comment: >
  
  Same thing in Canada but what we should do is proportional representation. Everyone has a voice! And make elections a holiday and mandatory voting. 
  Let the people speak.
context: Will not happen short of some unforeseen political realignment since this is the only way a GOP candidate can win the presidency at this point >
  
  But the EC could be nullified via the NPVIC, which can be adopted state-by-state, and just ratified by Congress via the normal legislative process.
  So, right now, only a few more states need to adopt it, and Congress could ratify it right now, before the GOP House majority takes over in the new Congress a week from tomorrow. Then, as soon as enough states signed on, it would be effective, and the GOP would have no means to block it. >
  
  Leaving aside that there’s no way that bill survives a filibuster, even if it was passed and enough states committed to make it work then SCOTUS  will take up some case from voters in Idaho who say it violates there first amendment rights. The legitimacy of that sort of case is irrelevant for this court, they can just throw out laws they don’t like. >
  
  
  SCOTUS will take up some case from voters in Idaho who say it violates there first amendment rights
  
  Huh. What does this have to do with the 1st amendment? If it's deemed unconstitutional, it would violate the Compact Clause of the Constitution since States cannot enter into agreements with each other without the consent of Congress >
  
  Did you finish reading my comment? The justification for anything SCOTUS does has gone out the window. They will invent whichever ruling gets them what they want. >
  
  
  . They will invent whichever ruling gets them what they want
  
  In which decision did they invent a rationale for a ruling? >
  
  Dobbs >
  
  I'm personally pro-choice, but I'd argue its the opposite. The Constitution doesn't protect abortion even if we personally support it. 
  Given how Kentucky, Montana, and Kansas have voted against abortion bans, it seems likely that we can democratically protect abortion rights. >
  
  The constitution regards all liberties not defined within it to be either the property of the states or the people. That is explicit and textual. English Common Law, the basis for American Common Law, makes it very clear that the right of a woman to recieve an abortion is legal for up to 5 months (20 weeks) and would only become a felonious crime after 6 months (24 weeks). Roe codified that an individuals choice was based on the idea of personal liberty in that period. Logically it cannot be otherwise. Precedent going back to the 18th century makes it clear that abortion is legally permissible with certain limitations and is thus a liberty. The constitution grants liberties beyond its strictest dictates to the people and the states. In Dobbs, the court rejected personal liberties and centuries of precedent to side with a guy who literally had "witches" executed.  Furthermore, do you know what else the constitution doesn't explicitly protect? The Environment. Guess the EPA is unconstitutional, same for the National Parks, or fish and wildlife. Also, if the court wishes to be literalists, then they should refuse to strike down laws. After all, nowhere in the constitution does it say the courts have the right to strike down laws made by legislatures. >
  
  
  The constitution regards all liberties not defined within it to be either the property of the states or the people.
  
  Correct. That is the 10th amendment, which would allow states to enact abortion restrictions. I personally am very pro-choice, which is why I voted entirely Democratic this year so that my politicians would not enact abortion restrictions. The Constitution does not prohibit states from enacting abortion restrictions. 
  
  English Common Law, the basis for American Common Law, makes it very clear that the right of a woman to recieve an abortion is legal for up to 5 months (20 weeks)
  
  There were no such English law when we gained independence from the British. The English made abortion a RIGHT in 1967. Given that we weren't a British colony in 1967, why would that have any bearing on American law? 
  
  Roe codified that an individuals choice was based on the idea of personal liberty in that period
  
  Ok and the Lochner era Court ruled that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they infringed on people's personal liberty to choose to work for less than the minimum wage. Do you think that the SCOTUS was correct in striking down minimum wage laws? I think SCOTUS was wrong here and in Roe. 
  The easiest way to keep abortion legal is to keep electing pro choice people. Additionally, ballot initiatives show that when people directly vote on abortion restrictions, they vote for the pro choice position. Look at the referendums in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana - 3 heavily Republican states. I'm very pro choice and oppose abortion restrictions, but we shouldn't pretend that the Constitution prohibits abortion restrictions >
  
  Anyone with a half-formed sense of fairness would agree. Problem is, the EC allows loser R candidates to win over and over again, so they all think it’s just hunky dory. >
  
