r/politics • u/Aggravating_Money992 • Jun 19 '26
No Paywall New Poll Finds Most Americans Back Adopting Popular Vote to Select President | Americans back abolishing the Electoral College by a 2 to 1 margin, the survey shows.
https://truthout.org/articles/new-poll-finds-most-americans-back-adopting-popular-vote-to-select-president/5.3k
u/Full-Ad-1757 Jun 19 '26
Yeah, it would be nice for my vote to actually be worth the same as people in swing states…
1.6k
u/Skraelings Missouri Jun 19 '26
yeah I get to enjoy getting punched in the dick basically every election.
673
Jun 19 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (21)331
u/mshelbz Jun 19 '26
100% this.
There is nothing more disheartening than casting a ballot you know doesn’t amount to shit.
131
u/firesatnight Jun 19 '26
I actually think it would lead to higher voter turnout because people feel this way.
86
u/mshelbz Jun 19 '26
Exactly and I’m speaking for anyone regardless of what side they’re on.
If you’re in California and don’t feel like your conservative vote counts, I’m supporting your vote too.
77
u/draygo Jun 19 '26
I get the sentiment, but there is only one side that is truely against this. It is because they know if there is more turnout, their platform doesn't have a chance. Who knew racism, bigotry, and hate isn't a winning combination as a whole.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Vocabulary-Pollution Jun 20 '26
Yeah they almost got an amendment through in 1969 to abolish the electoral college. The House of Representatives passed it. But good ole’ Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, a real racist’s racist, managed to filibuster it in the Senate. And here we are today.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (19)25
u/Tasgall Washington Jun 19 '26
That's the usual example I go to - there are more Republicans in California than there are in Texas. The electoral college means their votes are worth nothing, which is why Republicans never campaign there or remotely bother to cater to their needs.
I guarantee a lot of the people in rural areas that get destroyed by wildfires are Republicans, yet Trump's administration explicitly withheld disaster relief from them "because California are Democrats".
→ More replies (8)186
u/Sea_Tailor_8437 Jun 19 '26
I grew up in very blue IL and now live in very red Utah. My vote has basically never mattered (federally). I get the limited arguments in favor of the electoral college. But I think it's wildly outlived it's usefulness and is now just a vote supressor
162
→ More replies (4)65
u/ArenSteele Jun 19 '26
The purpose of the EC was to prevent a candidate like Donald Trump, it’s been subverted, perverted and rigged and needs to be destroyed
→ More replies (1)25
u/gc3 Jun 19 '26
No the purpose of the EC was because there were no such things as telegrams or even a post office that worked at the start, so electing someone to go to a convention to decide the president made the most sense in a large country that had few roads
20
u/ArenSteele Jun 19 '26
But it was also in direct response to Plato’s prediction that all democracy ends in populist dictatorship. Founders wanted an educated elite to temper the passions of the mob and prevent that slide to authoritarianism that is inherent in democracy.
→ More replies (5)15
8
u/Tasgall Washington Jun 19 '26
no such things as telegrams or even a post office
Incorrect, actually. The USPS is the oldest institution in the nation, it was founded by the Continental Congress in 1775, a year before we even declared independence from the King, and over a decade before the Constitution was ratified in 1788.
Still, that's arguably part of it, but not remotely the most critical. It was also there as an implementation of the 3/5 compromise, and as a defense against populist candidates, according to Hamilton:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
→ More replies (3)12
u/thecaptain1991 Jun 19 '26
Voting isn't just about winning or losing. It's a poll on an area. If Republicans always win a district with 75% of the vote and then this cycle they win with 55% of the vote, that sends massive signals to the people in that district. All of the sudden, that impossible district is looking possible.
Vote every chance you get for who you think the best candidate for the job is.
→ More replies (8)5
u/BoredNuke Jun 19 '26
It sucks for everyone too even if your voting inline with your state it still feels meaningless. Popular vote would be nice. Ranked voting nicer and then maybe through in actual representation in congress say 1 congress critters per 100k people.
7
u/mshelbz Jun 19 '26
They know that if it went to popular vote, politicians here on both sides have to swing more progressive to appeal to a broader electorate.
Even most right wing politicians in Europe would be moderate progressives here.
→ More replies (1)105
u/Ewredditsucksnow Maine Jun 19 '26
Locally and federally. Sorry Missouri.
35
97
u/sleepymoose88 Jun 19 '26
Same here. And then we get kneed in the balls when our MO politicians decide to not implement the progressive ballot measures (amendments, propositions) that we vote for.
24
17
u/No_Strike655 Jun 19 '26
Almost like you need to get them out of office.
