How possible is Dems plan to *ELIMINATE* Electoral College??

[@souldry]

Isn’t it wonderful how when they can’t win, instead of figuring out a way to be better within the rules, they try to change the rules. Truly the party of the constitution.

[@darrellborland119]

indeed...lower case...another attempt to take us away from a Constitutional Republic. thanks.

[@finchborat]

And truly the party of democracy...

[@sandman9601]

Maybe we can swap Constitutions like we did candidates?

[@johnhallett5846]

@@finchborat mob rule yeah

[@finchborat]

@@johnhallett5846 Not only mob rule, but one-party rule.

[@bucknado9748]

The electoral college is genius. A handful of big cities should not determine an election

[@RadicallyOptimistic]

Stop making OSU fans look bad. Every person should be weighed equal and most people live in cities

[@WhoDatTigahs]

I agree with you wholeheartedly as a Republican in a swing state but the college is flawed too. A vote in a small state shouldn't be twice as powerful of that in a large state. But I do think the electoral college is the better system. No electoral college means Dems can campaign in NYC, LA, Chicago and win the popular vote. Smaller states wouldn't have a say. It's a double edged sword

[@langdonledwig3734]

@@WhoDatTigahsbig states are more powerful still

[@hydrarl3869]

@@WhoDatTigahs yes it should, that is the entire point. Don't let the populated cities drown out the needs of the little guy, if that wasn't the case, then it would be equivalent to having a popular vote system, since every vote would be weighed exactly the same

[@stewiesaidthat]

​@@WhoDatTigahsAnd why not? The United States is a Republic. Not a democracy. Each state is afforded equal representation regardless of population. The only fair way would be 1 state 1 vote. Or 1 county 1 vote. The Declaration of Independence was about control of LAND. Not control of people.

[@overtonpendulum2071]

If you can't win fairly, change the rules.

[@RadicallyOptimistic]

Makes perfect sense that someone in Wyoming has 5 times the voting power of someone in California. Everyone should move to Wyoming

[@langdonledwig3734]

@@RadicallyOptimisticthey don’t

[@overtonpendulum2071]

@RadicallyOptimistic I live in Slovenia, my country has 4 times the relative representation in EU parliament than Germany. If it didn't, small countries wouldn't want to be in the EU. Nobody is complaining about it.

[@waffle3632]

​@@RadicallyOptimisticlast time I checked California has more electoral votes by a longshot. You don't get to Lord over everyone like a tyrant, keep your homeless problem, high taxes, and high crime rates to yourself.

[@voldemort008]

@@RadicallyOptimistic A missile could be considered five times as powerful as a bullet, until you realize the missile is the size of a tooth pick and the bullet is the size of a cannonball

[@TRIIGGAVELLI]

The entire country would be run by New York and LA.

[@xmobkilla9067]

And illegal immigrants for anyone that doesn't get deported because they automatically go Democrat.

[@720pLyrics]

Not exactly. Middle America is/always will be a sleeping giant

[@AdvancedGamer-]

Not true

[@AdvancedGamer-]

That’s not even how that works The top 100 cities up to Spokane is only 23% of us population

[@yuisacrylicnail5787]

New York and LA make up just under 4% of the population... they would not control the country.

[@BigIndividual]

It was so funny to see anti-electoral college videos the day after the election. They all made them in advance thinking he wouldn’t win the popular vote.

[@RadicallyOptimistic]

This year it wouldn’t have mattered but that doesn’t mean the electoral college is good. It’s the principle not the result

[@waffle3632]

The electrical college Is good, it is designed so politicians have to cater to individual populations rather than spending all there time in the biggest states. Without it there would be no reason to campaign outside of FL, TX, NY, and CA. Cities alone should not decide how the entire state or country gets governed. People have different lifestyle choices and encounter different issues on their day to day. People who live in suberbs and in the countryside deserve to have their voice heard as well.

