I think that would be more productive.

Probably because *cough cough* that's how it should be

If it wasn't then the larger states would control every election

You mean the majority of people would determine the winner?
Also, fun fact: the EC was created to give more power to the slave states.

The electoral college gives smaller states a chance to put their say in the election.
And it's not the electoral college itself that gave power to slave states, it was the 3/5 act or whatever the hell it was called. (If you didn't know, that rule doesn't exist anymore)

Yet it gives certain people (Mainly Republicans) more voting power. A voter in Alaska has 4 times as much power over an election than a voter in Florida. U still sure that's a good idea?

?
Alaska only has 4 electoral votes, and Florida has 29. How does alaska have more power?

Florida has 7 times as many votes

Florida has over 30x the population.

The maths makes sense

I said a single vote in Alaska has more power than 4 votes in Florida.

EXACTLY. If it weren't for the electoral college, Alaska would have no voice in the election compared to other states (like florida)

Wrong. It is decided by the number of congressional districts and representatives. For larger states, this works fine. But for each state, there have to be at least 3 electoral college votes. I am saying, plain and simple, that our system is so messed up that for some reason we decided it would be a good idea to make Gold miner votes count more than surfer dude votes

— U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2

The Constitution provides for proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the seats in the House are apportioned based on state population according to the constitutionally mandated Census.

I think I'm beginning to understand why you have no friends. Why should we give smaller groups a larger voice? The whole point of democracy is that the majority wins. It defeats the whole point of democracy.

Tell me, would you be happy if we decided to give African Americans 5 times as much voting power, because only 10% of US citizens are Black? It would be giving the small groups a voice, after all. Maybe we should do that with trans people. No? Why not? I am giving the small groups a voice, so I don't see a single reason why not

We should give smaller states a voice. I'm not talking about the type of people, I'm talking about people in general. The reason they need that many electoral votes, is because our founding fathers, who knew what they were doing, unlike you at the moment, knew that it would be the best option.

And they don't have a bigger voice by any means, but an equal

Yes. And Alaska shouldn't be getting special treatment. Why should states that tend to vote Republican get special treatment? And this sense of 'state patriotism' isn't really important. What matters is which leader the American people choose. It's simple. If more people choose person A, you go with person A. It's as ridiculous as giving people extra votes.

Also, states like Alaska and California? Campaigners don't even care about them. All they care about are states like Pensylvania. And that, is a whole other mess. Why do just a few states get to decide?

They aren't getting "special treatment" because they're republican states. There are small democratic states that wouldn't have a say either if it weren't for the EC.

Ever heard of the fact that the candidate needs at least 270 EC votes to win? So yeah, they have a main focus, but every electoral vote counts.

The people of each state votes for their electors, so on reality, they are voting for people to vote for them. And I'm not saying the popular vote doesn't matter by any means, because if neither candidate gets 270, then they base it on the popular vote.

And, for one last time, it's not just republican states getting "special treatment" like what the hell man? The electoral votes are based on population. No state, democratic or republican, gets special treatment. The amount of electoral votes is based on how many districts a state has. So your claim that "republican states get special treatment" is a big load of bs.

Give me one good reason why someone in Alaska should have 4 times as much political power as someone in Florida (And no, Floridamen isn't a legitimate answer). The EC amplifies their voice. Why? Because because 700K people living in US Siberia are as important as nearly 3 million people living in surfer dude central

The amount of electoral votes per state is determined by how many representatives they have, which is determined by population. How would you feel if you knew that, no matter what you did, your vote didn't matter? And before you say "the popular vote doesn't matter because if the EC", it does.

Except that the minimum of votes is 3. 1 congressional district, 2 representatives. You can't have a state with 1 representative. You can't

They made it that way, because, like I've said 638262828473982 times already, it gives smaller states a voice in our elections

Why should they have so much of a say if there are only 700K? Shouldn't a state be given votes based on the population? It breaks democracy. There is no denying that. By giving certain voters more power, you are effectively rigging the election. Say America gains a new state, and that state has 5,000 people in it. They're still gonna get 3 votes.

It's almost like....Giving people advantages. Because of where they were born. You don't get much worse than that

They have a say because if it wasn't for the EC, they wouldn't have a say at all.

Well. It is giving people more voting power based on where they are.