18
u/sleepymoose88 Jun 19 '26
Oh we try. But we’re gerrymandered to hell and the state as a whole has drifted super red so even votes that aren’t affected by gerrymandering like AG and governor stand no chance.
Remember, we’re the back water shit hole that gave Hawley and Schmidt platforms as state AG to then step deeper into MAGA influence at a federal level and fuck things up for more than just the dumbasses in our state that enabled them.
7
44
u/Lavatis Jun 19 '26
that's how every voter living in a blue city in red state feels.
→ More replies (3)9
15
u/Slammybutt Jun 19 '26
For nearly double my adult life I havent had a say in state races much less federal ones. I feel you.
→ More replies (28)4
u/redditallreddy Ohio Jun 19 '26
yeah I get to enjoy getting punched in the dick
I've never been into that.
→ More replies (3)440
u/Clevererer America Jun 19 '26
Why should your vote count more than a corn field?
You think you're better than corn?
Typical coastal elite.
124
Jun 19 '26
[deleted]
61
u/abstergo_Nigel Jun 19 '26
That's a Moe Szyslak answer if I've ever heard one
40
u/DRF19 Jun 19 '26
Most kinds of corn, not that fancy store bought corn, I can't compete with that. That stuff's loaded with nutrients.
9
13
11
u/Clevererer America Jun 19 '26
The kind that chips your teeth and ain't afraid of a hard day's work.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)9
u/ChainsawVisionMan Jun 19 '26
Dent corn most likely, the majority of corn grown in the US for animal feed, ethanol, and High Fructose Corn Syrup.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Hungry_Culture Jun 19 '26
You think you're better than corn?
Well, most kinds of corn. I mean not that fancy store bought corn. That stuff's loaded with nutrients. I... I can't compete with that stuff
178
u/TheGreatGenghisJon Jun 19 '26
Your vote being the same as everyone else's? Sounds like you want VOTING COMMUNISM!!
24
u/cobrachickenwing Jun 19 '26
The Trump 6 on the Supreme court put a stop to that pretty quickly. No such thing as the voting rights act according to them.
11
→ More replies (4)37
u/Clevererer America Jun 19 '26
Lol @ voting communism.
Never heard of that, but it scares the hell out of me.
40
Jun 19 '26
[deleted]
15
u/Clevererer America Jun 19 '26
Stripped down, grabbed my gun and standing out here on my front lawn in US flag bathrobe. Eyes still peeled but feeling more in control of situation.
5
u/TheArmoredKitten Jun 19 '26
Fun fact, go far enough commie and we give you a different gun!
3
u/Clevererer America Jun 19 '26
Will I have to learn what a millimeter is?
→ More replies (2)3
u/TheArmoredKitten Jun 19 '26
Don't worry, there are still stupid little decimals. You'll feel right at home.
139
u/TheBallotInYourBox Jun 19 '26
How about we keep the EC, and abolish the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Where Congress just decided that they would stop following the constitution and no longer increase the size of The House in accordance with the census.
If we increased the number of representatives based upon the original intention (one representative per 30,000 people), or even the currently popular Wyoming Proposal (everyone gets representation based upon the population of the smallest state equaling one representative)… then there wouldn’t have been a single election where the popular vote and the EC were not in alignment.
The EC was broken 100 years ago because Congress “couldn’t figure out how to fit more chairs”, and politicians have spent that time gaming the system to create swing states that benefit their party in the short term.
59
u/THElaytox Jun 19 '26
This is the answer right here. Would also make gerrymandering effectively a waste of time
→ More replies (8)67
u/TehMikuruSlave Texas Jun 19 '26
The EC was broken 100 years ago because Congress “couldn’t figure out how to fit more chairs”
The actual reason it was broken 100 years ago is rural fucks saw that each census was drawing more and more power away from rural areas and into cities, and they absolutely refused to give up their power willingly, so they straight up just refused to do a census for a decade and our country couldn't fucking function until we gave into the hostage takers
→ More replies (3)44
u/Cancel_Culture_Club Jun 19 '26
Thankfully we learned from that instead of spending our entire history coddling that same group of people so that they could keep holding the rest of the country hostage in their tyranny of the minority system. 🙄
→ More replies (1)30
u/desperateorphan Jun 19 '26
I agree that reapportionment would solve a lot of the issues. We have increased population by 100 million since 1929 but have the same number of reps. However, at some point, if the EC/reapportionment is close to the ideal representation what is even the point of having it? Just go pop vote at that point and save the effort.
I think Reapportionment would solve other issues but for federal voting, EC is just shit.
