Thoughts on the electoral college?

The electoral college was originally set up as a means of electing presidents where every state would have 2 Senators. Representatives were allotted according to the population with every state having at least 1 representative. In my opinion, it has outlasted the original purpose. Where California has 50 some electors based on the population. And the least populated states have 3 electoral votes. This question kicks around every 4 years but is never changed. Supposedly a candidate can win something like 11 of the most populous states and lose the other 39 and you will be elected President. So the formula is 435 Representatives + 100 Senators + 3 electoral votes for Washington DC is equal to 538. So 1/2 of 538 is 269...so to have a majority and be elected President... you need 269 + 1 which is equal to 270. That is why California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio...et cetera... are so important. Just my opinion...it doesn't seem fair to me.

It's tough to say, without it all the focus would be on large population centers and what the politicians can do for them to get their votes. Where does that leave rural voters? But we can easily flip that and say the electoral college has us focusing on state that benefit the few and not the masses.

I see pros and cons to both

I honestly don’t know.

But any state that objects to another state must also have their own election audited.

Any state that doesn’t have a paper trail (second method of counting votes) for any election in the past eight years forgoes the right to challenge other states.

Because of the electoral college the election is decided by 3-4 swing states. Might as well not vote if you’re not in one. Doesn’t make a difference

EC ain't going anywhere

The electoral college is an anocratic and outdated institution that promotes two-party tribalism and gets between the ballot box and the Oval Office. There is no reason for it to exist in the modern day; at the very least, get rid of the actual human electors who the parties appoint anyway. Their names don't even show up on the ballot, they're all fucking parasites.

It is designed to ensure that the president represents more than just the populated centers that might vote in block. Without it, many states would be completely ignored. Plus as a republic, the founders feared mob (populist) rule. Congress is the branch of government that is supposed to be be populist.

The electoral college keeps NY, Chicago, Miami and LA from deciding every national election. If you are okay with that, you are probably okay with getting rid of the electoral college. Considering that the vast majority of the country is rural, it will have strong opposition to being made completely impotent as a voter.

It is an absolutely brilliant way of making every one's vote matter. Here in Canada we have mob rule. The city of Toronto has more votes and therefore more say in Alberta's fate than Albertans do. Imagine US where NYC and LA could shut down Florida.

It’s not fair, it over-emphasizes rural votes. I would say just go to straight popular vote, but then in a really close election like we had in 2000, instead of just having a recount in say Florida we’d have to do recounts all over the country.

Maybe we’d be better off splitting into three or four smaller countries? Although I think I would hate that because I’d probably end up in a smaller country that’s more politically homogenous than this one, and I would hate its politics. My state’s politics already suck, and I assume it would choose to align with politically similar neighbors.

I understand why it was created, and I think it's fundamentally stupid. Land does not vote. People do. I don't think people's voices should matter less when they are physically in closer proximity to other people. I understand that it was created so that people in certain regions wouldn't be completely unrepresented due to lower population, but I still think it's fundamentally a stupid idea to make some votes carry more value than others on the basis of where they are cast.

I believe everything needs to be changed really... 😷 Systems where bias can takes place is kind of a joke..

A simpler popular vote would mean more..

Every vote is a point.

Whoever has most points wins.. Therefore every vote counts...

Bring voting to a digital age of cellphones.. A website in which I entered you SS to vote and blamo.. said and done..

Automatic live rallies you can watch in real time..

With national coverage..

One person, one vote! Our president represents all of us, rural, suburban, and urban citizens. He/She should be elected by the people. Majority rules! Why would somebody that gets the second most votes ever be considered a winner?

It made sense when you could go a full four years before getting news of an issue. Now that we have instantaneous communication with every one its out dated.

It’s outdated and needs to be eliminated. It does not reflect the vote of the people.

Simply glad we don't have that nonsense here. People elect representatives, not land.

Electoral college is fine, it's the winner-take-all voting that creates issues and the occasional anomalous result. But that also maximizes impact of any given state, so it's a very hard thing to give up.

I'm not sure any of the process can be trusted anymore there has been too much doubt casted on things now

Not a perfect system, but it's the best we have.