And your argument about the founding fathers is just dumb. First of all, they were alive back when the US was tiny. Hamilton was an Aide-de-camp. Washington was a general. Madison was a philosopher. Franklin was an Author/polymath. The only major founding fathers with any previous political experience were Jefferson and Adams. The electoral college also had nothing to do with the empowerment of small states. It was a compromise between those who wanted Congress to elect a president and those who wanted the people to do so.

Yeah, it's true they wrote the constitution when the US was still small, but they had the chance to change it. If they felt like they needed to change it, they couldve. And, yeah, it was a compromise, but there's more to it than that. Like giving a v o i c e t o s m a l l e r s t a t e s jesus my brain is dying

If no-one lives there, why should they get so much voting power? It's illogical. Why would you put a system that allows a minority of voters to win? After all, it would make far more sense if everyone's ballot was equal, now wouldn't it?

Because their collective voices count as a state, which is how the framers of the Constitution conceived it, not as a mass of 'the American People' but as the people of Alaska.

It's so they have a voice in the election. Can't you read, and haven't you taken a government class?

Also, btw, the electoral college keeps from big states from controlling the election. And it's not letting a minority of voters win, because california (a democratic state if you didn't realize from under your rock) still has more electoral votes than any other state.

it was put in place to guard against demagogues, populist, and the mob mentality of total democracy. The states were 'the people' and the represented by state electors, who hopefully might know more about government than the average joe. Elbridge Gerry, debating the issue at the Constitution Convention said a popular vote "would alarm and give a handle to the State partisans, as tending to supersede altogether the state authorities." The EC is not perfect, but seeing the insanities of the mobs on both sides of politics these days, I would say it's the best we have.

They should get a say. A vote that is equal to everyone elses. It's not too much to ask

They do have a say. With the electoral college.

The EC does nothing of the sort. It simply gives certain voters more power. Like an idiot. If you want to have measures put in place against extremism, maybe have some kind of 'belief limit', where you can't be too far either left or right, otherwise you can't become president

They didn't feel the need to change it because they thought that people would, y'know, optimise America. They feared giving people too much power because, well, everyone was super pissed and probably wasn't thinking straight.

Smaller states already have a voice. It's just disproportionately amplified for no reason.

You need to stop treating the founding fathers like they were perfect. They were humans. They made dumb decisions. Jefferson had a pet ram that once killed a boy. Hamilton was, well, Hamilton. Washington was a pretty bad general. Burr was just a dumbass. The continental army was mainly made up of drunks, immigrants and rich people who didn't want the taxes. There were no extraordinary tactics involved. It was a simple hit-and-run war. There were multiple incidents where they wouldn't have made it without extraordinary luck. Yorktown wouldn't have been won if not for a French naval commander. The war would've been lost if Baron von Steuben hadn't visited.

The electoral college was a system that worked well 200 years ago. It gives people more power based on where they live. It breaks the very logic behind democracy. Every person has an equal say in what happens. That is the very foundation of democracy, and the US breaks it.

"They feared giving people too much power because, well, everyone was super pissed and probably wasn't thinking straight"

Would you not describe modern America exactly like this? This was one of the reasons for the EC.

"It breaks the very logic behind democracy. Every person has an equal say in what happens. That is the very foundation of democracy, and the US breaks it."

The founders did not believe in total democracy, and for good reason; the mob is fickle, and can easily be swayed by morons on both the right and left.

Actually it was put in place to guard against demagogues, populist, and the mob mentality of total democracy. The states were 'the people' and the represented by state electors, who hopefully might know more about government than the average joe. Elbridge Gerry, debating the issue at the Constitution Convention said a popular vote "would alarm and give a handle to the State partisans, as tending to supersede altogether the state authorities." The EC is not perfect, but seeing the insanities of the mobs on both sides of politics these days, I would say it's the best we have.

Except that the electoral college in no way safeguards against extremism. It's not as if Alaskans are all moderates and Californians are a bunch of idiots. The only way to prevent things like extremism from becoming a problem is by not making them an option in the first place.

A total democracy is when everyone decides on everything. Giving everyone an equal vote is not total democracy

so you want to keep it this way because if the winner got determined by who got the most votes, your choice would never win? 54vjq5.jpg (click to show)

No, it's just that larger states, such as california, or even larger republican states would control every election. If we only used the popular vote, california would make it where we have a democratic president every election

Yup that’s how it works. You only don’t like it when you lose. Bunch California and Mew York liberals don’t get to tell everyone else how to live.

The electoral college is fully informed, while the people are misinformed possibly