Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

I think it should.

It's completely unfair, because WY voters get 4-times the representation of a CA voter in it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lol we haven't voted yet Biden is in the Driver's seat because there is gonna be a Docugate Trial in the middle of the Prez Edays that's why I said stop worrying about polls until June 24 when we know definitely if Manchin runs none of these You Gov polls are including Manchin as an option, but he can take votes not only from Biden from Trump he isn't getting 9 he is getting 3% like Jorgensen and Gary Johnson

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Yes, obviously. It's not the 1800s anymore.

[TDAS04]

Other. Let the 50 governors pick the POTUS.

J/k, it should be decided by popular vote.

[emailking]

Makes things more interesting but yeah, it's the wrong way to do it.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Yes, it's questionable how long we can keep this system when we keep having multiple occasions where the electoral college elects someone without a majority of the country. This is only a divisive issue because one political party feels they cant win if the election is decided by a npv.

All the cries of urban areas taking all the oxygen is meaningless. Especially when the last election was decided by places in and around Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Phoenix. If anything it leaves a lot people out of the process because they happen to not live in 6 states that can decide the election.

Open it up to all states, territories, and allow the President to be elected by the vote of the people.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Other. Let the 50 governors pick the POTUS.

J/k, it should be decided by popular vote.

I say let the mayors of the 100 largest cities vote for president

[TimeUnit2027]

Other. Let the 50 governors pick the POTUS.

J/k, it should be decided by popular vote.

I say let the mayors of the 100 largest cities vote for president

Interesting idea but Dems would propably always win

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

It probably should have been abolished in the 1820s when most states began using the popular vote. The Electoral College is a relic of the era when the responsibility of choosing the president had been given - indirectly, via their choosing of the electors - to the state legislatures, rather than the general public.

[BG-NY]

Of course not.

As an aside, there's a decent change the national "popular" vote is to the right of tipping point in 2028. Will be interesting to see, if TalkElections is still around then, if blue and red avys have changed their minds.

[DaleCooper]

Of course not.

As an aside, there's a decent change the national "popular" vote is to the right of tipping point in 2028. Will be interesting to see, if TalkElections is still around then, if blue and red avys have changed their minds.

Of course? I have never heard a real argument for why it should remain so you'll need to elaborate.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Of course not.

As an aside, there's a decent change the national "popular" vote is to the right of tipping point in 2028. Will be interesting to see, if TalkElections is still around then, if blue and red avys have changed their minds.

In the weird scenario the Democrats win the EC while losing the npv im sure most Democrats would still want to abolish the electoral college.

[WalterWhite]

Other. Presidential candidates should box each other.

[BG-NY]

Of course not.

As an aside, there's a decent change the national "popular" vote is to the right of tipping point in 2028. Will be interesting to see, if TalkElections is still around then, if blue and red avys have changed their minds.

Of course? I have never heard a real argument for why it should remain so you'll need to elaborate.

Change for the sake of change is not change worth pursuing. It is incumbent on the side that supports a position different from the status quo to convince those who don’t mind it.

There is a lot of speculation about whether one party or the other would win the so-called “popular” vote. Of the top ten states by population, 7/10 are competed in by both parties every presidential election, while the other three are only touched by republicans in midterms/downballot.

You know who would love a national “popular” vote election? TV networks and digital advertising platforms. If every vote in every state is counted, you would see level of spend increase by an order of magnitude.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Of course not.

As an aside, there's a decent change the national "popular" vote is to the right of tipping point in 2028. Will be interesting to see, if TalkElections is still around then, if blue and red avys have changed their minds.

Of course? I have never heard a real argument for why it should remain so you'll need to elaborate.

Change for the sake of change is not change worth pursuing. It is incumbent on the side that supports a position different from the status quo to convince those who don’t mind it.

There is a lot of speculation about whether one party or the other would win the so-called “popular” vote. Of the top ten states by population, 7/10 are competed in by both parties every presidential election, while the other three are only touched by republicans in midterms/downballot.

You know who would love a national “popular” vote election? TV networks and digital advertising platforms. If every vote in every state is counted, you would see level of spend increase by an order of magnitude.

