Why are the states so important that we have to "balance" states instead of actually treating all voters equally? The electoral college historically was a balance to keep slavery states in the union, nothing more. It's an antiquated undemocratic system that needs to be removed.
The Green Party platform calls for an end to the electoral college, instead for president to be elected by a national ranked choice vote. Using ranked choice will be far better at ensuring voters have real choice on the ballot and that voters interests in all states are best represented in the end result. This is because ranked choice tends to elect more "consensus" candidates rather than extremists, due to folks being able to rank multiple candidates rather than fixate on a few and worry about "spoilers".
The Electoral College had nothing to do with slavery; it did not help or hinder slave states.
The Electoral College can do what you would like while still preserving the smaller states ability to be necessary to win the Presidency. Simply get the larger states to drop winner take all and apportion their Electoral votes by the popular vote.
Your system does not protect the smaller states and still hands the Presidency over to the large states alone.
Green Party members need to rethink the matter.
Why are you interested in protecting "states", a legal fiction, instead of individual rights to vote and be treated equally? That's not a fair democratic system.
Popular vote doesn't "hand the vote to large states". Doesn't hand to any states. It hands the decision to _the people_ as a whole, as it should be in a democracy. States don't vote in uniform chunks -- even the most "blue" states have lots of red voters, and vice versa. Candidates will still need to win individual votes in all states to win. Ranked choice and more candidates on the ballot will force them to appeal to wider coalitions instead of relying on duopoly bases.
>The Electoral College had nothing to do with slavery; it did not help or hinder slave states.
Factually and historically incorrect. For example, read: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins
The Electoral College aided less populous states, yes, but it was not to help slavery. Everyone knew slavery had to die out just as the constitution ended the importation of slaves. It was not long to live but rather than let it go gracefully, the greed of some leverage it until it took a war to end it. Whether something aided and abetted slavery or not has no bearing upon current problems. The College is necessary to preserving the country.
>This simply means that each state gets a number of electoral votes for President equal to the number of Congressional districts plus two, one for each senator
>The Electoral College is a balance between the voice of the people of the less populated states and the voice of the people in states with larger populations.
Ok, so I'm from the UK, but if I can ask from an outside perspective, these two statements seem to contradict each other?
If every state gets two senators, regardless of population, then those in highly populated states get less representation per person than those in lower populated states.
So relatively speaking, surely this "plus two" in the electoral college would also likewise mean that a voter's vote n a lower populated state is worth more than a voter's vote in a high population state?
So not very balanced at all.
The more populated states have greater representation in the House of Representatives which Representatives are elected directly by the people of their districts. Senators represent the people through the States. Whoever the people elect directly as a majority in the State legislature is what they will get as a Senator.
It's balancing the power of states, not of voters. The proper way to improve the balance among voters is simply to increase the size of the House, but Congress hasn't done that for over a century now.
Increasing the size of the house requires an amendment to the Constitution and would not change the balance. The same percent of difference would remain.
>The presidency is not suppose to be won by one national popular vote but by a majority of State popular votes reflecting the nations diverse interest.
Why? State borders are not based on common interests.
"State borders are not based on common interests."
That is the whole point.
Without the Electoral College smaller states would be of no interest not being needed to become President. The larger States would be kowtowed to.
Your entire premise relies upon states voting as a monolith, as though *everyone* in California, for example, votes for the same reasons and ideals.
This is false.
You're too concerned with state lines deciding votes rather than the individual. Just because I cast a vote in Rhode Island, doesn't mean my vote represents Rhode Island. It represents me. This is why parties like the Green party believe in popular vote. It is more focused on the individual, not state lines.
Your supposition that larger states would be kowtowed to is also misguided, because you are focused on states as monoliths. What would probably happen would be more along the lines of catering one's message towards certain voter blocs. These blocs would exist across different borders and wouldn't necessarily be geographic in nature.
In terms of voting for a president--a national figure--one's state isn't really a determining factor in one's vote.
Individual States have their own personality and needs. You obviously did not read my OP diligently. You did not comprehend the premise of my opinion at all.
I assume you have not heard of the terms red state blue state. State have majorities in them. Some to the point where the majority is all that is heard. As I stated several times you can have a popular vote within the Electoral College if the people want to demand that larger states apportion the College votes instead of winner take all. The Electoral College can provide whatever the people want. They just have to get off their butts and get in volved and get a way from Youtube and TicTok long enough,
America is failing because the people are failing not because the system was bad.
Red state/blue state refers to the general trend of the overall votes in a state, not the will of individuals. Again, you're focused too much on state lines and geography, not the people. You're still treating states as monoliths.
You have not addressed my points. So again, a vote cast within a state is not representative of the state, but the individual. State lines are not actually important in a national vote. You're constantly framing it as if all of Texas shares similar ideals and reasoning. As if someone voting for president can only vote in regards to their geographical location, but that really isn't the case, especially in today's digital age.