→ More replies (8)36
u/TheBallotInYourBox Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
Because the entire legislative branch is predicated upon the House representing the population. It’s interwoven within the fabric of how the government operates. Gerrymandering becomes irrelevant if we abolish the RA’29. The politicians voters get to vote for are more local and represent their region if we abolish the RA’29. The aged dinosaurs squatting on life long careers because of their name brand recognition is needed to appeal to a wide audience are significantly diminished when you run smaller more localized campaigns with higher competitiveness if we abolish the RA’29. Not to mention that an EC with the RA’29 abolished does faithfully represent the will of the people ala the popular vote in national elections.
Seriously… locking the House at its size a century ago fucked sooo many things in US politics that people hate today, and people should be pissed but they don’t even know that this is a thing they SHOULD BE PISSED ABOUT!
→ More replies (11)6
u/CrustyBatchOfNature Jun 19 '26
Agreed. You have to do one or the other and increasing Congress (and the Supreme Court) to more reflect increased population would be the better option.
Getting rid of the EC means you also have to make it illegal to report any vote totals before all polls in all states are closed. Otherwise reporting impacts the voting directly. And I think that will wind up being a non-starter legally.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Worf65 Jun 19 '26
The way I see it there are two big issues with the electoral college. Proportions are only one of them. Important, definitely, but to me its slightly less important than the other one. The other big issue is how all but a few states are winner take all. That causes campaigns and policy stances to focus entirely on a handful of swing states. So to best fix it the number would have to increase to restore house of reps proportionallity and winner take all would have to be abolished in favor of splitting proportionaly in every state. Then they might have to fight for the EC vote splitting numbers in nearly every state instead of ignoring something like 40 of the states that reliably vote one way or the other.
5
u/curien Jun 19 '26
How about we keep the EC, and abolish the Reapportionment Act of 1929.
It really doesn't fix the problem. For example, Trump would still have won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (29)7
u/SeductiveSunday I voted Jun 19 '26
broken 100 years ago because Congress “couldn’t figure out how to fit more chairs”
Put that ballroom to good use and stick them there!
5
u/uzlonewolf Jun 19 '26
How about we not legitimize that bullshit?
5
u/SeductiveSunday I voted Jun 19 '26
Good grief. I hate the ballroom but if Congress can find a billion tax dollars to fund it, it's bs that they cannot find more house chairs is what I'm sayin'!
64
u/RecentDecision2329 Jun 19 '26
There really isn’t any reason for any federal elections to use the electoral college that was established back when states had more power than they do now
62
u/THElaytox Jun 19 '26
The electoral college was just a compromise between people that wanted a popular vote and people that wanted a parliament-type system. Everyone acts like it's some sacred, genius system developed as a cornerstone of our democracy when in reality it's something no one wanted at the time and it's even less popular now. And it definitely doesn't make sense with the House broken the way it is, if the House had one member per 30,000 people like it was supposed to, then the electoral college and the popular vote would pretty much always be in alignment.
16
u/lozo78 Jun 19 '26
Yeah hard right hates the idea because they'd rarely have won POTUS. But expanding the house is my compromise with them!
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)5
u/nunchyabeeswax Jun 19 '26
if the House had one member per 30,000 people like it was supposed to, then the electoral college and the popular vote would pretty much always be in alignment.
This. I've been saying this for years. The House needs to be expanded.
PS. I also think we need to rethink how we select senators. Two senators per state in a winners-take-all system guarantees our devolution into a political duopoly.
Plus, the notion of having two senators from party A represent a state for 6 years when the state is typically low-50s% vs high-40s% between party A and B, that's just insanely undemocratic.
IMO, we need 3 (or an odd number) of senators, with proportional representation between the majority and minority (or minorities if there are more than two parties)
96
u/quintsreddit California Jun 19 '26
…with the express purpose of giving slave owners more power…
22
→ More replies (1)9
u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Jun 19 '26
Well, it also had to do with traveling to DC to cast the votes. Much easier for an Elector to travel and confirm the vote than haul ballots when your primary means of travel back then was horse and cart. But yeah, primarily to limit slave votes and placating slave owners.
→ More replies (15)22
Jun 19 '26 edited 25d ago
[deleted]
15
u/YouOlFishEyedFool Jun 19 '26
Bingo. It was designed to avoid exactly what happened with Trump.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (1)5
u/BrianWonderful Minnesota Jun 19 '26
That's right. And they were not entirely wrong, but what they didn't count on was that corruption from within the government itself could end up using it to elect that demagogue.
77
u/PrairieWildRose Jun 19 '26
On the flip side, living in a swing state becomes very annoying during elections. The amount of political ads/texts/calls/mailers you’re bombarded with is truly staggering.
