Americans mostly back dumping the electoral college, i don't

[31j20b3]

Something around 10 percent of Americans live it it's 10 largest cities

Something like 70% of Americans live in its 10 largest megalopoli

And somewhat less than 3 percent of Americans live in Americans 10 smallest states ( and 10 states is 1/5 or 20 percent of the states)

Dumping the electoral college shifts democracy would great shift the influences of cities and metro-megalopoli. which are remarkably homogeneous with respect to the problems they face.

I don't dislike democracy, but I think the notion of a REPRESENTATIVE government must somehow capture the diversity of different life experience that having a huge country with different environmental and geoeconomic issues that aren't captured within the boundaries of giant populations centers

Cities and suburbs DO NOT have economies largely built on harvesting and extracting resources to be sent to population centers for processing and consumption.

We need some sort of "minimum" representation for these low population areas so that their economies (that national life depends upon) are represented in government.

I know I know city centered elections would be GREAT for dems. I am not so sure they would preserve the many ag and resource industry jobs that make that wing of the American economy work

[hlthe2b]

1. Electoral College gave us Trump in 2016.

I get your point, but it is time for it to go.

[House of Roberts]

2. Totally disagree.

Keeping the Electoral College means cheating a few thousand votes in a few states swings an election to the cheaters.

Also, I'd like to think my vote in Alabama cancels some ignorant redneck anywhere in the country. I haven't voted for a winner that carried my state since 1976.

[31j20b3]

13. I'm ok with you disagreeing. Really

I just think that it's not so simple in a multicultual country with significant differences in human activity that collectively supports all of us

[wnylib]

48. The House provides the local representation that you

think the EC provides.

The EC invalidates the votes of people who choose the candidate who does not get a majority in the state.

Other democratic nations manage quite well without an electoral college.

Time for the EC to go.

[31j20b3]

49. In part, yes. But imagine 20 years of presidents with no appreciation

for divisions of the American economy around urban and ex-urban America

Presidents must must sign legislation to make it law. Presidents get to make presidential orders that can create or destroy policies, and Presidents certainly create cabinets of Department Secretaries who guide regulations (which function much like laws) and policy such as rules for food assistance, unemployment eligibility, and soon to expand under Trump things like rules for voter eligibility validation

NOthing about the presidency and it's powers protects low population areas, and areas where very UN-urban activities drive the economy It's not really too far fetched under direct election of presidents, that presidents would quickly come from only megaopoli by addressing mostly the needs of massive populations centers. This would push issues around rural economies to the side and city problems would come to dominate national politics and government sspending. Which they already do in the nation's mind, because news doesn't really do much to make rural issues known nationally

[wnylib]

57. I disagree that the president will soon have the power to

to make rules for voter eligibility. That would require a Constitutional amendment since the Constitution does not give that power to the president. Trump is trying to usurp that power, but it belongs to the states.

Presidential orders are not all powerful. Several of Trump's have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

Presidents have been seeking more power, and the current MAGA led Congress allows Trump to do that without objections, but the courts are there to overrule Trump's . Constitutional excesses.

The EC gave us Trump when Hllary had the popular vote. Second time in my lifetime that a RW president won the EC but the majority of voters chose the Dem candidate.

The EC is an archaic system created by founders who did not trust the common people to choose the president. It is more subject to political manipulation than a straight popular vote would be because a block of states who do not represent the rest of the nation can choose the president while segments of the population in each state get disenfranchised.

I cannot support disenfranchisement of voters. Every vote must count.

[31j20b3]

63. I think you may be in a dangerous delusion,THIS IS WHAT TRUMP IS DOING NOW

He's ordered the Post Office to deny mail delivery of ballots to states that oppose Trump's privacy denying policy.

The EC was a solution to a number of problems, BUT while technology provides work around for some, there are yet significant problems that the EC helps to mitigate, if only with limited success

We are not a simple homogenous country. We are a federation, of what originally were considered independent autonomous states (almost countries). The writers of the constitution had to find both political and practical solutions to inherently unfair powers that could likely emerge between what were considered EQUAL sovereign countries that resulted from differences in states sizes, populations, and relationships to naturally unequally divided assets.

The problems we now face, really aren't much like the problems back in 1887, but we still have problems which can be argued as unfairly biasing political power among the states, dooming some states to political obscurity and pushing others forward.

In a Federation founded like ours, that's sort of untenable. UNless all you want is for city people (currently democrats) to have dominance in political power.