  The EC, was established to prevent the tyrany of the majority. The big population centers from imposing thier will. So, it is working, just as intended! Forcing compromise was seen as the only way ti make a democratic republic work. The current complaining is just the reverse of the republiqans complaint of under representation based on property not having a vote. It is the same argument that divided the founders. Dems have to have policy that gets out the vote. That wins both arguments. Losing a republic because of apathy, a terrible waste. >
  
  
  The EC, was established to prevent the tyrany of the majority
  
  Direct elections of the president work fine in large democracies like France, Brazil, South Africa, and in diverse parliamentary democracies like India. This is a tired argument from the 18th century. >
  
  I've said this before, but, I think it bears repeating. This was in response in the same thread, and of course it got dropped when that guy deleted his post.  The system that we have is deadlocked, 51% - 49% in one election for one party, next election 51% -  49% for the other party. The reason I say this, is that amending the constitution requires super majorities. The reason that we have this deadlock is voter apathy and the GQP uses that to set election rules. Until we all vote, we're kind fucked. Gotta just keep trying. >
  
  How does any of mean the EC is useful or desirable? And plenty of democracies require supermajorities for changes to their constitution or other very critical choices; it's just that, say, in India's upper house, the Rajya Sabha, Sikkim, Goa, and a few other tiny states and territories have 1 seat while Utter Pradesh has 31. >
  
  Nothing, it is just what we have. It is a system, good or bad is up to the voters. >
  
  The EC gave us 2 of the dumbest presidents ever. It checks out. >
  
  
  The EC gave us 2 of the dumbest presidents ever.
  
  And Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. >
  
  At a bare minimum, if we can't get rid of the electoral college, we need to get rid of the "winner takes all" piece of it.  If a state has 20 electoral votes and Candidate A gets 55% of the vote and Candidate B gets 45% of the vote then it should be split 11 electoral votes to 9 instead of one person getting all 20.  We should be able to do at least that much without having to have 2/3rds of congress agreeing to change the constitution. >
  
  Is that really how it works? I'm not American, and I've always known your voting system is a bit too far from a real democracy, but... That seems blindingly stupid. I'd understand that republicans wouldn't make noise about it (it's the only way they get voted in), but I'd think the Dems would be shouting a bit more >
  
  Every state except Maine is all or nothing >
  
  And nebraska >
  
  But I believe their districts got redrawn after Obama managed to snag one of their EC points and it’s been straight red since. >
  
  Biden won 1 district, and its corresponding electoral vote, there in 2020. >
  
  For decades, the GOP defended the EC tooth and nail as being critical to protecting the voters in smaller states and preventing "tyranny of the majority".
  Then in 2016 they abandoned that in favor of the idea that state legislatures can ignore the voters in their state and simply appoint the electors directly instead.
  ​
  
  ​"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”   
  —David Frum >
  
  One person one vote. 
  Scariest phrase in American politics, just like it was in South Africa. >
  
  This tyranny of the minority sure is grating. >
  
  An ironic statement, considering their opposition to all other "minorities"
  But they don't get that. Republican voters think they are the majority, to the point they cry foul when they lose, and endorse a president who makes wild lies about his popularity. It's an education thing, or a lack thereof >
  
  "But, what about the tyranny!?"
  -Republicans, probably. >
  
  Good. People in rural America have way too much representation >
  
  and forcing the will of the inbred hick rural masses on those in urban areas is better how? >
  
  Their will isn't forced though. Biden is President right now and the Senate is Blue. >
  
  True for now, but rural hicks want an massive oversized amount of representation at the table. >
  
  I don’t understand the “lack of representation”. One vote is one vote to a grand total. If 150 million people vote it’s 150 million votes. Whoever has the majority is winner. This isn’t rocket science. >
  
  "Why should the people in the cities get to tell me how to live," said rural voters every where. (I don't agree with this statement, just that's where all my conversations with rural voters on this topic eventually go). >
  
  What they are saying is that they can’t deal with the fact that progressive and social ideas are actually quite popular and conservatives don’t want to lose power to the “others”. >
  
  They’re fine with lack of representation as long as it’s the city voters who aren’t represented. >
  
  
  Whoever gets the most votes wins. 
  