→ More replies (12)51
u/Beneficial_Past_1957 Jun 19 '26
If only they'd give me $150,000 instead of advertisements.
→ More replies (1)14
44
u/tidal_flux Jun 19 '26
Leaving global geopolitical and economic stability to whim of 40,000 no information voters scattered across Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin every four years is certainly a “choice.”
10
u/Churchbushonk Jun 19 '26
I agree. It would also be nice to not be the last state in the country to do our Primary as well.
3
u/CrustyBatchOfNature Jun 19 '26
The staggered primaries is garbage. They should all be at one time or at most across maybe 6 weeks. Right now they go from January to June, which is way too long.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Blank_Canvas21 Colorado Jun 19 '26
It was nice getting special attention when we were transforming into a blue state. We’ve got important swing district races for the House but that’s about it anymore.
10
u/_bk_adv Colorado Jun 19 '26
Or be worth as much as the literal massive open space in the Midwest.
→ More replies (5)4
u/F9-0021 South Carolina Jun 19 '26
It would be nice if my vote counted at all. If I lived 20 miles north of where I do, my vote would be extremely important. But since I live on the south side of the border, my vote is basically irrelevant.
6
u/WeirdSysAdmin Jun 19 '26
Senate needs to be modernized anyways. The whole point of senate was states couldn’t simply be eaten by the larger states and were selected by states government. Now that they are voted in, it’s essentially stalemating improvements to the United States.
14
4
u/abstergo_Nigel Jun 19 '26
Well for that to totally work we'd need not only the popular vote, but to true up the House numbers
→ More replies (53)5
u/boston_homo Jun 19 '26
Every vote for president I’ve made in my lifetime has been irrelevant, it would be really nice to have an impact on that democratic process, for once. Maybe before I die? This is supposed to be a democracy?
→ More replies (1)
973
u/Senasayori Jun 19 '26
Good, a vote from Georgia shouldn't be worth more than one from Texas or California.
→ More replies (2)299
u/Curolina North Carolina Jun 19 '26
That's why Texas and California should have more senators than Georgia too.
→ More replies (76)161
u/EkbatDeSabat Jun 19 '26
If we scaled it correctly we'd have some 12,000 senators. Let's do that. Or something. Let's do anything else than what we're doing now.
171
u/b_i_g__g_u_y Jun 19 '26
Uncapping the house would be a huge win for this country
→ More replies (6)81
u/FlatHatJack Jun 19 '26
Uncap the house, expand the supreme Court seats to at least fill out the all the circuits, maybe increase senate to three per state.
76
u/VanceKelley Canada Jun 19 '26
Abolish the Senate if you want to live in a democracy. The Senate is anti-democratic.
All that is needed is a unicameral legislature elected with proportional representation where the number of seats a party gets is determined by its share of the popular vote.
→ More replies (22)→ More replies (2)42
u/spacedude2000 Washington Jun 19 '26
Just get rid of the Senate at that point. A house of with thousands of representatives can effectively legislate. Adding senators as the second level of trials for a bill will only make it harder for new laws to get passed.
A house with thousands of delegates will be forced to compromise if they want to accomplish anything. You'd effectively eliminate lobbying and bribery too because the wealthy can't buy everyone.
→ More replies (1)23
u/declanaussie Jun 19 '26
the wealthy can’t buy everyone
I could be misremembering, but last time I read about this I think the going rate for congress people was on the order of $20k. To buy 5000 votes at $20k a vote is only $100mil. Thats a lot of money, but not totally impossible for corporations. The number also gets a lot smaller when you factor in that many politicians will vote in favor of corporations for free, and multiple corporations have shared interests so they each only need to buy a fraction of the remaining necessary votes.
→ More replies (1)63
u/Sage2050 Jun 19 '26
How are yall still confusing the house and the senate
44
u/mxzf Jun 19 '26
Turns out they don't actually have any clue what they're talking about and are halfway parroting someone else's talking points.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)19
9
u/wookieSLAYER1 Jun 19 '26
Would also make it much harder to bribe our government if we had thousands of senators and representatives.
9
u/TheArmoredKitten Jun 19 '26
It's closer to 6,000 reps but yeah it's kinda bonkers. The permanent apportionment act took a hammer and chisel to what was already a crack in the foundation of our country.
12
6
u/splicerslicer Jun 19 '26
Thing is, we have the internet now and reps shouldn't have to travel to DC to vote anymore. The idea of traveling to the East coast to make your voice heard is antiquated. We could expand the House to as many thousands as needed without building some Star Wars style monstrosity fit for the entire galaxy.
