Dem Senators introduce a bill to eliminate the Electoral College

It's easy enough to justify either method. EC because it gives less populated areas equal say in the election and it's not dominated by a few high-population metro areas. The popular vote because it's the only true way to adhere to the one-person, one-vote principle.
But it does appear that at least some of those so adamant for one system or another are simply in favor of the system that gives their party the advantage, despite their claims of standing up for truth, justice and the American way.
That said, it's not going to change. It's perfectly valid for lawmakers to introduce bills and discussion about the issue ... but it's not going to change.

 

#yawn

 

It’s time has passed. Or award delegates proportionally by state. Of course, the parties don’t want that as they lose sway. Even doing it by voting districts keeps the party machine chugging.

 

I think you got it bass akwards.

 

QTS - Qualify the source. something I wished I would have learned much earlier in life and still struggle with daily...

 

Taking away the EC means the effective removal of the voice that middle America has for our presidency. Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming … all basically neutered if popular vote alone won the day. And I think it was dangerous to eliminate their proportionate voice in the presidency.

 

Fine with me. Let’s put it up for vote.

 

I'm pretty sure the senators know that which is why they proposed a Constitutional amendment

 

Everyone knows this is not going to pass but it's something to talk about. Nothing substantial has passed since Obama was in office. However, in my opinion this gives voters are stronger voice as politicians would be required to campaign in states other than the swing states as every vote would count.

 

I don't understand this.

If we're going to say that "the big states" are the only ones that have a voice......because they have more people and a proportionately larger total of the voters......then how are we going to arbitrarily define a "big state" ?

For example, is it unfair to Texas, because California get's appx 40 million votes to their 30 million? That is a pretty big 33% majority!! Is it unfair to Florida that, with appx 23 mill, they are "dwarfed" by both CA and TX? Seems unfair that CA would wield twice as much power as Florida!!

Or is it actually, as we always hear and I quoted, all the big states will outrepresent the small ones and thus..... not fair!!!! For example, CA, TX, NY and FL will gang up on everyone smaller. This despite the fact that some of those states (leadership) seems to hate each other.

I think this exercise demonstrates the absurdity of this thought process. How about make it simple, and every person just gets one equal vote?

 

Do we see this in any other context? Do mass market products ignore those states? Or do they continue to pursue sales in those locations, even, at times, tailoring product offerings or messaging to those small places?

 

Even if you don't want to eliminate the EC altogether, do you agree the smallest states have a disproportionately unfair amount of input in the election?. California is more populous than the 21 least populous states combined. Perhaps the EC can be tweaked to reflect that as opposed to eliminating it altogether.

 

I think the EC is designed to prove the very balance you reference. California, Texas, Florida and New York are the most populous states, and they’re given the electoral weight due to the population. The lower populated states, by design, have lower electoral weight. I think this compromise works to give every American a real voice in the election’s outcome.

And I absolute understand and appreciate yours and other’s point of view on this. I just think that overall popular vote, without the electoral college, dangerously mutes the rural populations.

 

Under the EC, does the D living in OK City or R in Boston really have a voice today? Or they muted because it's winner take all, and the chances of their candidate winning their respective state is 0%?

 

As I said, I understand the arguments for eliminating the EC. But at the same time, if we eliminate the electoral college, do you think Iowans matter for the presidential election any more? Sure, “every vote matters,” but you know that the elections will be won or lost by the big city votes.

And once you neuter the voice, you start breeding discontent. That’s when the whole house starts to crumble.

 

I’m referring to the OP with “performative nonsense,” though Democrats also know this isn’t going to pass.

 

Does it? So why do you think neither party tries to convince people in deep red or deep blue states to vote for them for President? Why aren't both parties out there trying to earn their votes and listening to their concerns?

The Electoral College only gives voice to voters in about 10 states, based solely on being relatively balanced in terms of numbers of people that lean towards each party.

 

That is a massive assumption. The elections would be won or lost by persuadable voters. Their location is an open question. I'd actually imagine that the general shift would be towards suburban, not "big city" votes.

40 states have neutered voices now. Perhaps that is why people are not content with their government and the whole house is starting to crumble.

 

I don’t think that’s true. Love him or hate him, Trump went all over the Country, particularly to the most rural areas in America. He fought for their vote, and gave them a face for their voice. It’s what propelled him to a win of the both the electoral college and the popular vote. Maybe Kamala just didn’t reach the heart of America (and loads of reasons why-not the least of which was Biden’s selfish decision to run again).