[@slaw1448]

@@waffle3632 it was never designed with this goal in mind 😂

[@evanrushing7495]

@@RadicallyOptimisticthe electoral college is definitely good. It keeps representation of EVERYONE. Not just urban New York and California

[@RadicallyOptimistic]

If rural people need a botched system to give themselves more voting power then that should say something about the state of the economy. I (and the country) still value state governments to protect rural areas

[@jvsmith7888]

Why would the States ever want this or approve it. They would be cutting their own throats. This would require an amendment to the Constitution and 38 states would have to approve this to get rid of the Electoral College. I don't see 38 States ever approving this.

[@slaw1448]

the whole point of the initiative is that it doesn't require an amendment

[@RichardPrieto-jx2dv]

@@slaw1448 Even if they managed to somehow justify making the change, all it would do is virtually guarantee that a Convention of States would be called to undo it, and then the leftists would lose far more than just their popular vote initiative.

[@peterparker1724]

Good luck with that with this supreme court

[@roninref5152]

Ok, my response to that is "why the fuck would the states vote to give up there right to choose their senators like they originally did"

[@svenjorgensen5]

While it effectively negates the benefits of the electoral college system, it technically doesn't get rid it - it just forces the state electors to cast their votes for whichever candidate won the popular vote. The constitution lets each state decide how their electors will cast their vote. However, while perfectly legal, this goes against the original intent of Article II, Section 1 of the constitution which was a compromise between direct democracy voting (one person, one vote), and the parliamentary system (where the head of government is chosen by the legislature).

[@richardraine2075]

The electoral college is enshrined in the 12th amendment. Good luck making a constitutional amendment on an unpopular issue.

[@thonatim5321]

The US Supreme Court will not allow this. This is not what the Founders wanted.

[@-Down-D-Stairs-]

I figured after Trump won the popular vote they'd shut up about this but guess I was wrong 😂

[@Bizeecentral]

They can call it a fluke and prob think they can influence the popular vote back in their favor if they go after social media and focus on working class issues more

[@RoyaleSplendor]

Funny how they are not in a hurry to give Trump their votes this cycle. He would have won 48 states.

[@desolateslove6568]

Trump is the monster under all of their beds ....

[@alecrutz956]

why would you figure they'd shut up? these people don't shut up ever

[@DavidRichardson-yb3ef]

Not only did Trump win the popular vote, but the popular vote actually tracked pretty close to the electoral college this time. Meaning, Trump won the popular vote by 1.5. He won Pennsylvania by 1.7, Michigan and Wisconsin by less. So in theory, if Harris won the popular vote by 0.2% she could have won.

[@zeta-51]

The fly-over states would never vote to abolish the Electorial College and give up what power they do have...

[@RadicallyOptimistic]

Exactly. This system is the only place where flyover states have a voice. They can’t win any other way, nor should they. The vast majority of US GDP comes from cities

[@Elchinodawn]

@@RadicallyOptimistic thanks to those states the big cities can do their business, they absolutely deserve a voice

[@rockylxix9784]

​@@RadicallyOptimistic wait until you find out where most of the food in this country grows from

[@chrismac5560]

@@Elchinodawnall those big cities folks sure do enjoy sitting down in fancy restaurants paying ridiculous prices for a nice steak dinner despite having never actually seen a cow in their life .. the steaks consumed to cows living in NYC is quite ridiculous and yet those city folks still think the flyover folks are irrelevant 🤦🏻‍♂️ (FYI: that is coming from a guy who grew up hating being in a small town and eagerly wanted to move to a big city where I've now been as a city folk for eight years now and don't ever see myself moving back to a rural area)

[@chrismac5560]

⁠@@RadicallyOptimisticnext time you sit down to a steak dinner, thank the flyover folks. The steaks consumed to cows living in big cities like NYC is absolutely ridiculous, you can thank the flyover folks for that; they absolutely deserve a voice. Thank God for the elector college and God bless the USA 🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@charlessalvia7176]

I live in Manhattan but voted for Trump. I've voted in every election but I admit before 2024 I always kind of believed my vote was meaningless. But the fact that NY shifted right gives me more motivation to vote in the next election. Also, remember that NY was a red state less than 40 years ago.

