Lobby for a Constitutional Amendment to go from the Electoral College to Popular Vote then. If this went to the Supreme Court, they would say the same thing and all this showmanship would be a waste of time and effort
@@romulus463 They can't, the states get to decide how they apportion the votes to electors. it's how ME and NE get to split theirs when everybody else is going all in for one candidate or the other.
@@SmallSpoonBrigadeit really depends on how it’s interpreted. that should be what the constitution asserts but since the supreme court can rule on the intent of the law (according to them) instead of the letter, they could still strike it down
Also, abolish the Apportionment Act of 1911 - we haven't expanded the number of representatives in over 100 years and we're now one of the most underrepresented democratic nations as a result. We need ALOT more representatives - enough so that your representative isn't some rock star you'll never be able to have a discussion with because they're far too busy to meet with normal people. Also partially fixes the Wyoming problem (helpful whether or not we get a national popular vote).
How is it not corrupt to allow California, Texas and New York to chose the president? 3 states should not decide for the entire country. That’s insanity
@@cgungryfcdjs1352 I fail to see how that's any worse than the current situation where the majority of Americans don't have a meaningful say in the Presidential race unless there's a massive swing against the party that normally wins.
Absolutely. I WOULD also say "uncap the House and abolish the Senate," but at that point I would just start sounding over-ambitious and crazy. There really are SO many anti-democratic quirks in the system.
Ask Australians why they're against (proper) proportional representation and they say "we don't want people in Sydney and Canberra deciding everything". You'll get the same response in USA. People who support the electoral college want the votes of people in huge cities to be weaker than people in rural areas. Why? Because huge cities tend to vote against conservatives and by definition have lots and lots of people to vote.
@@teelo12000 I've literally SEEN other Americans say things like, "Do you want New York and California to decide everything?" I don't live in a population center by any stretch of the imagination, but, putting aside the "loaded" way the question is framed, my answer would STILL be some version of, "Yeah, actually, that'd be great." Because I frankly WISH that states like mine had nearly as many nice things as many of those places do. They actually invest money in things that benefit people other than billionaires and megacorps.
It would take an ammendment to constitution. This is why they are trying to find ways to make electoral college work to actually reflect popular vote. Easier to do that than fight to get rid of electorate completely.
People who disagree know they’ll lose the election every time. The majority of Americans are not republicans. It’s not 50/50 like we’ve been told for so long.
They also need to restore the Fairness Doctrine, The Voters Rights Act, overturn Citizens United, expand the Supreme Court, and introduce term limits for judges. 6-8 years at most.
I believe the most common request for term limits for SCOTUS right now is 18 years. That means each president gets to elect two judges per term, and each Senate makeup confirms 1 judge in the 2 years they sit. That spreads the power around equally, while still being long enough than any _reasonable_ person would assume that each justice would be of retirement age by the end of their term, thus still keeping the original intent of the lifetime appointments meaning that a judge's decision can't be influenced by benefitting those who they see as potential future employers
"Is America Ready to Bid the Electoral College Farewell?" I, for one, have been ready for YEARS! Also, I live in Michigan, and don't understand why this bill hasn't come up for a vote?
You and your friends need to pressure the Speaker of the Michigan House to call it for a vote! The Speaker has a de facto veto; they can refuse to call a bill for a vote
Expanding the SCOTUS will fix nothing, just put a temporary bandaid. The entire concept of that court should be rethought, both in terms of its legislative role as well as the life-time appointments. It's nonsensical.
Maybe this is the year that, instead of bringing it up yourself, you bring yourself to others who are already pushing for change in your state? It may sound impossible, but the impossible only becomes possible when those who believe *come together* to make it happen! It truly is remarkable how much more can be accomplished as a team, even a small team, compared to trying to go it alone 😊
@@markclipsham9199I've been hearing that since Bush Jr..always some existential threat. The problem is the more people dont feel they have a choice, the more susceptible they are to facism. Either way, democrats have lost my vote. Especially this election, i cant reward the administration that is funding a genocide.
