cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/news@lemmy.world/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.
cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/news@lemmy.world/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.
Not sure you understand what a republic.
Every other vote is at a state level. What other position is elected nationally?
They’re not fine. They’re ok. America is unique and why we are the only super power.
We only do popular votes at the state level.
The level at which the election runs is not what I am getting at.
And they don’t destroy our country despite our states having a rural/urban divide. So our federal elections should be no different.
The level makes a difference. We are a combination of states.
Popular vote for the president would destroy our country. It’s not going to happen unless we are ready for the nation to break up. The smaller states will leave.
No it doesn’t. If a popular vote would destroy this country because of the imbalance between rural/urban areas, then it would have already done so on a state level.
You’ve yet to make compelling argument as to why we would change a system that works perfectly.
I’ve said it in several other places in this thread.
All votes should be counted equally.
It doesn’t work perfectly.
It makes it so that if you don’t live in a swing state, your vote is effectively meaningless. If you’re a democrat in a heavy republican state, then your vote will never go towards supporting your candidate of choice. If you’re a republican in a heavy republican state, the same applies. If you’re a republican in a heavy republican state, your vote also doesn’t do shit, because your state was going to vote republican anyway. Unless you’re in a swing state, the current system basically ignores you.
It also makes it so presidential candidates only ever cater towards swing states, and the cities within those swing states. All the rest of the states are basically ignored.
The electoral collage prevents third party candidates from ever having a chance because it is inherently a FPTP system, which inherently biases a two party system, which is a huge part of why our country is so fucked right now.
And on top of all of that, there have been several elections in which the candidate with the most votes has lost. That is a broken system.
That isn’t a compelling argument. It isn’t even a logical argument.
That isn’t a broken system. That is a system working as designed. You may not understand the perfection of the electoral college but you’ve yet to create a compelling reason to change it. The flaws you are mentioning are the strengths of the system.
What you want to do would require a constitutional amendment to change it and the smaller states would not allow that to happen for the reasons I have explained. It would negate their vote and we a government of 50 states, which means the states want to keep their power.
We are not a democracy, as our founding fathers understood the flaws. There is a reason we are still ticking while other nations have fallen or never prospered the way we have and part of that is by not allowing changes on a whim. The system was meant to move slowly and methodically. It was meant to have checks and balances.
While it isn’t perfect, it is a pretty damn good system. The most popular person shouldn’t be the one to win. It should be the one selected by the states through the electoral college. It allows the states to have a say in who becomes president.
Now if we could just remove the voting rights from poor people, we would be able to get this country back on track.
Popular doesn’t mean good. Joe won the popular vote and now we are all paying for his incompetence with rampant inflation. We can’t survive another four years of having such a popular president.
You didn’t ask for a syllogism.
Then it is a terrible system. I don’t care what synonym for bad you think is most accurate here. The electoral college is inferior.
The founding fathers were not gods. They intended for the constitution to change over time as things become outdated, and this is one of those things. The president elected president should most accurately represent the people, and we don’t get that with the current system.
This is a separate tangent, so I won’t bother addressing it.
We are a democratic republic.
Democratic - we vote
Republic - for representatives
This is grade school levels of understanding that you are missing out on.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is
It ain’t the electoral collage that got us here.
An electoral college doesn’t have anything to do with allowing changes on a whim, or moveing slowly and methodically. All it is, is a way of counting votes. Counting the votes in a more accurate method doesn’t change the speed of the process. And you can still have checks and balances under a popular vote.
Are you joking, or are you actually this misinformed/malicious/mislead?
Never said it did.
He won because of the electoral collage, because of how it forces a two party system. Joe Biden is the result of your oh so fond electoral college. If we had something that actually elected officials that we all like (see STAR voting), Joe Biden would never have become president.
No I’m very serious. Allowing the plebes to vote has done a lot of damage to the country. They just vote to take from others. That isn’t how to run a country.
You keep saying there is something wrong with the system when there isn’t. It works as designed and it won’t change in our lifetime.
The voters don’t matter as much as the state. That’s how the system was designed and works.
Also it isn’t a rented. It while require an amendment and it won’t happen for the reasons I’ve described. The little states won’t want to lose their power. As such it’s a thought exercise at best