65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/news@lemmy.world/t/488620

65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

  • Rapidcreek
    2·
    9 months ago

    The whole point of the electoral college is to give equitable representation to every state.

    • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
      OP
      13·
      9 months ago

      But it isn’t equitable because presidential candidates only ever pay attention to swing states.

      And people should be represented equally. The location of a citizen shouldn’t effect the strength of their voice.

      Ever single other public office in the U.S is voted by popular vote. If there were problems with it then why don’t we have mini electoral colleges for each seat? The president should be a popular vote, no different than any other office.

      • Rapidcreek
        1·
        9 months ago

        If it was population based, they’d only pay attention to large populations.

        Don’t get me wrong, I continue not to care.

        • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
          4·
          9 months ago

          I love how conservatives do not care about any topic yet they spend their precious time writing tons of comments on topics they definitely do not care about…

          It’s nice to see who the real snowflakes are from time to time :D

          • Rapidcreek
            1·
            9 months ago

            I haven’t been a conservative since…we’ll, ever. But thanks for the ill informed remark.

            • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
              3·
              9 months ago

              Then maybe it’s time you accept who you really are and throw your centrist mask.

              Anyone preferring the Electoral College to a direct democratic vote for the presidential election is a downright conservative in my eyes, as he (or she) prefers to keep things as they are (conserve) even if these things are proven to be worst than an already existing alternative.

              Glad I could show you your true colours, I hope you’ll be more honest with yourself and everybody around you from now on. Even if I doubt it, since you are a conservative and conservatives flee from truth as vampires flee the sunlight.

              • Rapidcreek
                1·
                9 months ago

                Fist of all, thanks for your comment. Secondly, I never stated a preference, I only asked a question. Some people are so afraid of questions that the interpret them as statements. Rather than thinking about an issue, they choose to take a side. This is lazy thinking. You’re one of those.

                • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  9 months ago

                  And yet, where presented with an answer explaining you that democracy = all votes have the same value (which is the literal definition of democracy ( you decided to answer “no thanks” and proceeded to keep your wrong line of thinking.

                  That’s not lazy thinking, that’s no thinking at all. Just like a conservative would do.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      10·
      9 months ago

      Why does the state matter at all…?

      Why should a vote be counted differently depending on the state it was cast in?

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        1·
        9 months ago

        Tbf I guess it makes a bit of sense, if say LA, NYC, CHI, and DC all vote to ban cars because they feasibly can and they have the population density to make it happen, some guy in Nebraska who’s nearest neighbor is 15mi away might be upset that he has to get a horse and buggy to buy cold cuts at the costco. On the one hand, fuck him, he should abandon his farm, life, and friends and move to the city (to starve with the rest of us I guess, if all the farmers move), but on the other they probably don’t want to do that which is why they live where they do now.

        • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
          OP
          2·
          9 months ago

          if say LA, NYC, CHI, and DC all vote to ban cars because they feasibly can and they have the population density to make it happen

          Nobody is trying to do that. That’s just a boogeyman the media is telling you to get you riled up.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            1·
            9 months ago

            Not the question, the question was “why does state matter at all?” State could matter because different states are different, America big n’ such.

            • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
              OP
              1·
              9 months ago

              And moving to STAR/approval voting would directly reflect each state far better than the electoral college ever could.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          That’s not “being fair” that’s “being unaware that the presidential election is only for selecting a president”

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            1·
            9 months ago

            Presidents that seem to like executive decrees these days*

            Idk man, not saying it’s likely they’d do that, just saying “having a few cities be largely responsible for selecting the head of the executive branch may not be desireable to those living in between.”

            Figured people would be able to not take everything literal, but this is the internet where metaphor is replaced with dunking on someone you decide is mentally inferior, my mistake.