Oh no somebody used a tool to aid in providing information! Haha do you have a point to make? Was it a bad response to explain what the electoral college is? I’m real confused about what you are trying to accomplish
The founding fathers thought you all were too stupid and added the electoral college to make sure you didn't get hoodwinked.
Boy that worked out. If trump wasn’t the poster child of stupid voter decisions I don’t know what is.
Trump is the poster child of stupid. Period. (As the Americans say)
Yeahit failed because we never should have had someone with severe mental decline win.
No that's not why. The smaller states wouldn't ratify the Constitution without the electoral college. They felt that presidential candidates would ignore their constituents.
It was a compromise between the senate electing the president (like some European countries), and citizens electing the president. The "senate should vote" contingent thought people were stupid.
That’s not really what the electoral college was about, that’s why we have the Senate
You mean slave states. The amount of electoral votes a state gets is based on the number of Representatives it has in the House which is based on a state’s free population and 3/5 of its slave population. Slave states feared that under a popular vote system, the president would always be a northerner.
... no. The founding fathers didn't have telephones. EC makes a great deal of sense if you live in a world where getting a message from one side of the country to the other can take months, if it arrives at all.
Didn you not pay attention in Junior High? They wrote about their reasoning, at length.
Do you mean to tell me you did pay attention in jr high?
Of course not... pretty much missed high school too. But then when I read about it in college, I was like... wait we learned this in Junior High.
Don't you have first past the post elections anyway?
Yep and it's shit.
If the electoral college was implemented the way it was meant to be it would actually have not been any different from popular vote. There was a lower limit set in the constitution of 1 representative per 30k people. There was no upper limit because why would a state lose power by appointing fewer representatives than they can. And then they fixed the total number of representatives to 438.
If the electoral college was implemented the way it was meant to be it would actually have not been any different from popular vote.
This is totally wrong. The Electoral College doesn’t require a popular vote at all and many states didn’t hold a popular vote for president, with South Carolina being the last to change to a popular vote. It wouldn’t be until 1872 when every state held a popular vote for president.
And then they fixed the total number of representatives to 438.
435
Jesus Christ. That’s not how the electoral college works.
For god sake’s people JUST VOTE!
Trolls love discouraging people from voting...
Just like the parties don't have to nominate the most popular candidate (see Bernie/Hillary in 2016 DNC).
You might want to double check that. Clinton got 3 million more votes than Bernie.
You wouldn't need to. In most/all of the states Biden would get the popular vote if turnout was 100% (mostly thanks to young people who tend to vote the least but also vote to the left), and enough states bind their electors to the popular vote that it would absolutely be a landslide.
You don't. We just have the facade of Democracy even if literally every person votes. Until we do away with EC we will never have a proper democracy.
Idk, maybe in a true democracy, people could have a bit more say over "who" they get to vote for? Having a vote in the decision of "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" somehow doesn't fulfill me, democratically.
We are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.
You'd get a lot of people marking down a name they recognize instead of choosing a candidate based on their policies.
As opposed to what happens currently
The blue-no-matter-who crowd.
Don't forget red-because-Im-braindead.
Oooh... Someone needs a listen to this old Radiolab episode:
Now if we can all get together and vote for some unknown candidate that we can both agree with.
I'll start with the cafeteria lady that is happy to see you and gives you extra big portions.
I'll start with the cafeteria lady that is happy to see you and gives you extra big portions.
She's going to be a tough sell coming off of a few years of record inflation.
Vote for Pedro!
Tom Hanks?
Yes, Wilson will be VP - Perfect!
Here’s the weird part: It might not matter! We have the Electoral College, which diminishes the influence of large states and boosts the influence of small states. Candidate A might have an overwhelming majority of the votes, but Candidate B might receive the 270 electoral votes needed to win. UPDATE: I guess I need to include a couple of examples to illustrate what I mean. In 2000, Gore had more votes than Bush, but Bush won because he had more electoral votes. And in 2016, Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote, but Trump won the electoral vote.
Another historical example, in 1860 Lincoln won the electoral vote in a landslide but did not have a majority of the popular vote
That’s pretty common, with 19 elections ending without a candidate getting a majority. What’s not common is the winner of the election failing to win even a plurality.
Gore would’ve also had more electoral votes than Bush if the votes were counted properly, he lost because the election was rigged in Florida and the Supreme Court had a republican majority
A whole bunch of newspapers did their own recounts, and most of them showed Bush as the winner, but it was close.