[@PennsylvaniaPumpkinPie]

The so-called "battleground states" have shifted over time. But your vote is not "wasted" any more than it is "wasted" in any other election where your candidate loses. You are voting in a local New York election created by your state legislature when you vote for President. Your vote is not "wasted" if your choice of candidate loses said election anymore than the race for governor, etc.

[@Szchmekelo]

Whether they eliminate the electoral college or not, Trump still would win.

[@WhoDatTigahs]

They always want to abolish the electoral college when they lose. It's nothing new, they're just sore losers. They should take solace in the fact that they only have four more years of Trump. If they didn't cheat in 2020 then they wouldn't be dealing with this right now.

[@biguzivert]

He’d win by even more. Why waste time campaigning in suburbs when you campaign in cities and reach millions. Democrats have nothing to gain in cities, they already control them. Conservative could easily gain 5% in cities and win every election foreverz

[@andrewcorso6848]

We don’t live in a Democracy with all its chaos. We live in a Republic.

[@badwolf9956]

This is a dumb argument, those terms aren’t mutually exclusive

[@tgs9740]

constitutional republic

[@ranman7688]

@@badwolf9956 Only to the degree that Democracy is not a Republic, but a Republic contains elements of Democracy. So no, it is not a dumb argument.

[@Lunzatis_Palemoon]

@@badwolf9956 Yes, they are. The Founding Fathers DETESTED Democracy as a government because Democracies ALWAYS fail as a government. As Benjamin Franklin put it "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. Liberty is an armed lamb contesting the vote."

[@badwolf9956]

@@ranman7688 yeah I agree I just think republics are basically just a reformed form of democracy to protect minority interests

[@MAGAMike827]

As long as any question remains about election integrity, the idea of elections decided by popular vote is null and void. If you want elections to be decided by popular vote then you need voter ID.

[@Bizeecentral]

We need more than voter id too. We need law enforcement in the know of the voting process in their state, then overseeing the collection and processing of ballots. No voting machines either unless made in USA and vetted by us that proves theres no way to tamper with votes.

[@slaw1448]

just unify the voting laws for all states, it's a federal election for fucks sake.

[@Joe-Przybranowski]

Im in Arizona and they asked for id before I voted. Guess what? It was no big deal.

[@Bizeecentral]

@@slaw1448 only thing is ways of handling voting process in one state may not always work in every state? cant cough up an example but sounds like that could be a problem. But your rationale makes logical sense to me

[@soulsbourne]

Not to mention its easier to cheat when its based on popular vote because all that matters is number of votes and winning at one single level

[@jimhastings7118]

Our founding fathers were brilliant in establishing the electoral college. This gives every state a share of the electoral power.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Nothing stopping all the states, as Maine and Nebraska do, from awarding their ECs by congressional districts. That would eliminate "winner take all", especially in large population states with many ECs.

[@joshuakleiman1040]

Would take a constitutional amendment and it's not happening.. EVER!!!!

[@josephlucas3099]

It would require an Amendment to the Constitution. Anything less than that won’t get it done.

[@brycelupo7120]

Yup states do not have the power to change federal law

[@ChrisSadowski-pp1np]

2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of all states ratifying it. It would never happen.

[@x3dominator28]

They are creating a compact not a law, that would basically be an agreement that those states just agree to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. The effort needs to be stopped. Colorado seems like a state we could take back and repeal it.

[@mikewilliams-jw8jd]

The compact mentioned in the video would work the states can assign their electors by any means they choose.

[@josephlucas3099]

@ actually. It would not. You would have change individual state Constitutions.

[@jimfarmer6794]

What could go wrong? We’d have New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago electing the president every four years.

[@idanoreilly]

YUP, but it wouldn't have worked this year!

[@Grim1son]

All you have to do is look at California counting for weeks after election day to understand why they want to do this.

[@youwayo]

If CA wants to get rid of EC, then they should mandate voterID.

[@worldsmostaveragemagician2246]

Why don’t they just make themselves more electable?