[wnylib]

67. I have no delusions or illusions about the state we are in.

As a new poster here, you have not had an opportunity to know what I have posted about the current regime and how to push back and preserve democracy.

Trump's instructions to the USPS have no bearing on whether the EC should be abolished.

You knew that you would not get much agreement when you started this thread. You said as much in your OP. So it appears to me that the purpose of the OP is to try to persuade people to embrace the EC, but your posts are not very persuasive. They are all over the place on presidential powers, with at least one claim that is factually not true and others that are irrelevant.

Your perspective on preserving the EC would go over well as talking points on a RW site where people are confident that they have a solid red state bloc on presidential elections, which they fear losing if the EC is abolished. But a basic principal of democracy that I support is that every individual vote matters and should be counted.

I live in a blue state which is blue only because of a huge blue city and another not as large city that is blue. The majority of rural areas, small towns, and villages in the rest of the state are red. Those RW voters can choose reprentarives for themselves, but their presidential votes are nullified by the state's blue cities. Without the EC, those votes would matter. It works both ways for both major parties.

Without the EC, presidential candidates would have to address the needs and wishes of people across the country instead of focusing on a few "swing states."

No EC is a win-win for everyone.

[bamagal62]

52. Yep.

It should be a majority vote. And, that’s it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Dirt doesn't vote

The senate would protect rural states from the “tyranny of the majority”, while eliminating the electoral College would protect the entire nation from the very real Tyranny of the Minority.

[Bettie]

7. Better said than my more verbose attempt

I live in a small rural state. It's a hellscape with horrid people (Chuck Grassley anyone?) who "represent" us.

The EC is a relic that needs to be put in the dustbin of history.

[DFW]

51. Rob Sand might well be your next governor

Don’t give up hope.

[Bettie]

73. I sure hope so

Rob is honest and decent.

Lahn is a snake selling false promises....and the complete destruction of our public schools.

[DFW]

74. I share your assessment of him.

I’ve known him foe ten years or so, and never found anything but positive things to say about him. I was half hoping he would try for the Senate, but he opted for the governor’s office, and he knows best where he thinks he can do the most good for Iowa.

[31j20b3]

17. True. But people who choose how to run a Representative Democracy must consider

all the humanity that influences government.

Consider that Wisconsin and Arizona are both states, but we have HUGE differences in how water resources must be managed. If only Wisconsin's circimstance is considered much of the water-law from Omaha to the Sierra mountains would be thrown out, and THAT would lead to seriously bad consequences.

[Stargleamer]

50. I don't see how any of this addresses the problems with the "tyranny of the minority"

Also, given that Omaha is east of the Continental Great Divide, I am curious as to how its waters that come from Wisconsin wind up in the Sierra Mountains which are in California.

But getting back to your point, since you were here in 2003 under a different name apparently, (apparently under multiple names since 2003) you know that because of the Electoral College we had George Bush inflicted on us, and then later we had Donald Trump inflicted on us. Whatever problems getting rid of the Electoral College would bring about, pales in comparison to how it has turned out in practice. I would have hoped such consequences would have mattered to you.

Also, a good number of these rural extractors aren't voting Republican based on farm policies, but because they are against abortion and trans people and undocumented workers. So to say it is urban consumers vs. rural natural resource extractors is at least somewhat deceptive. By not having tariffs as bad as Trump's which hurt a good many rural farmer, Biden and Obama with were more in accord with their economic interests than Trump ever was.

[31j20b3]

54. Well the E. C. is hardly tyranny is it???? That seems like rather extreme hyperbole.

What we have is a system that empowers ALL people, in EVERY STATE to participate in the processes of government. All the processes.

NOTHING about our system puts Rhode Island in a circumstance with tyrannical powers over California, Texas, Florida or New York.

The solutions the writers of the Constitution, and those who endorsed it as the guidance for the nation solved many of the problems that would emerge with the destruction of the E.C. and then the erosion of powers of lesser states in the face of overwhelming power of the 10 states that hold 70% of the population.

Direct popular vote would cede to people who who live in America's 10 greatest megolopoli, and care about little other than their megalopis' power all functional political power.