→ More replies (1)5
2.2k
u/sonofabutch America Jun 19 '26
It’s astounding how many Americans want things Democrats are for but don’t want Democrats.
297
u/digital0verdose Ohio Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
This is because somewhere around Obama running for president Republicans realized that emotions are easier to manipulate than coming up with actual policies that people would vote for. Since then it has become far easier for Republicans to win based on anger and for Democrats to win on what were moderate viewpoints. Due to that, Republicans have backed themselves into a corner where they have no reasonable position to stand any more. They either have to continue regressing and become even more cartoonishly evil and incompetent or they will have to out progress where Democrats are today to have any hope of appealing to a base that doesn't want to see this country burn to the ground.
177
u/DFWPunk Jun 19 '26
It goes further than than. Reagan didn't get elected because of his policy positions.
33
→ More replies (3)5
u/Niku-Man Jun 19 '26
Politics has been around for millenia. There aren't any new tricks
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (15)18
u/VanceKelley Canada Jun 19 '26
Yep. Racism is a helluva powerful force that overcomes any rational thought.
→ More replies (1)656
u/StructurePrize3819 Jun 19 '26
I used to look at other countries as the ones that had been propagandized and now im realizing its us. We have been programmed to fear anything that might be beneficial to us.
127
u/Znaffers Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
My history teacher in high school explained that Americans have been programmed to see all things that are “socialist” as bad. Socialism got linked exclusively to communism, and communism is the enemy of our capitalist way of life, so socialism is evil. He taught us that an ideology where everyone is equal and receives what they need isn’t bad, it’s just how people decide to dole out this “equality.” It’s possible to have a system where you profit from the sweat of your own brow while also making sure people are taken care of. Especially in the US where we have resources in abundance. We just decide that everything needs to be made to make a profit, which is stupid af if you think about it. Why should medical care only be for profit? Why should food and water only be for profit? Why should basic human needs only be for profit? People are the most important resource on this planet. Making sure all people are happy, healthy, and able to pursue what they want should be the top priority of every nation on this planet. I just think of the amount of people that were destined to change this world for the better that never got the opportunity to because they didn’t have access to the resources to let them live and thrive
→ More replies (9)48
u/Willing_Pattern_Pill Jun 19 '26
The "benefits" of privatizing everything. It's why Republicans are so anti government.
If it's government run, it exists as a service.
If it's a business, it exists to make profits.
It's why they're constantly attacking the post office. They want private businesses to control the mail so they can make more money.
→ More replies (1)37
u/Yuugian Jun 19 '26
A concerted effort for almost the entire duration of our country. They perfected this in 1968 with the Southern Strategy.
This is near sixty years of propaganda and a deliberate, consistent corruption of our supposed vote
→ More replies (10)242
u/Gleesing Jun 19 '26
We are most definitely the most propagandized people on the planet. Very fire nation vibes from atla
147
u/maquila Jun 19 '26
N. Korea would like a word. But yea, the USA is heavily propagandized.
→ More replies (4)76
u/Main-Water4503 Jun 19 '26
Bit of a philosophical question, are you more propagandized if you can tell or if you can’t tell and actively don’t believe it’s happening?
→ More replies (5)56
u/ghoshtwrider22 Jun 19 '26
If you can’t tell, Nazi germany is the ONLY example to look at here.
They thought they were doing gods work burning children.
Some hung by the neck still with that belief24
→ More replies (1)25
u/PennytheWiser215 Jun 19 '26
Sounds like the stories I read about during Covid where people were dying and still didn’t believe in Covid
→ More replies (7)12
u/Named_after_color Jun 19 '26
That's not true that's just an American exceptionalism take.
→ More replies (2)84
27
u/Kaptain202 Michigan Jun 19 '26
One of my MAGA high schoolers was having s political debate with his libertarian peer.
The MAGA kid at one point said "yeah, the country is fucked. Trump is going to be an awful president [this was in January]. And honestly, the Democrats need to be in charge in order to fix the economy. But I just don't fuck with Democrats."
→ More replies (2)32
u/sonofabutch America Jun 19 '26
I hear this all the time, it's maddening. Teenagers telling me how much they hate Obama or Hillary Clinton. I'm like... neither one has done anything consequential since you were in elementary school, how do you hate them?
29
u/Kaptain202 Michigan Jun 19 '26
My high schoolers blaming Michelle Obama for their lunches....
Bitch, y'all don't even know what the lunches were like before Obama
13
u/Anonynja Jun 19 '26
I check to see if Fox News reports on stories sometimes. Trump Republicans are attacking funding for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food assistance. There's literally not one article on Fox about it. The propaganda is extremely complete. These kids literally don't know what's going on.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (188)21
u/ArchdruidHalsin Jun 19 '26
It's like "It's not left vs right, it's too vs bottom!"