It also depended on whether all counties were recounted, or only the ones that were close enough to trigger a recount, I believe
Ooh the OG election denial. Playing the hits tonight, huh? If you grant that the 2004 election was fruit of the poisonous tree from 2000, then Democrats don’t believe there’s ever been a legitimately elected Republican president in my lifetime. Let that sink in.
War presidents always win, but it’s still 20 years even if you count that
So I’m guessing election denial will be back on the menu in November? Super patriotic again after a little hiatus there, right?
There's actual evidence that Bush should have lost. It's not in the same camp as the imbeciles today who claim, without evidence, that Trump should have won in 2020.
Trump was legitimately elected in 2016, it's just dumb that he won with a minority of the votes. I haven't seen any pervasive theory about the 2016 election being illegitimate.
You are trying to twist facts to fit a both-sides narrative.
Yep, Hillary and scores of top Democrats never claimed Trump was an illegitimate president. That never happened, poof! Retconned
that's actually a good thing as it gives states with smaller populations equal representation on the national stage. if it was a direct democracy the state with the highest population would decide every election screwing over everyone else.
Smaller population states citizens already have a higher representation in both the senate and the house
They have equal representation in the senate…and representation proportionate to their population in the house
The House stopped being proportional over a century ago when they capped the size of the House at 435 members. California has 67 times as many people as Wyoming but only has 52 times as many representatives.
The percentage of representation is negligible.
California has 11.5% of the population of the U.S. and has 11.95% of the seats in the house of reps
Wyoming has .17% of the population and .23% of the seats in the house with only one representative.
Going from .17% to .23% is a 35% increase. You call that negligible?
I call a .06% difference negligible.
Oh, so you just don’t understand math.
Is that truly the best retort you could come up with?
Let me ask you, would you consider a .06% pay raise significant?
No you don’t understand statistical fallacies.
Lower populated areas have more representation per resident in both the Senate and the House exactly as I said. Yes one is by design but the other is not therefore the system is not functioning properly.
The percentage of representation is negligible.
California has 11.5% of the population of the U.S. and has 11.95% of the seats in the house of reps
Wyoming has .17% of the population and .23% of the seats in the house with only one representative.
the 360,000 people per senate vote in california and the 95,000 people per senate vote in wyoming are equally represented? That's a hot take. Even the pro EC people don't try to argue that there isn't unequal representation...
Jesus did they stop teaching civics? The senate is not for representation of the people, it is for the representation of the State, the house is for the representation of the people. The senate is to ensure that large population states do not have overwhelming authority and control over the legislate which leaves the smaller states disenfranchised. This is a middle school lesson ffs
And both are not functioning correctly. The House does not represent the number of people in any given area.
I posted this elsewhere but will repost here as an example of the most populated states representation and the least populated states representation:
California has 11.5% of the population of the U.S. and has 11.95% of the seats in the house of reps
Wyoming has .17% of the population and .23% of the seats in the house with only one representative.
There are currently 435 seats but should be more like 692. It would work out to be single to potentially double digit changes per state depending on population.
How would California decide everything when 88% of the country lives somewhere else?
So the minority getting to "screw over" the majority is a good thing then?
Gotcha
that's not what i said
What are you talking about, large states have the most influence, there's like 4 states that make up over half the votes you need to win. As someone who lives in Alaska, almost never has it been down to whether or not Alaska votes for you. California, New York, Florida, and Texas on the other hand?
I think they meant that individual people in smaller states have more influence than individual people in bigger states
On a technical sense maybe, but again, a state with three votes isn't likely to swing an election. Sure, the ratio of people to electoral votes is lower, but we still only have 3 electoral votes.
The point is that you can win the electoral college without winning the popular vote. About 50% of the population is within like the 10 biggest states. So if the popular vote went 50/50, but they split along the divide of "big states and small states" then the Republicans would probably win about 40 states and would win in a landslide. Even people who support the institution of the electoral college accept this. [Also note it doesn't literally work like that, big states of Texas and Florida seem to be leaning more Republican while small states in New England tend to be more Democratic, but in general this actually lines up pretty well].
This system favors candidates who appeal to more rural states, because you can win more "points".
Anyway, a larger turnout might impact swing states but likely would not affect the winner-take-all result of non-swing states.
Say we have two different scenarios. In scenario 1. We have State X go 49/51 Trump. In Scenario 2. We have the same state go 30/70 Trump-- it does not matter, Trump would get exactly the same number of electoral votes.