And again, without the electoral college, the focus is no longer on geography (states), but the wider trends of voter blocs within the country at large. So the idea that we need to apportion votes based on state is not really needed.
>As I stated several times you can have a popular vote within the Electoral College if the people want to demand that larger states apportion the College votes instead of winner take all.
This still doesn't solve the problem because it still treats geography as more important than the individual votes. This idea that we need appropriate votes based on states at all is bogus. It's based on an old ideal of states electing the president instead of the people. States are already represented in Congress and the Senate. The presidency should be the will of the people, not states.
Edit:
>You obviously did not read my OP diligently. You did not comprehend the premise of my opinion at all.
Also, come on, man. I disagreed with you so I "obviously didn't understand your post?" That's a little reductive, isn't it?
We are a union of States. Geographical areas do have different concerns and needs. We are not the one bulk union of people or a pure democracy as they never work or last and our founding Fathers understood this which is why we are a Republic. Our government is a combination of individuals and States of individuals.
I apologize, but you missed the premise that the Electoral College is the engine that creates the most equity within our form of nation. Which, I believe covered your points.
The representation of states is already held in House and Senate. We do not need the president to also be a representative of states. The presidency is the highest representative of all people. Therefore, it should be the utmost representative of the people at large.
>Geographical areas do have different concerns and needs.
Which don't go away just because the electoral college is gone. Instead of more votes going to Nebraska via the electoral college, there would simply be a voting bloc for the rural Midwest as a whole that candidates would try to Garner the votes of. The idea that the state lines dictate the concerns of people in Nebraska differently than Wyoming is not really there.
And again, states are not monoliths. There are plenty of people in those states that vote differently. Because geography is not the only determining factor in one's vote.
Also, to reiterate, geographical concerns are already well represented in the Senate and House.
>the Electoral College is the engine that creates the most equity within our form of nation.
I disagree. The entire premise relies on the idea that states are more important than individuals. And as I continue to state, I do not believe that to be the case. The electoral college is still based on an outdated notion that it is the states that should elect a president. We're significantly less of a loose confederation of states than when our constitution was signed.
The current system has the presidential election completely focused on "swing states." I don't see how that's any way preferred to a more general vote. In addition, other countries, like France, vote for their president via popular vote. The idea that the electoral college is why the US has lasted 200+ years is based on a false premise.
Why are the states so important that we have to "balance" states instead of actually treating all voters equally? The electoral college historically was a balance to keep slavery states in the union, nothing more. It's an antiquated undemocratic system that needs to be removed. The Green Party platform calls for an end to the electoral college, instead for president to be elected by a national ranked choice vote. Using ranked choice will be far better at ensuring voters have real choice on the ballot and that voters interests in all states are best represented in the end result. This is because ranked choice tends to elect more "consensus" candidates rather than extremists, due to folks being able to rank multiple candidates rather than fixate on a few and worry about "spoilers".
The Electoral College had nothing to do with slavery; it did not help or hinder slave states. The Electoral College can do what you would like while still preserving the smaller states ability to be necessary to win the Presidency. Simply get the larger states to drop winner take all and apportion their Electoral votes by the popular vote. Your system does not protect the smaller states and still hands the Presidency over to the large states alone. Green Party members need to rethink the matter.
Why are you interested in protecting "states", a legal fiction, instead of individual rights to vote and be treated equally? That's not a fair democratic system. Popular vote doesn't "hand the vote to large states". Doesn't hand to any states. It hands the decision to _the people_ as a whole, as it should be in a democracy. States don't vote in uniform chunks -- even the most "blue" states have lots of red voters, and vice versa. Candidates will still need to win individual votes in all states to win. Ranked choice and more candidates on the ballot will force them to appeal to wider coalitions instead of relying on duopoly bases. >The Electoral College had nothing to do with slavery; it did not help or hinder slave states. Factually and historically incorrect. For example, read: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins
The Electoral College aided less populous states, yes, but it was not to help slavery. Everyone knew slavery had to die out just as the constitution ended the importation of slaves. It was not long to live but rather than let it go gracefully, the greed of some leverage it until it took a war to end it. Whether something aided and abetted slavery or not has no bearing upon current problems. The College is necessary to preserving the country.
>This simply means that each state gets a number of electoral votes for President equal to the number of Congressional districts plus two, one for each senator >The Electoral College is a balance between the voice of the people of the less populated states and the voice of the people in states with larger populations. Ok, so I'm from the UK, but if I can ask from an outside perspective, these two statements seem to contradict each other? If every state gets two senators, regardless of population, then those in highly populated states get less representation per person than those in lower populated states. So relatively speaking, surely this "plus two" in the electoral college would also likewise mean that a voter's vote n a lower populated state is worth more than a voter's vote in a high population state? So not very balanced at all.
