Should we reform the Electoral College?

[Free Bird]

We all know that the EC is unfair. It gives cities too much influence, particularly in places like Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Personally, I want to see it completely overhauled. The question is how. Congressional Districts? Direct popular vote instead? What do you think?

[Free Bird]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

[Free Bird]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

Do you understand how democracy works?

No. We live in a republic. I am personally for the congressional district method. It seems to be the best compromise. The cities will still decide the at-large votes, but the other areas won't have their voice drowned out.

[Free Bird]

The EC over-represents small states like Wyoming that have three electoral votes. The EC might currently be favorable to Democrats due to the key swing states happening to be a little more Democrat-leaning than the national average, but that has nothing to do with Democrats living in cities.

I support abolishing the EC and just going with popular vote to a)avoid situations like 2000 or 1876, where the EC victor loses legitimacy in the eyes of some for not having won the popular vote (especially when lawsuits are involved), and b)make states outside the swing states actually matter in campaigns. Granted, more often than not major changes lead to some unintended consequences, so it's not a reform to be made lightly.

That's always confused me. How does it overrepresent the small states?

[Free Bird]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

As in give all big cities their own EV's? What would constitute which cities get them?

[Free Bird]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

Why not keep the EC, but allocating the votes with the popular vote in the states?

Examples: Wyoming  GOP 64%; DEM 32% --> GOP 2 EV; DEM 1 EV

Might even make third party votes more interresting.

That could make it tougher to find out who won the presidential election, and by how much.

Right now, it's enough to know that a state was won. But now we'd have to wait for the full results to determine how many EVs a candidate won.

I'm saying pull a DC and give them their own electorals, not Senators