Change for the sake of change? This is change for a more democratic form of government not just some trendy thing

[WalterWhite]

Such a policy would probably benefit the Democrats.

Out of the last eight presidential elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020), Democrats won the popular vote in seven of them. Moreover, the four elections in which the electoral and popular vote winners differed (1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016; 1824 is excluded because neither the popular vote nor electoral winners actually won) featured a Democrat winning the popular vote with a Republican winning the electoral vote.

[BG-NY]

Of course not.

As an aside, there's a decent change the national "popular" vote is to the right of tipping point in 2028. Will be interesting to see, if TalkElections is still around then, if blue and red avys have changed their minds.

Of course? I have never heard a real argument for why it should remain so you'll need to elaborate.

Change for the sake of change is not change worth pursuing. It is incumbent on the side that supports a position different from the status quo to convince those who don’t mind it.

There is a lot of speculation about whether one party or the other would win the so-called “popular” vote. Of the top ten states by population, 7/10 are competed in by both parties every presidential election, while the other three are only touched by republicans in midterms/downballot.

You know who would love a national “popular” vote election? TV networks and digital advertising platforms. If every vote in every state is counted, you would see level of spend increase by an order of magnitude.

Change for the sake of change? This is change for a more democratic form of government not just some trendy thing

This is the thought process:

(1) Democrats have won the “popular” vote 7 of the last 8 elections, while Republicans have won the presidency 3 of the last 8 elections.
(2) The fact that there were two elections in which Democrats won the “popular” vote and lost the presidency means the will of the people was not voiced.
(3) The will of the people would be voiced if we dropped electors and counted the “popular” vote by summing up the total vote in each state.

Problem is there is a massive leap in 2. It takes as a given that the outcomes would necessarily change if both parties knew going into a presidential cycle that the “popular” vote is all that matters. In reality, that’s an unknown.

Trading the status quo for a much more expensive alternative that would not necessarily have a different outcome is definitely change for the sake of change.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Change for the sake of change is not change worth pursuing. It is incumbent on the side that supports a position different from the status quo to convince those who don’t mind it.

This isnt change for the sake of change. Its about evening the playing field for people who feel left out. Whether that is a Republican in NYC or a Democrat in Memphis. The probelm with the EC now is that is not what a majority of the electoral want but what someone in WI or PA want.

There is a lot of speculation about whether one party or the other would win the so-called “popular” vote. Of the top ten states by population, 7/10 are competed in by both parties every presidential election, while the other three are only touched by republicans in midterms/downballot.

The fact that we have gotten to the point that one political party is not confident enough winning a majority of the electorate is revealing in itself. If the Republican only path to presidency is through the rural tilt of EC is a huge disservice to the nation and the party itself.

Even then just because the npv currently favor the Democrats dont mean the Republicans are unable to win the Presidency. It just means the party needs to adjust something a lot Republicans and blue avatars been saying a lot. 

You know who would love a national “popular” vote election? TV networks and digital advertising platforms. If every vote in every state is counted, you would see level of spend increase by an order of magnitude.

Well of course it would because the scope of the electorate would have gotten bigger. Which is what we should want. Democrats and Republican will be visiting all over the country wherever they can pick up votes. That the product of actually having a national election.

As far as money in politics? Where was this uproar when it matter with Citizens United and having SuperPACs reveal donors?

[emailking]

Whether or not it's a leap in step 2, it's not a leap to say that a popular vote election, without scare quotes, would be fairer than one determined by the electoral college.

[MarkD]

Yes, just like every Governor is elected by a statewide popular vote, and like every Mayor is elected by a citywide popular vote, the POTUS should be elected by a nationwide popular vote.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

When it becomes a routine thing for the president to be elected while losing the popular vote, it's probably time for change. Trump won in 2016 with over 3 million less votes than Hillary and nearly won in 2020 with over 7 million less votes. Can you imagine this country having a president that 7 million less people voted for?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No it won't be abolished

[John Dule]

I'm not categorically opposed to the existence of the EC. It prevents geographic fluctuations in turnout from disenfranchising particular areas. But the actual apportionment of the delegates needs to be directly related to population.

[ProudModerate2]

One cannot develop a better system where it is "directly related to population," than to just make it based on the Popular Vote.
Easy-peasy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No