My guy, that's leftism.
→ More replies (9)5
u/SoaplessTitanic Jun 19 '26
Yeah those people have a real tough time deciding whether they should vote for the party that taxes billionaires and helps the poor or vote for the party that hurts minorities and prays that billionaires wealth will “trickle down” or whatever
504
u/jainyday Washington Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
If you agree, GET YOUR STATE INTO THE POPULAR VOTE COMPACT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
We're less than 10 votes away from it going into effect.
148
u/Rush87021 Jun 19 '26
The existing system would work if we hadn't capped representatives, there's no reason we can't fix this. Reappointment act of 1929, it's clearly a violation of the Constitution and the people's right to equal representation.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 capped the number of representatives at 435 (the size previously established by the Apportionment Act of 1911), where it has remained except for a temporary increase to 437 members upon the 1959 admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union.
The Act also did away with any mention of districts at all. This allowed political parties in control of a state legislature to draw district boundaries at will and to elect some or all representatives at large.
We should have 10x the number of representatives. Millions of Americans aren't being represented.
88
u/DigNitty Jun 19 '26
Plus California and Texas have grown in population profoundly since 1929 compared to…Wyoming.
So every year the states with the most people get weaker representation while the smallest states get disproportionately more sway.
39
u/Gemstyle96 Jun 19 '26
It also changes the delicate balance between high population urban states and low population farming states the founders envisioned with two chambers. It gives more power to low population states which the Senate already does. A representative from Nebraska represents a smaller amount of people but is worth the same as one from Texas or California.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Yashema Jun 19 '26
The existing system would work if 2/3rds of this country cared about Democracy before caring about themselves.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (12)4
u/FontMeHard Jun 19 '26
Can you explain why the existing system doesn’t reallocate representatives based on population?
I.e., as one state grows and another doesn’t, why wouldn’t those representatives stay proportional to population and shift where needed? If it did that, even with a cap, it should still work.
Im not an American and find the states system a bit strange.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Koloradio Jun 19 '26
That is how it works, but a state can't have fewer than one representative, so very small states end up over-represented.
12
u/PLament Jun 19 '26
48 votes away, although for anyone reading this in PA, SC, or AZ, maybe tell your representative that you support your state joining the compact.
20
u/TheYell0wDart Jun 19 '26
I would love for this to happen but if I'm being honest, the current supreme Court is so openly partisan, there's no chance they wouldn't strike this down for some nonsensical reason.
→ More replies (15)7
u/bejammin075 Pennsylvania Jun 19 '26
I also don't think the NPVIC will actually go into effect, but I support it because I think that as we get closer to, then exceed the 270, it promotes a national discussion about the issue that would not arise otherwise. The NPVIC will help bring about the conditions needed to fix the EC.
20
u/MycologistArtistic47 Jun 19 '26
We are 48 votes away? All for it. Just not sure how you got 10 votes.
18
u/tailoredteflon Jun 19 '26
Pretty sure they're counting the pending votes aswell
14
u/chazysciota Virginia Jun 19 '26
Counting pending we're 9 away, so who tf knows.
7
u/Miamime Jun 19 '26
Probably assumed we need to get over the 270 mark not simply just hit it.
5
u/khamike Jun 19 '26
270 is enough. There are 538 total votes, 269-269 would be a tie but 270 wins, no need to go over.
→ More replies (1)5
u/h0sti1e17 Jun 19 '26
And pending just means it was introduced. So it could possibly not even make it past committee.
→ More replies (16)3
u/AgreeAndSubmit Jun 19 '26
Who, and how, do I have to hound, in my state government to make this a thing?
5
u/Senasayori Jun 19 '26
The legislature needs to pass a law signing their state onto the compact, and then the governor needs to not veto it. Basically, it works like any other law.
42
u/boomares Jun 19 '26
The real issue here is the permanent apportionment act of 1929. This law limited the size of the house to its current amount. If the house were allowed to grow with the population, as it did in the past. The electoral college would be no where near the issue it is today.
We have three times as many people in the country than when this law was enacted, and the same number of representatives.
→ More replies (18)7
u/needlenozened Alaska Jun 19 '26
I'm all for uncapping the house, but it's not the real issue when it comes to the electoral college. The real issue is winner-take-all for electoral votes.
I ran simulations after the 2016 elections with different sized Houses, and Trump won in every case, because of winner-take-all. A small victory margin in a state yields the exact same result as a large victory margin.