The electoral college is so antiquated. It was necessary when there weren’t many ppl voting in the 1700s, 1800s and early 1900s. It’s 2024! Let the people decide.
The only thing it was necessary for was to get the original 13 states to agree to join the Union. Half of those states had lots of slaves who couldn't vote, so obviously they would be at a disadvantage against states with more people voting. In other words, it was at best a necessary evil 250 years ago. It should've been scrapped along with slavery.
@@gus473 Wyoming has less than 200,000 people per elector California has more than 700,000 people per elector. They rounded to the integer. Their grades are fine.
@USUG0 the whole point of the senate was to give states with smaller population a say in congress that balances out the house. If senators are based on population, what's the point of the senate?
@@USUG0 The Senate being like that isn't a particular issue with the House being proportional, especially if the Presidency can go back to being something where the winner of the popular vote generally wins the Presidency. The discrepancy in the Senate isn't enough to do the sort of damage that the EC has on the country.
Electoral College was established before political parties really established themselves in the US. How many Democrats who live in red states don't vote because they think their vote won't matter? How many Republicans who live in blue states don't vote because they think their vote won't matter? Eliminating the electoral college will simply encourage more people, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in voting
I live in a red state and have voted blue my entire life. Every vote should carry the same weight. We wouldn't have suffer tRump and his insanity. And, Madame President Clinton would've served eight years like her husband. Every state would be a battleground state. 👍
im not wild about hillary, but yes there wouldn't have been the excessive nailbiting in 2020 OR this year OR that george W had florida handed to him and taking the election from gore. so much would have been different.
Absolutely ready ! All the focus is in the swing states by all candidates. That’s where they consistently campaign. How is that fair to every voter in this country .
@@cgungryfcdjs1352 It seems to work well for nearly every other presidential republic. There have been 59 US presidential elections before this one, and more than 90% of them were decided in line with the popular vote. Does that mean the wolves won more than 90% of the time? "2 wolves 1 sheep" is an argument for guaranteed rights and for constitutional limits on the power of government. It is not an effective argument in favor of the electoral college.
I have to ask though... Is there anything stopping the parties from campaigning in opposing party states... And i don't just mean in election years... I mean in general... Couldn't they put more effort into convincing red state voters to vote blue... Or vice versa... Why is everyone resigned to this idea that some states are red and some states are blue...
The electoral college is pretty fair , because it gives a chance for other people to be represented . Most of the time the more popular candidate wins , but sometimes the less popular one wins , and that gives a chance for those people who voted for the other candidate ( which is still a huge number of people ) and otherwise wouldn’t be represented on a presidential level at all . Not even having a chance . Weird system, but it works because it’s the only way in which both sides get a chance of representation. The more popular candidate still has a much higher chance of winning, but at the same time the other candidate still has a small chance instead of not even having any point to run for office .
@@OriginalPiMan I don't know of any other "Presidential Republic" other than the United States that ever had anything like the electoral college. You can argue it's worked reasonably well in our own limited history, but we're running into problems now, as we did back in Bush vs Gore, and it's been problematic since. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" isn't a reasonable argument anymore.
There was no internet or USPS in the 1700s, so the electoral college is now counter-intuitive. The average life expectancy was somewhere between 20-40, so "lifetime" appointments for Supreme Court judges is also counter-intuitive.
@@kheldaryt The progressive countries that follow the Popular Vote are doing fine and flourishing. Only the US seem to be adamant in being medieval in this regard. I can't say much because in my country, the same issue is present. Lots of gerrymandering and the major party is always at an advantage.
@@bambusleitung1947 everyone else does it is a terrible argument for 3 reasons. A. US was founded with emphasis on state sovereignty. B. US is (despite the drama) doing drastically better than any other country. C. US and Americans are simply different situation than other countries and popular vote would have several adverse unintended consequences.
@@RubenDeAngelo lol, medieval comment makes no sense, popular vote is obviously more simplistic than EC and from the Stone Age. Haha… lol other countries objectively are doing worse than US despite current drama… also lol third party, if any were ever well run would have a much better chance with EC vs popular vote. Ha that’s one of the worst aspects of popular vote, if there was a legit third party then you’d get a president elected with like 36% of the vote.