That would certainly seriously burden if not destroy economies in the US that are not urban

[Stargleamer]

61. It can be if it brings about a tyranny. . .

The tyranny of the minority, which you don't seem to think is a tyranny, despite Trump being in power because of it. You don't address how in practice the Electoral College has worked out. And you're talking the wrong states here, no small Rhode Island isn't a problem, it doesn't have more power than California. It's collectively that rural voters among numerous states have more power than urban ones. Thus the tyranny of the minority. You keep not addressing how because the Electoral College we got Bush and then trump inflicted on us. Maybe you think that having Bush and Trump become presidents is justified because the Electoral College must be kept sacrosanct. The Founders will must prevail--Geez give me break. Now with Trump as president we are living under the will of a tyrant--brought to us by the Electoral College, by the tyranny of the minority.

what about the over 2 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump, don't their voices matter? You're saying to them, sorry rural voters vote matters more than yours, their voices matter more. Which is basically unfair. What would you say to the 2 million plus more people who voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump, some of them who had to wait in long lines in urban areas, as opposed to rural voters whose polling places were much less crowded, "sorry you weren't a rural voter because I think rural voters votes should count more than urban ones"?

It's not as if people in rural areas don't have any power--hell Wyoming has 2 senators for a population of about 600,000 when LA County by itself has much more people. The Senate itself, as it is constituted, gives them some degree of power. Washington DC, an urban area, with about the same population, has no senators. Hell, if the US Senate was based on population, California would get a lot more than 2 senators. But you already know that--it just apparently didn't matter to you

[31j20b3]

66. Your argument really obscures the power that your visions of equal representation in the Senate and guarantee of 1

congress critt er confers.

If you put 10 moslty homogenous mega cities in charge of US presidential elections you are going to end up not incorporating the nations diversity into the process.

The regions of our country have diverse economies, often unlike big cities, and often varying across a very large landscape. Some regions have water surplus, some are water scarce, some areas have mineral wealth and others do not, some places are embedded in the struggle to produce food for cities (for which the produces shoulder huge annual risk and very thin margins above cost). Every region produces children. Many regions will never produce needed number of jobs to employ those kids, EVER. And the problems for those familes is really not the same in rural vs urban areas. Opportunity isn't equally distributed across America. It never will be, because opportunity not only follows wealth but it frequently leads it.

These variances, and the possibility of government led solutions to these variances in economic strength result in political problems to be solved, hopefully fairly. On a national level that means having presidents, and their administrations, that are knowledgeable and interested in finding fair solutions. President with only interest in cities, and administrations that follow that lead will perpetuate and exacerbate unequal representation of all in government.

[Freddie]

27. Dirt shouldn't vote

With the EC, it does.
I don’t get the “popular vote gives cities too much power” BS. That’s where people live. Why should the rural persons vote count for more than mine?

[cachukis]

4. Suspect you are new to the impact of elections on

quality of life for the majority of Americans.

[31j20b3]

18. You're suspicion is actually quite flawed as most sweeping assumptions are

[cachukis]

19. Just relying on your attitude about the electoral college

and its impact on the development of American law.

[31j20b3]

22. Yes as in a sweeping over generalization

I've been around here since 2003, been to over 30K post multiple times

and aske for a timeout as this place went pretty anti-progressive. And by progressive I mean an approach to government that looks to solving problems and making all citizens lives better in a more perfect nation

[cachukis]

31. Regardless. The electoral college was set up, ultimately,

as a defense of states rights, known in some circles as slavery.
I imagine those with some understanding as to how the world works, often in the competitive places that attract people, would fathom the need to outpace Malthusian limitations. We are aware of the need for farmers to feed us. We, in fact, subsidize them. Largely ineffectively for the small farmer, but Malthus be damned.
People have become reliant on the benefits of purchasing power.
The small town voice, while idyllic and cherished, has lost the battle, in spite of the electoral college.
America is into gentrification and maybe money will flow back into small town living, but it will happen when the stars align for that to be the best course of events.
Right now, the electoral college is a hindrance for those stars to align.

[Nanjeanne]

5. Actually one vote means one vote. All votes equal. All politicians campaigning must reach all voters.

The electoral college serves no purpose and diminishes the voices of so many voters.

The purpose was to empower states where enslavement was legal: while enslaved people could not vote, their numbers contributed to the number of electoral votes assigned to that state.

It protected smaller states so places like New York and Virginia – couldn't simply walk all over them. That purpose has now been changed so that populous states are overshadowed by much less populous states.

And at the time of creation, the presidential selection process was elitest since the electors were chosen by the state legislators, not a popular election.

[31j20b3]

25. If slavery was the only idea behind the electoral college... but today it ISN'T

The issue back then was also differences in the strength of states of different geography and resouces, and states of different population size. I would not argue that their solutions (slaves being 3/5s of a person was fair and just.