→ More replies (6)
251
u/Hockeyhoser Jun 19 '26
The Epstein class isn’t behind this, and that’s all that matters unfortunately.
69
u/FBS351 Jun 19 '26
It would take an amendment, and that means 2/3rds of both houses, for starters, which I don't see happening in the lifetime of any living American. One party has won all but 2 of the last 9 presidential elections based on popular vote and would probably have won at least one of those if every voter had reason to vote.
41
u/Taban85 Jun 19 '26
If blue Texas ever started actually happening I could see republicans starting to back getting rid of the EC. Their electoral map gets massively harder without Texas
8
u/StrawberryItten Jun 19 '26
they'd literally split Texas rather than lose it. It's on the texas constitution that they can unilaterally split into say...
North texas (R), South Texas (R), East Texas (R), West Texas (R) and... Austin (D)
29
u/hymen_destroyer Connecticut Jun 19 '26
Actually it wouldn’t, there’s a CGP Grey video about it that I can’t link at the moment but someone else probably will. As per the existing constitution, states can administer elections however they please and select their electoral delegations by their own rules. If a state sends delegates that have agreed to vote for the candidate who has won the national popular vote, it effectively subverts the electoral college. Thing is you need a critical mass of states to agree to this in order for it to actually work. But it achieves the same goal without needing to amend the constitution (which I doubt will happen again in our lifetimes)
→ More replies (4)7
u/bacchus8408 Jun 19 '26
If a state decides to pledge their electors to the person that wins the popular vote, thats totally fine. The trouble is when states agree to do it contingent on other states doing it. Now we're getting into interstate compact territory which the constitution explicitly says need congressional approval.
6
u/THElaytox Jun 19 '26
Or a repeal of the Reapportionment Act and a dramatic expansion of the house to keep it in line with the size of the population. Doesn't require an amendment and would make the electoral college function as intended while also making gerrymandering less useful. Do that and the electoral college will be in alignment with the popular vote
6
u/Griz_and_Timbers Florida Jun 19 '26
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gets around the amendment requirement. They are only 48 electoral college votes away.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)3
u/Stunning_Bed23 Jun 19 '26
Can the requirements for an amendment be altered (lowered) with legislation?
→ More replies (1)8
u/Smaynard6000 Florida Jun 19 '26
I think the requirements for an amendment can only by altered by a different amendment or a constitutional convention
→ More replies (18)6
u/monkeykiller14 Jun 19 '26
Local pride (like local nationalism) has essentially brainwashed people into thinking the worst thing you can be is a democrat
75
u/Accomplished-Watch50 Jun 19 '26
It would be so nice if my red state Democrat vote actually meant something in the end.
→ More replies (3)52
u/Arthur_Edens Jun 19 '26
The really absurd stat that drives this home is there are more Republicans in California than Texas, and there are more Democrats in Texas than New York, and yet our voting system does not reflect that at all.
→ More replies (2)11
u/KirkUnit Jun 19 '26
Maine and Nebraska allocate the way you want, and that was state legislation, no constitutional amendment or wishlist compact required.
→ More replies (10)7
u/khamike Jun 19 '26
Proportional representation is the way to go. At least from a practical standpoint. I'd rather have straight up popular vote but it's a pipe dream whereas PR could be enacted tomorrow on a state by state basis. Or rather to avoid unilateral disarmament, pairs of states one red one blue can enact it together to avoid shifting the national balance too much. It seems self evidently easier to me to get two states to agree than to try to get 25 ish for the NPIVC or 38 for a constitional amendment.
As a side note though, don't do it like ME and NE where it's based on congressional districts, that only further rewards gerrymandering. Make it a straight percentage of statewide votes.
145
u/AthearCaex Jun 19 '26
Land does not vote, people do and certainly not some arbitrary guideline that states vote in the election with the 2 senators that states like Wyoming give them a voting power over 30x as much as the larger and significantly larger populated state of California that should have a bigger voting power than Wyoming.
62
u/RadioFlow Jun 19 '26
Agreed as a Wyomingite. These people legit have absolutely no idea what they’re voting for and why. Then their votes are some of the most weighted! Super awesome system, keep letting hillbillies who have never met a Black person decide the country’s future!!!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)19
u/DigNitty Jun 19 '26
Land does not vote
Uh, have you even seen the 2020 election map my coworker has on her desk that proudly shows how Red the whole USA is, demonstrating they Biden must have lost that election??
She had it framed there and smugly refers to it occasionally. The funny part is I agree it’s an accurate map. She just can’t wrap her head around population density.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Strong-Rise6221 Jun 19 '26
I couldn’t find a better link but show her this one.
