Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

wdym why? the people should be the ones with the final say not the electors and it was also created during the 1700s so it’s outdated.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

people who oppose the electoral college are worse at making serious arguments than socialists or most other activists Literally the lowest common denominator ‘I saw it on tiktok reddit Instagram’ opinion I’ve ever seen The electors vote based on who the people vote for, it’s so basic it’s unreal The ‘it’s old so it’s outdated’ routine is so unserious and childish, I don’t understand how you have the lack of self awareness or lack of intelligence to think you should be listened to at all

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

Over-representation of rural and low-population states. PA has 22 times the population of Wyoming. PA only has 19 electoral votes while Wyoming has 3. Despite having 22x the population, PA only has 6.3x the votes of Wyoming. The vote of someone from WY is nearly 4x as powerful as the vote of a Pennsylvanian.

2

Anonymous #2 1d

Literally who cares Part of the point of the electoral college was to balance out the highest population states so they weren’t electing the president by themselves. There were times that the biggest states were republican and the electoral college protected smaller Democrat states. Your stupid point about over representation also works the other way, try Rhode Island compared to Texas, etc it goes both ways nitwit

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

The small states already get preferential treatment by getting the same amount of senators as other states, should they get it in the executive too? Also the federal government has increased massively in size compared to the founding, I think it’s a fair argument that a larger federal government which affects people directly (ACA, child tax credits,snap, etc) should have a popular vote

2

Anonymous #3 1d

You seem to be confusing the legislative branch with the executive branch. The house of representatives is elected via direct popular vote. That balances out the senate. Senators were originally elected via state legislature anyway. I would support returning to that system via repealing the 17th amendment. States using the electoral college was a balance between direct voting and Congress electing the president. You’re arguing to abolish something you don’t understand.

0

Anonymous #3 1d

The size of a government really seems inconsequential to how that government should be elected, and it’s obvious that a larger more expansive federal government would be more easily twisted by populism I would support shrinking the size of the federal government, and most of the programs you mentioned are creations of Congress, the president has little influence over them

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

The 17th amendment isn’t going away, and all of the states rely on popular vote to determine their electoral votes. The federal government probably isn’t getting smaller either. I’ll grant you that most of the expansion in the size of is from congress, but it’s still integrally tied to the executive branch. I’m not super convinced that the popular vote is the way to go, but if the house is going to remain at 435, electoral votes will get more and more skewed every year.

3

Anonymous #3 1d

and the only real argument you’ve provided in favor is against populism, which isn’t super persuasive to me since Trump won electorally but not the popular vote in 2016, and he was more populist

3

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 20h

Ok then let’s talk about how several states have overrepresentation such as Vermont having more individual voting power over texas or california having one vote per about 700k people and wyoming having a vote per 195k people. The electoral college creates huge discrepancies that should be amended.

1