But if you pay attention to attitudes on DU, you are certainly aware that people from different places, and particularly people from urban vs rural economies see things devastatingly different. Rural life is built around harvesting and extracting resources. These are essential to the survival of the national economy. Urbanites on this site are very hostile to notions of harvesting and extracting under even conservation sensitive policies intended to yield the greatest good to the most people over the greatest time.

[Nanjeanne]

33. I outlined the 3 reasons. None are valid now IMHO. Rural voters would still need to be wooed. No

candidate could be elected by only focusing on NY and CA. There are many largely populated states that have a large diverse population. As for smaller states - are RI and CT important now? As for no populous states - Is ND important now?

Sorry but I think the only fair way to have an election is for campaigners to reach as many people as possible. That only happens if we reject a system rooted in racism and elitism.

[c-rational]

40. Nting sweeping assumptions here: "Rural life s built around harvesting and extracting resources,"

is not the language of any rural folks I know, nor would I agree with "Urbanites on this site are very hostile to the notions of harvesting and extrating.... (Now I am thinking of Soylent Greeen)
Getting rid of the electoral college will bring us closer to individual votes counting more equallly.

[walkingman]

6. Despite the majority of Americans who would like to change the electoral college, it will likely

never happen because of the hurdles of our political system.....HELL, the ERA could not even be passed in times when we were not nearly as divided as we are now.

As great as we like to think our founding fathers were....I disagree. I think they set us up for a perpetual mess when they intentionally rebuked majority rule and made us a republic versus a democracy.

[Johonny]

8. One citizen, one vote.

For a national election, it makes total sense.

[31j20b3]

20. Maybe. maybe not.

The problem I see is when 70% percent of Americans live in McDonald's like cookie cutter megolopili they aren't going to have any interest in anything except McDOnalds like hyper authority which will not serve other parts of the nation, and so fail the nation as a whole

[CivicGrief]

23. Is this a sweeping assumption?

The electoral college is a crock of shit.

[Phoenix61]

24. Mighty big assumption on your part.

I think everyone has a vested interest in eating.

[Fil1957]

9. I also totally disagree. Eliminating the electoral college means EVERY VOTE COUNTS. Now, only votes in a few swing

states count. In a country of 330 million, elections are decided by only a few hundred thousand. It is fundamentally unfair, as votes in deep blue and deep red states don't count. Because of this, presidential candidates only visit the few swing states during the general election campaign. If the college were eliminated, candidates would visit many more states to get every vote they can.

[MichMan]

21. "If the college were eliminated, candidates would visit many more states to get every vote they can."

No, they wouldn't. They would focus their campaigns only in the most highly populated areas.

[31j20b3]

26. It's really not about candidates visiting, it's about what enters the national conversation

with enough authority to be taken seriously.

MY point is one-person one-vote isn't the only consideration. Citizens United completely did away with any hope we have for that sort of thing.

The US divides into very very distinct resource regions and economies at about Omaha. The nation needs all it's regions, some with smaller populations but yet tremendously important industries

[Fil1957]

64. Yes they would, absolutely. It's true they wouldn't visit Montana or the Dakotas, but there are many states that are

highly populated that are not swing states that they don't visit now, but would if the college were extinct.

[lame54]

10. The republican college

[MineralMan]

12. Since the change would require a

constitutional amendment, it's not going to happen anytime soon. And there it is.

[31j20b3]

29. True, but practical imposition isn't my consideration

We depend on energy resources which, mostly don't come from cities and suburbs
We depend on agricultrual and natural harvests which also mostly don't come from cities and suburbs

Cities MUST dump their wastes. And the final dispositions of that dumping almost never happens in cities and suburbs it goes into rural lands and ex-urban waters

As a nation we face challenges whose resolutions depend upon perspectives that are not limited to the near sightedness of 10 mega metropoli

[MineralMan]

32. Then your subject is irrelevant.

I have no time for such discussions. Bye.

[31j20b3]

36. It's a shame you think the national economy made up of all its parts is irrelevant

I'm not surprised in that this website is all about winning elections... beacause as Rahm said WINNING IS EVERYTHING

But in it's details it really isn't. To win is great, but only if the winners can GOVERN EVERYONE EVERYWHERE with knowledge and fairness.

[MineralMan]

38. But i don't think that.

This is not about that, or much of anything, really.

You've moved far from your original post. I'm out.