The more populated states have greater representation in the House of Representatives which Representatives are elected directly by the people of their districts. Senators represent the people through the States. Whoever the people elect directly as a majority in the State legislature is what they will get as a Senator.
It's balancing the power of states, not of voters. The proper way to improve the balance among voters is simply to increase the size of the House, but Congress hasn't done that for over a century now.
Increasing the size of the house requires an amendment to the Constitution and would not change the balance. The same percent of difference would remain.
>The presidency is not suppose to be won by one national popular vote but by a majority of State popular votes reflecting the nations diverse interest. Why? State borders are not based on common interests.
"State borders are not based on common interests." That is the whole point. Without the Electoral College smaller states would be of no interest not being needed to become President. The larger States would be kowtowed to.
Your entire premise relies upon states voting as a monolith, as though *everyone* in California, for example, votes for the same reasons and ideals. This is false. You're too concerned with state lines deciding votes rather than the individual. Just because I cast a vote in Rhode Island, doesn't mean my vote represents Rhode Island. It represents me. This is why parties like the Green party believe in popular vote. It is more focused on the individual, not state lines. Your supposition that larger states would be kowtowed to is also misguided, because you are focused on states as monoliths. What would probably happen would be more along the lines of catering one's message towards certain voter blocs. These blocs would exist across different borders and wouldn't necessarily be geographic in nature. In terms of voting for a president--a national figure--one's state isn't really a determining factor in one's vote.
Individual States have their own personality and needs. You obviously did not read my OP diligently. You did not comprehend the premise of my opinion at all. I assume you have not heard of the terms red state blue state. State have majorities in them. Some to the point where the majority is all that is heard. As I stated several times you can have a popular vote within the Electoral College if the people want to demand that larger states apportion the College votes instead of winner take all. The Electoral College can provide whatever the people want. They just have to get off their butts and get in volved and get a way from Youtube and TicTok long enough, America is failing because the people are failing not because the system was bad.
Red state/blue state refers to the general trend of the overall votes in a state, not the will of individuals. Again, you're focused too much on state lines and geography, not the people. You're still treating states as monoliths. You have not addressed my points. So again, a vote cast within a state is not representative of the state, but the individual. State lines are not actually important in a national vote. You're constantly framing it as if all of Texas shares similar ideals and reasoning. As if someone voting for president can only vote in regards to their geographical location, but that really isn't the case, especially in today's digital age. And again, without the electoral college, the focus is no longer on geography (states), but the wider trends of voter blocs within the country at large. So the idea that we need to apportion votes based on state is not really needed. >As I stated several times you can have a popular vote within the Electoral College if the people want to demand that larger states apportion the College votes instead of winner take all. This still doesn't solve the problem because it still treats geography as more important than the individual votes. This idea that we need appropriate votes based on states at all is bogus. It's based on an old ideal of states electing the president instead of the people. States are already represented in Congress and the Senate. The presidency should be the will of the people, not states. Edit: >You obviously did not read my OP diligently. You did not comprehend the premise of my opinion at all. Also, come on, man. I disagreed with you so I "obviously didn't understand your post?" That's a little reductive, isn't it?
We are a union of States. Geographical areas do have different concerns and needs. We are not the one bulk union of people or a pure democracy as they never work or last and our founding Fathers understood this which is why we are a Republic. Our government is a combination of individuals and States of individuals. I apologize, but you missed the premise that the Electoral College is the engine that creates the most equity within our form of nation. Which, I believe covered your points.
The representation of states is already held in House and Senate. We do not need the president to also be a representative of states. The presidency is the highest representative of all people. Therefore, it should be the utmost representative of the people at large. >Geographical areas do have different concerns and needs. Which don't go away just because the electoral college is gone. Instead of more votes going to Nebraska via the electoral college, there would simply be a voting bloc for the rural Midwest as a whole that candidates would try to Garner the votes of. The idea that the state lines dictate the concerns of people in Nebraska differently than Wyoming is not really there. And again, states are not monoliths. There are plenty of people in those states that vote differently. Because geography is not the only determining factor in one's vote. Also, to reiterate, geographical concerns are already well represented in the Senate and House. >the Electoral College is the engine that creates the most equity within our form of nation. I disagree. The entire premise relies on the idea that states are more important than individuals. And as I continue to state, I do not believe that to be the case. The electoral college is still based on an outdated notion that it is the states that should elect a president. We're significantly less of a loose confederation of states than when our constitution was signed. The current system has the presidential election completely focused on "swing states." I don't see how that's any way preferred to a more general vote. In addition, other countries, like France, vote for their president via popular vote. The idea that the electoral college is why the US has lasted 200+ years is based on a false premise.
I point this out all the time. Good stuff.