  Republicans: Sounds communist to me. >
  
  Absolutely. No Electoral College = No Presidents GW Bush or Trump. >
  
  The two worst Presidents in my lifetime. One was the worst ever. I remember toasting ol’ GWB as his helicopter flew away, thinking I’d never see a worse President. How wrong I was. >
  
  Bush was far worse than Trump on almost every metric. >
  
  Except the one that matters the most: refusing to accept defeat and inciting an insurrection. >
  
  But if we do that, how will we dilute the votes we don't want, so that a lesser candidate can win? >
  
  You can’t gerrymander anything if there’s only one ‘district’ - the entire country. >
  
  The Electoral College is an outdated artifact of a Constitutional agreement to inflate the power of the slave states. Now that slavery no longer exists, there is no reason for the Electoral College to exist. >
  
  It still exists because those states still want inflated power. Why would they ever chose to give it up? >
  
  It still exists because it’s been 18 years since a Republican won the popular vote. It gives them an advantage by diluting the voting power of the people in the most populous states. >
  
  Them’s fighting words for rural America. >
  
  Too bad. >
  
  We might see the electoral college altered but I think there are challenges  to operating as a democracy as opposed to a republic… like water management, land management, conservation… which would be dramatically effected.  It’s my opinion the Dems should stay away from proposing the end of the electoral college.  Kind of like “defund the police”… the republicans are going to lose at the local, state, regional, and national levels anyway… for decades… I think it would be smarter to win over rural America. >
  
  Eliminating the electoral college wouldn’t change what we are. Our laws and policies would still be decided by democratically elected representatives, not the voters directly. Which is the definition of a republic. >
  
  After the EC is abolished? Next step is pro-ratingbthe senate on or per population basis rather than 2 to a state. >
  
  Or abolish the Senate, or marginalize it the way the Brits have marginalized the House of Lords. >
  
  If a bicameral legislature is what the US must have?
  It must be via a manner in which all the votes is the representative democracy are equal. 
  It's absurd that so much power resides with the senate rather than the House of Reps.
  The tension between both houses does little to actually advance America nor truly serve it's people. >
  
  Republicans would never go forward because they don't believe their policies are good enough to win the popular vote >
  
  It would take some time for the GOP to evolve into something that could actually represent what most Americans need and want. It's not impossible but they could not win as they are today. That change would be a benefit for everyone. >
  
  The problem is the big campaign donors are like their current policies
  It is going to have to take a massive defeat on the federal and state level before the campaign donors realize they can't have everything they want >
  
  I don't believe for a second the EC will ever disappear. Why would the GOP or it's large donors be willing give up their outsized power. >
  
  I bet a majority of American citizens agree with Raskin. >
  
  I dare you to go post this on the conservative sub and get yourself banned for common sense >
  
  I would, but that already happened to me. >
  
  If we did that we would literally never have another republican president.  A democrat candidate has one the popular vote in almost every presidential election this century.  Only one exception would be Bush jr’s second term.  And that wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t received a little help from the electoral college on the first go around. >
  
  Considering the clown car that is the GOP of now, that sounds pretty good to me. >
  
  Abolish the electoral college and remove money from politics too! I’m down for both! >
  
  The EC is even worse in practice than in theory and it's terrible in theory. 
  The EC is Representation in Congress. States get a vote per House Representative in the state plus their Senators. However the Reapportionment Act of 1929 arbitrarily caps the number of House members possible. So as local populations growth House Districts get shuffled around but no new Districts can be created. Prior to 1929 the size of the House grew alongside the population. 
  In 1929 the number of constituents per House member averaged out to 250k. Today the average number of constituents per is 760k. If districts were still every 250k constituents California would have 156 House Districts would equal 158 Electoral Votes. Instead California only has 55 electoral votes. Meanwhile Wyoming would Have 4 electoral votes instead of 3. 
  This ridiculous capping of the number of districts clearly favors rural communities. That is in addition to the EC already favoring those same rural communities in the first place. The average House District currently has a larger constituent population than Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, or North Dakota. Worse still the Number of constituents in Districts only grows. >
  
  If you uncapped and added more reps, you'd need more than 270 to win. It doesn't suddenly make the goal line that much closer just because California would have more electoral votes. The number you need to win is the number of reps + the number of senators divided by two plus one. >
  