A system that allows a candidate to win the electoral vote but not the popular vote is not effective. My democratic vote in Alabama probably will not count 😢 Vote 💙💙💙
@@cgungryfcdjs1352 What is this nonsense that you are blathering about? I am pretty sure that you are bot and I won't get an answer Not that I expect that it would make any more sense than what you are posting under every comment if you did respond
Maybe not for the Presidential level, but don't forget those down-ballot races + initiatives! They're usually won by much smaller margins by absolute numbers, and your district/county/municipality/whatever might be more purple than your state as a whole, making votes in those races far more powerful 💙
@@Respectable_Username There was a tie in a state race a couple years ago in my district. Thank you for mentioning this. It popped into my head after my post and I didn't want to elongate it. This is facts though. The irony is, they are voted on a significant amount less even when your vote matters more.
If all the states surrender their right and agree sure, but unless they do it is a federation of states. A national popular vote will mean that lots of smaller states will be trampled over by very very populous ones. You went with a federation of free states, you made your bed, lie in it… or change the constitution.
A voter in los Angeles has different priorities than a voter in South Dakota. It's a train wreck of an idea and it's pushed by the larger urban centers like LA and NYC
For half a second there, I thought he might actually do it! Still, worth the shot, and worth bringing this to folks' attention. Maybe more folks can bring this up in various states as ballot initiatives in time for 2026 so it's all signed and ready for 2028?
I've voted in every Presidential election in the last 45 years. Not once has my vote counted, because I live in TN-- which ALWAYS goes Republican. Get rid of the Electoral College! 💙 VOTE 100% BLUE, Y'ALL! 💙
On the other hand I enjoy not seeing or hearing a lot of political ads. Heck, some years the GOP doesn't even endorse their own candidates in my state!
agreed!! maybe if you keep covering it, it'll put pressure on them. and then michiganders can protest and put MORE pressure on them. whoever is holding it up needs to fukking quit it!!
@@cgungryfcdjs1352Bruh, have you nothing better to do with your life than copy-paste those 4 words under every comment? Even if people agree with you that the parties are too similar, actually point to a proposal for a more proportional system that would make it easier for a wider variety of political opinions to be represented in the American government 🙄
Most democracies do NOT elect their leader by "most votes." Most either use a "top two runoff" or have their leader selected by their legislature (parliament). Also, where in the world is there a geographically large democracy with a national vote that gets results you like? When a territory is so large, it's very expensive to run a successful national campaign. It would make Presidents even more beholden to rich special interests.
In the UK, we elected members of Parliament and each MP is elected by a majority of voters. The political party with the most MPs forms the government and the leader of that party becomes our prime minister. As we have seen with the last government, we changed prime minister several times when there wasn’t even an election going on. One of our parties wanted to change to proportional representation instead of first past the post but they went remarkably quiet on that when they actually did quite well in the last election and had more elected MPs than they have in years.
In Australia, like the UK, we don't actually vote for a Prime Minister but rather for a local representative, and then those representatives decide who will become PM. That's almost always the leader of the party with the most elected representatives, but on the rare but seemingly increasingly common case that no one party holds a majority of seats, they have to negotiate with the other representatives to decide who gets to "form government" and therefore whose party's leader gets to be PM. Almost always, though there have been exceptions, the party who forms government is the one of the two major parties who the majority of the country prefers (terminology's a bit weird because we use preferential/ranked choice voting instead of first-past-the-post). However, unlike the US and UK, the power of our Prime Minister is _severely_ limited by the Senate, which is both more _and_ less proportionally representative. It's more representative, as each state elects 6 senators (out of 12 total) each election cycle, which means each state's population _is_ proportionally represented. This gives minor parties, independents, and The Greens seats to represent folks who don't feel represented by the two major parties but who aren't concentrated enough to win highest preference in a single-representative House seat. Because of this, it is _very_ rare for any one party to control the Senate and so those minor parties, independents, and The Greens _can_ actually use their power to shape what gets passed. However, it's also _less_ representative than the House, because each state has an equal number of senators. So my senate vote here in NSW, which is one of the most populous states, holds a lot less power than somebody in Tasmania, one of the least populous states. TL;DR: Neither House of Parliament in Australia is won by the popular vote, and therefore neither is the Prime Ministership. But, because each house uses a _different_ way of dividing up the population to elect representatives, the negatives of each system sort of cancel each other out to avoid minority rule while still giving the "little guys" (both in terms of location and in terms of political leaning) more of a voice than they otherwise would have.