The elections of Hayes and Adams could’ve been swung by 3 electoral college votes. Every vote matters.
live full marvelous wistful shaggy unite bewildered liquid absurd jar
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
Technical sense is the point.
More votes should have an impact on democratic outcomes, but the EC diminishes that. Esp since it's all or nothing.
The EC is similar to Senate seats, it's designed to give voice and agency to smaller states.
But that's why our founders specified that our constitution is a living document that must be updated as things change.
https://www.axios.com/2020/11/16/electoral-college-by-vote-per-capita
Id love to see proposals for something similar to what you see across EU parliaments, wherein a party can lose, but still gain power in govt to represent those ppl.
The US has become gridlocked when one side doesn't have full control, but if we dispersed control along votes, maybe we'd negotiate instead of obstruct.
But, MAGA GOP obstructed their own border bill, so who knows.
The 2000 presidential election was swung by just 4 electoral votes.
What are you talking about, large states have the most influence ...
But smaller states are over-represented in the Electoral College. All votes in the Electoral College are equal. But the Electoral College votes are not distributed based solely on the population of each state.
Instead the number of votes each state receives in the Electoral College is equal to the number of congresspeople the state has at the federal level (i.e., House of Representatives plus Senators). While the House of Representatives is based on population, each state simply has two Senators. The result is that each state has a different ratio of Electors to population.
California, the most populous state, has 54 votes in the Electoral College and a population of about 39 million. So each Elector from CA represents about 722,000 people.
Wyoming, the least populous state, has 3 votes in the Electoral College and a population of about 580,000. So each Elector from WY represents about 193,000 people.
So each individual vote in WY is more valuable than a vote in CA.
Of course, the winner-take-all allocation of Electors used by almost all states does further complicate math.
As someone who lives in Alaska, almost never has it been down to whether or not Alaska votes for you. California, New York, Florida, and Texas on the other hand?
Of the four states you mentioned, only Florida gets any attention in presidential campaigns. In 2016, the three other states you mentioned saw a combined 2 campaign events.
Massachusetts is going to vote D no matter what, so I'm writing in Vermin Supreme.
The electorate would be significantly more stupid. A UK study showed this: "Average IQ scores are 100 and for every 15 IQ points above average, a study participant was 38% more likely than average to have voted." As the headline says, smarter people are more likely to vote. So non-voters tend to be below-average in terms of IQ (of course that's statistically, not saying that everyone who doesn't vote is dumb). The effect, then, of everyone voting is you'd drag the average IQ of voters down from wherever it is now (110, say) to 100. You'd dumb down the electorate.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=6108897&page=1
the average iq is intended to be 100. as in they take the average, and make that what 100 is. your number is where you are compared to the average.
Right. But the average IQ of voters is higher than 100. If everyone voted it would be exactly 100.
Oh geez, I misread as every “edible” American. I was thinking that, of course, they’re all edible. Duh. But our laws don’t permit eating them. I think.
Anyways…
Nothing note worthy. I don't know why people think higher number of voters changes things.
The population that sits apathetically at home may very well be different than the population that actually gets out and votes. This would be a very interesting experiment if only we could run it.
Youd have a shitton of votes for third parties since some people would feel their preferred major candidate would have a swarm of votes
Better one: what if every single American was eligible to vote?
Almost every American is eligible to vote. Only about 8% of Americans are felons and even a good number of those are eligible to vote. Most states allow felons who are no longer in prison to vote and two states (Maine and Vermont) allow felons to vote from their prison cells.
Oh so not all Americans can vote then.
With the parties as they exist right now, it would most likely be a landslide for the Democratic Party. The Republican base is smaller, but consists of higher-propensity voters, namely older white people. There are a lot more voters who support the DNC but a lot of them are voters who don’t reliably show up to the polls, namely younger, non-white voters and college-age voters in general. If everyone showed, you’d be looking at a lot more blue votes that the Dems miss every year.
Obviously if turnout were higher, the election landscape would change. Parties move their platforms to win elections so higher turnouts would result in changing platforms and eventually it would probably go back to being close to a 50/50 split in the balance of power
Good chance at 3rd party when enough people vote. The only vote wasted is the vote not cast: Vote your conscience
good chance at a 3rd party *in 2028* due to being allowed to participate in debates; and/or party platform restructuring to appeal towards those 3rd party voters (since they're more "valuable" than non-voters).