  California would have 300% more electoral votes than they currently do. States like Alaska and Wyoming would only have 25% more electoral votes. If you don't understand the degree to which that would transform things you are terrible at math. 
  Likewise TX would have 300% more too. This isn't purely a benefit for Democrats. It would reshape the entire map. >
  
  Its also harder to gerrymander 1000 districts in a state than a handful.  The margins to make gerrymandering effective in those scenarios are too thin and subject to the whims of migration thus likely making gerrymandering less of an issue. >
  
  Georgia had something called the County unit system that was very similar to the Electoral College. They outlawed it in the early 1960s for similar reasons that have been mentioned here. It gave rural counties way more power in elections than urban counties. >
  
  The day after the electoral college abolishment happens:
  Every presidential candidate: "OMG we need to Improve public transit, high speed rail, and increase housing supply in really dense urban areas especially in New York, SF and Chicago!!!!!!! Go Bulls!!!" >
  
  Which are good things that should happen. >
  
  That and it's so counter to what presidential election politics entail today. >
  
  Land shouldn’t vote so when a state like Ohio or Florida is the deciding EC vote it means where you vote matters more than the will of all voters. It’s a national election that comes down to a handful gerrymandered states. >
  
  Gerrymandering is irrelevant to this particular issue. >
  
  State legislatures determine how elections are run and certified. Gerrymandering is responsible for super majorities in state legislatures that lead to voter suppression and restrictions that affect national races. It’s very relevant, please read up on it. >
  
  I aware of that and don’t disagree, but to go A>B gerrymandering is a whole different conversation. I’ve read all about it, but most people casually following politics will read your comment and not arrive at your implication. 
  It’s a tangled web, but most votes still equals the winner or loser of the state. Now let’s focus on the WI Supreme Court election next year. (Considering the hijacking that has happened there) >
  
  I think their point is that unless the Supreme Court allows the states to choose their own electorate regardless of how their people vote, or some of the more gerrymandered states allow their house ECs to be split like a couple do (Maine for example gives both Senate EC votes to overall state and splits the two House based on their respective district results) gerrymandering at the state level doesn’t really impact the EC results. 
  If it’s all or nothing based on statewide popular vote then gerrymandering doesn’t really impact it. >
  
  Good points >
  
  This makes sense. Republicans will not like it. >
  
  The amazing thing about getting rid of the electoral college is that suddenly millions of people who sit out because they are in deep red or blue states, suddenly have a reason to vote.
  The consequences of this aren’t known but overall it’s great for democracy. >
  
  I’ll never understand why Republicans are against the 5 million Republicans in California actually being able to have a voice. >
  
  That + ranked choice voting = democracy >
  
  Out here in California, it would be nice to see presidential candidates as often or more frequently than swing state >
  
  Step 1, be a millionaire. Then you’ll see the candidates at their $50k/plate fundraisers during election season. Otherwise, they can’t be bothered to visit the most wealthiest and most populous state in the union. The only votes that matter here are the ones in the form of cash. >
  
  bruh, a million dollars isn't shit anymore.  Certainly not buying access to politicians level of money. If you've got 10-20x that maybe... >
  
  This is true. Gotta be a multi-millionaire for it to make a difference now. >
  
  This.... So much this!!! The electoral college literally means the opposite of "every vote matters". >
  
  This is true but there's no way to change it without continuing to work with it. No matter how much we declare the need to change it, it won't change until voters elect a huge majority of Dems in Congress and state legislatures, and that's not likely to happen because of the system itself. So we're stuck with it for now one way or another. >
  
  At work right now so I don't have all the details but there's a bunch of states that have already passed state laws saying their electoral college votes would go to the candidate to wins the popular vote. This will go into effect once enough states have signed similar bills to have enough electoral votes to decide the winner. >
  
  Yes but in that case Dems would need to win a lot more state legislatures still. Currently the GOP controls the vast majority of state chambers. So either way voters need to do a massive turn toward Dems, contending with gerrymandering and other issues. >
  
  Fla would turn blue overnight. We have a voting map drawn by DeSatan Himself. With some districts so lopsided doubling the blue voters still wouldn't do anything. It would also stop the crap with early voting. He allowed republican districts affected by the hurricane to vote even earlier then normal. The only hold they have left over fla is the electoral college vote. >
  