[YorkRd]

14. Would force candidates to campaign all over the country instead of concentrating on swing state

[31j20b3]

34. UNfortunately that deflects things into the party competitions and thats a mistake

our nation is huge, it has different environmental conditions and different ecomomies. And together all that makes this nation work as a WHOLE

Dump representation from 30 percent of the people, and most of the places that resources are extracted and harvested and this country won't work. Rules made by people who don't understand their cohabitors end up hurting the cohabitor of the majority, And screwing over agriculture and resource extraction would end in collateral damage to all

[BannonsLiver]

15. I don't think rural America has anything to worry about.

The electoral college isn’t going anywhere meaning they will continue to play their very important role in maintaining what amounts to minority rule in this country. Hell in a lot of red states with large cities rural voters are the kingmakers when it comes to getting statewide initiatives for things like minimum wage increases (they generally vote against those) passed. No they will continue to do what they do, which is voting against their best interests while their communities crumble which they blame on marginalized groups like immigrants and the “loony left” as dear leader likes to refer to anyone who opposes him.

[yardwork]

45. Also, rural areas tend to be dominated by a few wealthy white people.

Look at any rural county and you'll find a handful of families who own most of the local businesses. These families are almost invariably white and Christian. They are conservative in every meaning of the word - they want government regulation out of their businesses, they don't like OSHA or the EPA, they want low taxes on businesses, they want to pay workers as little as possible, they don't want unions, etc. They dominate every aspect of their communities, and they know how everybody votes.

Many poor people in those rural communities vote Republican out of fear of losing their jobs, having a family member arrested by the sheriff, etc.

It's a thing,

[SergeStorms]

16. Each state has two Senators....

regardless of population. If that's not equal representation I don't know what is.

Nuke the Electoral Congress!

[31j20b3]

37. And each state must have at least one Congress person.

My point is I agree with the outcome of the writers of the Constitution... the great compromise may not make sense to 'you as a democracy" purists, but, I think construction of a Representative Democracy there must be protections to ensure EVERYONE not only has a vote, but that everyone has REPRESENTATIVES in the government.

I support things like the filibuster for that very reason, the headaches from that not being enough for me deep six it

[biocube]

28. There's a compromise position.

Make the total vote a weighted average of the EC and popular vote.

Doesn't matter though, it's easier to bring the Titanic to the surface than it is to amend the constitution.

[MineralMan]

30. Where do you find that information?

I think most people have no concept of how the electoral college works. So, cite your source, please.

[Bristlecone]

35. Rural America is grossly over represented in the Senate

Arguably the most powerful branch of the government.

That’s where they would make it up in my book.

[kairos12]

60. Idaho has the same power as the probably the 4th largest economy in the world. CA. Laughable.

Agree 100 Percent.

[Skittles]

39. the Electoral College served a purpose way back

but now that it has given us TWO NIWIT PRESIDENTS IN RECENT HISTORY, no, they need to get the fuck rid of it

and Dems are for making life better for ALL, not just "city folk"

[3catwoman3]

62. "...get the fuck rid of it"

Yes. ITA.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. One Flaw In Your Logic...

...that I see is the absolutism of the electors.
The framers, among other things & compromises, intended for the EC as a buffer to prevent a populist charlatan for achieving the highest office.
But, electors almost never vote their conscience. They just rubber stamp the voters in a ridiculous winner-take-all distribution of EC votes.
I honestly do not believe the framers intended for a person losing the popular vote getting the presidency. Not just a plurality candidate but a person who got the second most votes, which has happened twice in the last 24 years!
Also, there is an elitist intent in the EC, as the framers basically didn't trust the electorate. Hence the "vote their conscience" principle.
But, people who get to be electors are often no more attuned to government than the average voter. So, an elitist approach to diminish democratic ideals, couched as a "last line of defense", that hasn't worked as intended in 2 of the last 7 elections.
An effectiveness rate of 71.5% is not a great selling point for its continued value.

[yardwork]

42. It doesn't matter what any of us think about the Electoral College.

It's not going anywhere anytime soon so like it or hate it it's here to stay. It would require a constitutional amendment to change. Not happening.

In my opinion rural areas are greatly overrepresented in our government. Sparsely populated states have the same number of senators as states with many more people. The people of California, Texas, New York, Florida and other heavily populated states have far less representation in the Senate than the people of Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, etc.

The Electoral College was built into the Constitution to protect states that enslaved people.

[obamanut2012]

43. Land doesn't vote, people do

[31j20b3]

44. Yes saw that above, you can read my response from above.

But thanks for participating.