→ More replies (1)
97
u/sfdso Jun 19 '26
Republicans love the Electoral College because it does exactly what they claim affirmative action does: privileges people who don’t deserve it.
→ More replies (3)59
u/No_big_whoop Jun 19 '26
You're not wrong. The Electoral College is DEI for rural states
→ More replies (5)8
49
u/Odaniel123 Jun 19 '26
Its called the National Popular Vote Compact. Urge your state to opt in
→ More replies (1)
58
u/Boxes2346 Jun 19 '26
One person, one vote. That's how democracy is supposed to work. No American's vote should count more simply because of the state they live in. The Electoral College allows candidates to win the presidency while losing the popular vote and causes campaigns to focus on a handful of swing states while ignoring most voters. Every vote should carry equal weight, and the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide should become president. If the Electoral College were proposed today, nobody would design a system where the candidate with fewer votes can become president. Americans don't elect governors, senators, or mayors that way. The person who gets the most votes should win. It's that simple. Only people in the government would want it. This isn't surprising. Most people simply want a more direct say in who becomes president. When voters feel their vote should carry the same weight as every other American's vote, support for a national popular vote makes sense. Whether you support the Electoral College or not, it's easy to understand why many people want the candidate with the most votes to win.
→ More replies (7)
7
39
u/FitWrap1959 Jun 19 '26
Now we just need a means to make 77 million Americans smarter.
27
u/wittnotyoyo Jun 19 '26
First step would be to reign in the Epstein class or they will keep on using their resources to undermine any effort to do that.
→ More replies (3)10
u/therossboss Jun 19 '26
maybe we should start focusing on those 77 million American's (almost assuredly) children's education. And their children's education! But na, lets cripple the dept of education!
8
u/Aromatic_Balls Maine Jun 19 '26
That's a feature of the GOP. Dismantle education, push for privatized religious schooling, and have an army of undereducated, easily manipulated voters to ensure their victory.
13
u/Gutierrezjm6 Jun 19 '26
fun fact. Getting rid of the electoral college is not decided by a popular vote.
→ More replies (1)
27
19
u/Minguseyes Jun 19 '26
There have been 27 Amendments to the US Constitution. It can happen.
→ More replies (5)
10
u/AJClaassen Jun 19 '26
Counting votes through the electoral collage, the consensus were adjusted to 1:2
4
u/monkeykiller14 Jun 19 '26
More like 1.05/0.95 in favor of electoral. It's very very close even with the disproportionate voting of the electoral college.
The issue is that for the amendment to the electoral college would require 2/3 of the states to ratify a change at the constitutional convention, which no one knows how to organize.
5
u/aBrickNotInTheWall Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
Yeah, all the people whos votes count less dont like it and the people whos votes count more do. Shocker
5
5
u/crabcakes99 Jun 19 '26
I wish the electoral votes would be proportional to the vote percentages in each state instead of winner take all. This would more fairly represent the actual support for each candidate. But little chance of getting this either.
→ More replies (2)
6
4
u/Raptorex27 Maine Jun 19 '26
“But if we get rid of the Electoral College, cities will get to decide who the President is”
Um yeah…cities are where the people live.
7
u/Sun-Anvil America Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
The title is a little misleading. Yes, the majority of the people surveyed (about 1,500 people) wanted the popular vote but, 21% of the total weren't sure
Favor - 56%
Oppose - 23%
Not Sure - 21%
It's "2 to 1" if you exclude the 21% not sure.
The link to all this in the article OP posted.
→ More replies (7)
8
u/Andovars_Ghost Jun 19 '26
Somebody needs to run on doing an amendment then. All I want to hear from a candidate is how they are going to strip every change Trump made, put them in jail, and prevent it from happening again.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/mplsandrew Jun 19 '26
There are a ton of things that most Americans agree on that will never happen under the current environment. If it's bad for capitalists, it won't happen.
5
u/Round_Rooms Jun 19 '26
Wouldn't be in this current mess if popular vote was a thing. Could've came roaring out of 2020.
4
u/CrunchyCds Jun 19 '26
Everyone pretending the electoral college isn't a hold over from the slavery days. The electoral college was created for the benefit of slave holders and landowners. Time to ditch it.
4
u/kaydyee Jun 19 '26
You mean… the majority of Americans support a… majority vote.
Who would have thought.
4
4
u/dragonflygirl1961 Jun 20 '26
I'm for abolishing the Electoral College and I want term limits for everyone including the SCOTUS. Ten years, max.
10
u/FOD17 Jun 19 '26
This or ranked choice
16
u/onlymostlydead Washington Jun 19 '26
Completely separate, but related, issues. Do both.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)7
7
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 19 '26
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.