  Republicans generally win the statewide vote in Florida. Presidential elections are not gerrymandered. >
  
  Raskin is more right about this than any of us know, and 2024 will prove this. >
  
  Agreed - every vote should count. >
  
  No the EC was invented so the lesser populated southern states would sign on to the Constitution.  This & the 2/3 Compromise. >
  
  Well, it’s time to fix it, then. We got rid of the 2/3 compromise. We got rid of slavery. Rural states have too much power in the Senate as it is. There’s certainly no reason to keep the Electoral College. >
  
  I agree 100%. >
  
  Republicans I am sure will willingly negotiate with dems to help get rid of it. Yes I am joking. >
  
  The 18th century electoral college is a relic of the highly obsolete 18th century political thought of classical republicanism. The system venerated by defenders of the electoral college today is a product of ancient political thought, which was generally extremely elitist, patriarchal, and had appalling disregard for human rights. Think of the Nocturnal Council in Plato's Republic, or Aristotle's horrific justifications of slavery. Or Roman atrocities like the genocide of the Carthaginians (who were if anything more liberal and democratic) and the fact their economy was based on the brutalization of other human beings by conquest and enslavement. In this they were not unlike the early United States, which probably does much to explain why the highly privileged men who founded the country thought so highly of Rome.
  When the Founding Fathers created the constitution was a time far more unequal and less advanced than today, and in technology it was not too much more advanced than the Roman Republican times the Founding Fathers so idolized. Yet the Roman Republic wasn't a liberal democracy or a socially just place by any stretch of the imagination, and so it as a model for modern governance isn't just obsolete, it's undesirable. To defend the EC based on archaic arguments debunked by reality is as ridiculous as it would be to try to implement Zhou-style feudalism in modern China because Confucius so idealized it, using his reasoning.
  Even if the classical republican beliefs conservatives venerate and try to emulate was from a technologically simpler but also a morally desirable society, for example, the Iroquois Confederacy with their Great Law of Peace and extremely egalitarian and fair social system, then this would be quite understandable, even admirable. But instead the right idolizes a way of thinking from the 18th century from patriarchal, mostly slaveowning men. They idolize, romanticize, and wish to emulate a society, which, like Rome, was based on slavery, conquest, brutalization, imperialism, and genocide.
  And so this is the reason why 18th century, ultimately classical republican arguments of the electoral college can become so upsetting, because they display a complete lack of, or a callous disregard for, the horrors of the worlds in which those values and arguments are embedded. >
  
  If only we could do that without giving a trillion dollar advantage to the GOP. >
  
  I have a feeling this starement will be used out of context to attack ranked choice voting in the future. >
  
  I don’t see the problem with ranked choice voting. I live in Georgia, where we had to have runoff elections in 2020 and 2022 both because we don’t have RCV. Runoffs are required when no candidate gets 50% of the vote. In both elections, no candidate got 50%; one got 49% and one got 48%. A third party candidate only got a fractional percentage of the vote. In the runoff, the candidate that got 49% won both times. To me, RCV would have required the people who voted for the third place candidate to choose one of the other candidates for his second choice - which is exactly what the runoff does. So RCV accomplishes the same thing, saves an extra month and millions of campaign dollars and ends up,with the same result. >
  
  I don't have any problem with and wish all voting would immediately move to RCV.
  But the conservative world is already calling it a disenfranchising scam since Sarah Palin lost and Alaska went to a Democrat and that is where I feel Raskin's words will be used out of context.
  They'll start saying something along the lines of, "Even Jamie Raskin, the most liberal MAGA hating democrat in congress, says, and this is a direct quote- "Whoever gets the most votes wins."  Ranked choice takes that away by adding extra rounds.  Whoever gets the most votes the first time should win- it's that simple and even Raskin agrees." and even if the conservative person is someone who fact checks they will find the above quote and take it without the context as confirmation that their shill GOP pundit told them the truth. >
  
  Raskin/Schiff 2024! >
  
  Based Raskin. >
  
  That's a simple, easy to understand, and powerful argument. He should buttress it with some other factual things to show the costs of not changing our system. >
  
  Jmo, I agree 💯