I’d prefer a zero percent turnout to upset the illusion that we’re ruled with consent.
kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy dude. "to prove we have no say in government we will refuse to have a say"
Yeah, that view is very common for whatever reason and it frustrates the hell out of me. Referendums are held on independence, and the opposition encourages people to boycott the vote because "it's not legitimate", and then surprise, they lose the vote! shocked Pikachu
This is the way. Fuck their bread and circuses.
Pretty much everybody that doesn't vote favors Democrat policy, even if they don't understand it, so you'd have the biggest landslide ever. Plus with a Dem Congress, you'd have universal healthcare, free college, immediate climate change policies and clean energy, free school lunches in 50 states, shifting the tax burden to the rich, and essentially everything else you could ever want.
You’re giving the Democratic Party wayyy too much credit. If they really wanted to win they would drop Joe Biden and put someone else. Democrats are Republicans have the same financial interests so they don’t actually care when the Republican Party wins, since that still means more money in their pockets.
Republicans in power will enact policies and the Democrats say “there was nothing we could do” and when Democrats try to enact their own policies, Republicans are very good obstructionists. When Dems regain power they only slightly undo a bad policy and say “look at us, we’re so progressive.” (Ratcheting Effect)
You will NOT get free college, free healthcare, free lunches under Democratic leadership, because it isn’t profitable.
Can't think of a single candidate that can pull the swing states. Left leaning dream candidates poll there in the high teens so it isn't viable in an electoral system. Popular yes but we dont have that. Btw everything you want and don't have has been introduced many times by Democrats and blocked by Republicans (again wouldn't happen if we had a supermajority). Our political system is fucked and wasn't built for this type of monkeybusiness. The Supreme Court is a prime example of that.
It would take a long time to count that many votes.
Is that a problem?
It is if you’re a Republican. They saw the fact that it took time to count votes in 2020 as proof of fraud.
Lol touche'
That happens in Australia given the mandatory voting laws (fair not every single eligible voter votes but they get upwards of 90%)
ehh. The results would probably be the same. They could say only people with first names that start with A can vote and they would still likely get the same results.
With or without Meta's influence?
This is your friendly reminder that there is no law removing the right to vote for people with severe mental illness, dementia, etc. It's a hot topic issue in my field. You would likely end up with a lot of families that "absolutely did not" influence their loved one's vote.
Maybe a 3rd party candidate would have a shot.
If we could vote through an app, they probably would.
Are there any other options besides the incumbent and Trump?
Studies on nonvoters have determined they don't vote for the following reasons:
- They are a liberal in a super heavily Republican state/district
- They are a conservative in a super heavily Democrat state/district
1 and 2 occur in roughly equal numbers, and there's a good argument that their vote genuinely does not matter. So, who else?
- Economically liberal, but okay with racism, so they feel no party represents them (except maybe libertarians)
- Economically conservative, but turned off by Republicans' LGBT or abortion stance, so they feel no party represents them (except maybe libertarians)
These people are generally swing voters. Yes, even able to swing between Trump and Biden, even fully knowing both parties' platforms.
- People who feel they are totally uninformed about politics; they would literally choose at random because they don't know enough about either candidate
- People who do not give a fuck about politics except as far as it relates to their own paycheck. They vote for lower taxes and less corporate regulation, which they perceive no one will do, but if pressed, they more often say Republicans uphold their values than Democrats.
America is not saved by nonvoters going to the polls. It's destroyed by sometimes-voters staying home.
There would be no change in the outcome.
What if they mailed all the ballots instead? Or even better, what if you could vote online?
How about if we get some people to run who aren’t repulsive.
I predict fewer voters. Many of us are losing hope.
The presidency would break down roughly the same, though there would be definite effects in downballot races and ballot initiatives
Trump would get an even smaller portion of the popular vote and the swing states would all be fully blue. If everything was above board it would be a democrat landslide.
RFK would get elected.
Yea, most people are tired of trump and biden but wont vote kennedy as "he has no chance of winning", itll especially effect states that are already close like his 26% polling in south carolina
I’ll take some of whatever you’re smoking.
You mean compulsory voting? I wish we had it. You wouldn't literally have to make it mandatory, just tie it to a fat tax incentive.
It’s the one election where there is zero reason anyone shouldn’t vote. We unfortunately have too many people who are very uneducated, took many that don’t care and too many that don’t think there’s any point in voting at all because it won’t count.
better idea. you need to take a test showing that you know the stances each party takes on certain subjects to show you are paying attention to both sides before you are allowed to vote.
people that only pay attention to the brainwashing of their side saying the other side is evil should not be allowed to vote.
You would actually get a closer approximation of democracy.