At some point in American history, the people losing said, "Hey.... the votes from these 100 people should have the same voting power as the 10,000 people over there. That's only fair."
Yeah, definitely, John King isn't getting enough love for this performance! He's got a great poker face while he's pretending to be serious and professional and while spouting insults like a journalistic Don Rickles! 👏 👏 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 👏 👏
I am such a fan of this initiative. I contacted my state representative for one of the states that has had this bill introduced. It’s very easy to send an email! Then at least you’re another number that their staff will log as strongly supporting this push.
That's just not reality. Your acting as if everyone in Florida thinks the same and votes the same, plus Florida does not have the most people.@@trise2033
@@trise2033 But the point is, if you go for a national vote system, where every vote counts, EVERYONE voting in Florida would have their vote counted, instead of only those who agree with the majority in that state. If you move away from the Electoral College, you also move away from a winner takes all system, where up to 49.9 % of the votes in that state might be invalidated. And you cannot tell me that EVERYONE in Florida votes Republican. Without the Electoral College, Florida would have NO power in the election as a state or unit. Instead, every voter in Florida would have exactly the same power as every voter in every other state. Sure, there might still be a majority of voters in Florida turning out for the Republicans, but the large minority of voters in Florida who turn out for the Democrats would still have their voices heard, and join their votes together with everyone else in the USA who votes for the Democrats, to add up to the total percentage of the national vote.
I love the work that went into this, and John King's snark was appreciated. Thank you to everyone who worked on this to help educate people about this important issue!
“Assuming a two-party system and equal turnout, *we could win with just 21.84% of the popular vote,* with our opponent picking up *78.16%* -- a 56.31% point spread.” Imagine if this happened ever… would Americans really be okay if a candidate won with 21.84% of the vote?
This would be so wonderful. I'm so tired of it all coming down to the battle states. It's soooo unfair that our votes don't matter but theirs do and they take it for granted.
From Canada too. It's an insane system all 'round. Not just the EC. America has become so rat effed, it can't even count votes anymore. Hasn't been able to since Bush vs Gore.
@@BradyHansen81 Yes, getting rid of a law that keeps people's votes from counting in an election is... authoritarian. Wait what? Do you know what that word means?
@@BradyHansen81 ohh...if the GOP actually served the country and not themselves and their backwards agenda, this comment would be moot. However, they have a history of non-governance, stripping of human and civil right, lying, disinformation and just generally being awful. It's the bubble they created.
@@BradyHansen81 Wait, getting rid of a law that makes people's votes not count in an election is... authoritarian? Do you know the meaning of the word?
Your votes for Reps and Senators in Congress (who could hypothetically back a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college) count. Your votes for your state's legislators (who could vote for your state to join the NPVIC) also count. Voting for a president is important, but it is not the only election that matters.
This is a defeatist mindset. There are four possibilities here. 1. Your vote doesn’t matter, and you don’t vote. Nothing changes. 2. Your vote does matter, and you don’t vote. Nothing changes, in fact chances get worse for your candidate. 3. Your vote doesn’t matter, and you do vote. Nothing changes. 4. Your vote does matter, and you do vote. Your candidate has a higher chance of winning, even if minor. With this in mind, voting has no chance of leaving you worse off than not voting. You are doing yourself a disservice not voting even if you think the electoral college makes it bunk. Vote people, you lose nothing for it.
The electoral college failed for three reasons: - opposing political parties (since 1796) - the 12th Amendment (since 1804) - the "winner-take-all" allocation of electoral votes (~1800s) Notice how all of these reasons are over 200 years old!