[sboatcar]

46. If its a country by the people, for the people, then the majority of the people are who's in charge

That's how democracy works. If you give vast tracts of mostly rich people owned land an undue amount of influence, then you end up with an oligarchy like we have now.
Whine about it all you want, that's what happens.

[31j20b3]

56. No that can't really be allowed to stand. Places with small populations must be protected

from dominating majorities. That protection can't reverse the power of large populations, but it must GUARANTEE participation from lower demographic power and poorer, states

This principle is baked into American thinking. SCOTUS and the Federal courts stand as bastions that protect the weakest and poorest under the law. Without it, anyone who goes onto social assistance would likely end up in coercive near slavery like conditions. It's not a matter of power or wealth, it's a matter of fair treatment under the law. Or at least until Trump it was moving that way

[OC375]

47. I agree.

Sometimes democracy means you don't get what you want, for the right reasons.

I'd be more apt to go with no electoral collage if primaries were monolithic, all the same day nationally, open to all, and all campaigns publicly funded. No talk shows, no military base photo ops, no super delegates, no factory tours. Just an extremely rigorous debate schedule, maybe revisit topics to see how they so elegantly bend and sway...

Wouldn't mind an IQ test and at least a proficiency test in math, science and english.

Seriously though, if a person from BFE truly gets the same funding, national airtime and platform as Ivy League or legacy Pol, I'd be cooler with it.

Until then, no, I'm not interested in giving big cities, where the people with all the money are, any more influence.

[Stargleamer]

55. We're talking about people here, not "big cities"

do not their voices matter? the over 2 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump, don't their voices matter? You're saying to them, sorry the people's voices in Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska--their voices matter more. Which is basically unfair. What would you say to the 2 million more people who voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump, some of them who had to wait in long lines in urban areas, as opposed to rural voters whose polling places were much less crowded, "sorry you weren't a rural voter because I think rural voters votes should count more than urban ones"?

[OC375]

65. Yep

Give and take. Plenty of unfairness often favors larger populations, too. There’s no everyone wins, so you compromise.

[RandySF]

53. I do.

[DFW]

58. Dumping the electoral college doesn't eliminate representative government

Each state still gets rwo Senators, regardless of size or population. That’s why presidents get impeached but never convicted or removed. The House is not perfectly representative, but eliminating gerrymandering could bring it close.

In 2016, elimination of the electotal college would have given us President Hillary and probably the same Senate and House. A President Hillary would probably also not have encouraged Roger Stone to play his little tricks and bamboozle the Senate Democrats into trashing Al Franken. But that is a side benefit we wouldn’t even have known about if the electoral college had been abolished beforehand. House members are elected by getting the most votes in their district. Senators are elected by getting the most votes in their states. The President should be elected by getting the most votes in their states whole country. I like France’s system of a runoff a week after the general with the two top vote getters if no one wins 50% the first time. That way, no “Tea Party” or “Democratic Socialists” can hold the presidency hostage by threatening to withhold the presidency if they don’t get their way.

[surfered]

59. I respectfully disagree. Congressional districts have an equal number of population. But each state gets 2 Senators.

This means the 1 million people of So Dakota get 2 electoral votes and California’s 39 million people get 2 electoral votes. That’s just not equal representation.

Land does not vote, people do.

It was a compromise for the slave states, our original sin.

[MichMan]

68. So, the Senate should be abolished?

That could be done in the same constitutional amendment needed to get rid of the EC.

[surfered]

70. No. We should go to a popular vote for President. It won't happen though without a Constitutional Amendment, which

..means it won’t ever happen.

[The Revolution]

71. I'm not sure that can be done

From Article V:

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

Or you would need every state to consent. Maybe you can amend Article V itself to remove the prohibition on altering the senate, but that seems iffy.

[FascismIsDeath]

69. "Dumping the electoral college shifts democracy would great shift the influences of cities and metro-megalopoli"... GOOD

I am fine with that. It doesn't bother me one single bit.

In the first 16 years of the 21st century, the electoral college did not match the popular vote TWICE and it fucked this country over horribly both times.

I don't want to hear that horse shit. Its a terrible system. Its utter trash.

[The Revolution]

72. It won't happen in any case

I just don't think you would get enough states to pass it. At least not any time soon. Even an amendment requiring all states to allocate EC votes proportionally would probably not pass.

We can however uncap the House, which would do a lot to bring the EV count more in line with the popular vote. This only requires a simple bill for a new apportionment act.