As governor he got his state signed on to the national popular vote interstate compact

  • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    As a Canadian, can anyone ELi5 how the electoral college works? Is it like every state gets the same amount of votes regardless of population?

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      55 minutes ago

      No, you get a number of votes equal to your total representatives in Congress, so it’s a compromise between population size and statehood, as the House is based on population and every state gets two votes in the Senate.

      The problem is that the votes are really electors. The specifics of that get beyond ELI5 because it’s largely up to the states individually but in general whoever wins the popular vote of a state is supposed to get all of their votes.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 hours ago

    But without the electoral college, politicians would suddenly have to care about states with a lot of people living in them

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Trump in 2012: The electoral college is garbage and needs to go. Trump in 2016: The electoral college is genius. What a great system. Trump in 2020: The electoral college is garbage and needs to go

    I remember his tweets each time.

    • SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      As a Washingtonian I also dream of that. It is ridiculous that only people in states that are kinda purple have their opinions heard.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I’d prefer at least to maintain districts, 1 vote for 1 district, remove states and the extra two votes. Each district exactly the same number of people, give or take 1%. Give the low populated counties out in the boonies a chance to be heard.

        But failing that, straight popular vote is a better option than the current cluster fuck.

        • SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 hours ago

          If it is equal representation, why does having districts make the rural vote heard? Whether it is one person one vote or 100,000 people one vote it won’t make a difference.

          Everyone will still have their representatives and senators to hear them. In fact I think we need to increase the number of representatives. It needs to be a number that a person can reasonably represent. Say 50 or 100 thousand people per representative. This would also help with gerrymandering as having a lot of small districts would make everyone’s voice louder.

          But for national positions like the president, we should have proportional votes, preferably with getting rid of first past the post that got us stuck with the two party system to start with.

          • Zorg@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Congress of going to need to expand a little bit, if all 3,330-6,660 reps should be able to gather at the same time.

            • Furbag@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 hours ago

              This would be a problem if it were 1924, but we’re living in 2024. The solutions for this are right in front of us and have been for decades. Get all these guys and gals on a secure teleconference and turn the Capitol building into a museum, or renovate it to have smaller private offices.

              There, now we can get 10,000 reps in if we need to. The bigger concern is how are they going to decide who gets to speak with that many representatives. They can’t realistically give everybody equal floor time and expect government to be anything other than completely paralyzed. So the number probably still needs to be capped, but it should be capped at a value where whatever the state that has the lowest population sets the value at 1 and every other state divides their population by that number to figure out how many representatives they get.

              • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                7 hours ago

                There was an article (Archive Link) in The Washington Post discussing the nuts and bolts of how expanded representation could work. It wouldn’t be hard.

                A quote from the article: To my surprise and delight, the team’s last proposal reveals that we could actually take the House of Representatives up to 1,725 members without having to construct a new building.

            • homesnatch@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Absolutely, but let’s not make it worse by putting the presidential election behind it… It’s bad enough it causes an imbalance in the House of Representatives. It would be far worse than the Electoral College.

  • pachrist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    13 hours ago

    As a pretty left person who lives in Tennessee, please get rid of it. Anytime I have this conversation with folks on the right, I always point out that there are more Republican voters in California than Texas. That usually gets them to concede.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    191
    ·
    15 hours ago

    California gets 54 electoral votes; Wyoming gets 3.

    California has 38.94 million citizens; Wyoming has 0.575 million.

    California gets one electoral vote for every 721,110 people. Wyoming gets one for every 191,660. This means that per capita, Wyoming gets 3.76 times as much say in who gets to be the president as California.

      • Furball@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Don’t forget to implement proportional representation in the House, blow up the senate, and implement ranked choice voting or something similar in all elections

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              That is it’s own different thing yes, but the house members were supposed to be proportional to the USA population, except they capped it and it’s out of whack now.

              Instead smaller states have out proportioned power.

              Made up numbers, but in some states it might be 100k people per house member, and another state it’s 300k people.

              • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 hours ago

                remove the arbitrary cap on House reps.

                proportional representation

                I thought you were conflating these two. If not, then I have no idea what you were talking about when you said

                I think thats what they meant?

              • Furball@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 hours ago

                I’m talking about actual proportional representation, single member house districts are way too easy to gerrymander

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      13 hours ago

      This isn’t the electoral college causing the problem. It’s Congress capping the size of the house 100 years ago. It needs to be increased, but it won’t happen without force as it requires Congress to agree to reduce their individual power.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        sigh

        Yes, it is the EC causing the problem. You’ll never get 1:1 with it in place no matter what congress does.

        There’s 0 reason the president, representative of all people, should use this shitty system for election

          • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            11 hours ago

            This isn’t direct democracy, we aren’t voting on every issue that would otherwise come across the presidents desk. We are still electing representatives to make decisions on our behalf.

            We are still a federation of states (federalist) represented by elected decision making leaders (Republic).

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Our current system is far more direct than intended. The masses weren’t supposed to pick senators and presidents, that isolated from populist candidates. Leaning even harder to systems vulnerable to populism is a poor choice.

              • 5in1k@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 hours ago

                I don’t care what it was meant to be. I really don’t. What it is is bullshit.

              • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                What is the good reason to keep it? That our slave-driving wealthy elite founders were infallible?

                Tread on me harder, daddy.

              • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 hours ago

                And we do. It seems silly to hold their wishes in such high regard compared to our own anyway though, we know more about how our system works in practice than they did when thinking of it after all, both because things dont often go completely as planned and we have the actual experience of using the result for a significant time, and because the system has been already changed in various ways already over that time.

          • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Sure but I don’t think anyone could look at it and critically think the current system is for the benefit of the common man in any way shape or form.

            It was designed to prevent Trump, instead Trump happened. That’s a flaw in our current system that needs to be fixed.

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The Electoral College is allowing more an more manipulation from these small states. It is time for that to end. They are holding this country back much too much.

  • Happywop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Yup, I understand it was meant to give smaller states an equal voice but he GOP weaponized it and now the minority is speaking for the majority. Tell me the system isn’t broken when ONE vote in shitty red state Wyoming is equal to TEN THOUSAN VOTES in Blue California?

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Just to be clear: Also, “states” don’t have a voice, only the people in them. Giving a state a disproportionate voice is exactly as just as it is giving its people a disproportionate voice. When the right uses that argument, it’s injustice laundering, it’s not a valid concern.

  • burgersc12@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I’m glad someone is saying it! Stupid ass lines on a map determines who becomes president

  • Homescool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Why do we keep having this discussion when IT WONT ever happen? It’s a grift at this point. A boogie man to raise funds against, like Trump.

    Abolishing the Electoral College would require the approval of some of the states that would lose power.

    The only way it happens is if we pay them off for their vote.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      He got his state on the national popular vote interstate compact as govenor. He’s talked about it before and done more than most to make the popular vote a reality

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            The national popular vote interstate compact is a pipe dream.

            In the extremely unlikely event it is ever enacted, it will be dissolved as soon as a supporting state realizes it is likely to affect the outcome of the upcoming election.

            If it ever actually affects an election, it will likely be deemed unconstitutional at the supreme court.

            Even if it is not deemed unconstitutional, states bound to vote against their own voters will withdraw from it immediately.

            At most, it will directly affect no more than one election, and probably not in the direction expected.

          • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            There’s still the electoral college which needs to go, creating a half-assed workaround which could easily be dissolved is not a fix. It’s nothing other than a spit and a handshake

            • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 hours ago

              It’s more than a “handshake”. States are actually passing laws for this. Plus there’s nothing stopping you from going above 270 electoral votes

              Once it’s been in effect for a while, it would make a formal constitutional ammendment to fully remove it a lot easier to get though

              • Rivalarrival
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Once it’s been in effect for a while

                It will never be in effect “for awhile”. If they ever get to 270, it will last one election cycle at most. More likely, it will be dissolved between the time it comes into effect and the first general election afterward.