[@mooganify]

they never take accountability

[@GT-eq1go]

That can’t 😂

[@Ostinato-Obbligato]

Because they believe the electorate failed them, not the other way around. Politicians as a whole believe people have an OBLIGATION to vote for them, not that they have an obligation to the people to EARN their vote.

[@Cessna172SNavIII]

The party of democracy hates democracy

[@fragmisty7827]

If we ever do go to popular vote, why don’t we get nationwide ID and Citizenship proof? Oh wait.

[@piedude333ify]

yeah i see what they did there :)

[@melissamurray8307]

Exactly, I may be more willing to go along with the idea if they made identification legal.

[@TheRoadTripChannel]

This is not happening. PERIOD. 😡

[@rednotbluepill]

It’s in Article II of the Constitution! They have to call a convention.

[@svenjorgensen5]

The National Popular Vote Act does not remove the Electoral College, it's a compact in which states agree to cast their state's electoral votes to the candidate with the national popular vote. Article II, Section 1 lets each state decide how their electors will cast their vote.

[@nightstalkersnightstalkes2558]

@@svenjorgensen5 The weakness to this type of arguement is that the Constitution has language that says the states votes for federal office and one state can't base it's results on another states votes. If you could do that a state could say whoever wins Texas or California for example is where say NY electoral votes would go. It is 50 individual votes plus DC that decide how they individually give their votes out. Example Maine and Nebraska having their votes by Electoral District. It's also why each state has different ways of voting, counting of votes, deadlines for ballots etc... One state can't tell another how things are done and actually neither than Congress tell the states how they can run their elections as long as they follow the Constitution and the interpretations of the US Courts. The whole idea of the electoral college was to not give the big states advantages over the smaller ones. You can see it at work in sort of way how the campaigns work now. Neither party goes to Alaska or Hawaii or Idaho etc.. The problem now for the Democrats is the bleeding of population from the Deeper Blue states. The 2030 Census will likely move around a dozen seats from California and NY to Texas, Florida etc.. You can only tax people so much and with a digital world you can do business in any state. Texas will be the most populated state by 2040. The states with lower or no taxes are gaining population. TX, FL, TN, GA

[@donaldclifford5763]

@@svenjorgensen5 Compacts between states prohibited by Constitution. They know that. It's just a popular thing to vote for.

[@svenjorgensen5]

​@@nightstalkersnightstalkes2558 Your comment is incorrect, but to ensure we are debating the right points, I am going to preface this comment with that I prefer the electoral college system and fully understand the founding father's reasoning behind it. However, I don't care to debate my feelings on it. Each state that agrees to join the compact would be voluntarily submitting their electoral votes for the popular vote winner. Yes, this is legal and yes, this could result in a state submitting its electoral votes for a candidate that their own state's citizens did not vote in plurality or majority. There are no restrictions (barring protections in the 14th amendment) in the constitution that says how a state's electors can vote; it's up to the state's legislature to determine (whether you feel this is good or bad does not affect its legality).

[@svenjorgensen5]

​@@donaldclifford5763 Your comment is incorrect. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 allows for interstate compacts with approval of congress. However, the point is moot since this is not a real "compact". Each state is passing this law individually themselves and if some other state that also had this law suddenly decides to overturn it, it would not break any compact since there wasn't one.

[@JumpingJack6]

Huge mistake. Huge. There is a good reason for the electoral college.

[@donaldclifford5763]

No worry. It's here to stay. Dems just love to flirt with the idea.

[@charlesharris9965]

This requires a Constitutional Amendment. Of the 10,000 proposed Constitutional Amendments since 1788, only 27 have been ratified into the Constitution. It has exactly ZERO chance of happening.

[@BabuTechie2025]

Gotcha.

[@tinman3586]

4:54 - So shouldn't CA, NY, and IL give their Electoral votes to Trump? We should have forced them to do that.

[@KickerOverQb]

Still could electoral votes haven’t been confirmed yet no till January 6th

[@mikewilliams-jw8jd]

It is written in a way that it only takes effect once the states involved reach the 270 threshold

[@thuncourt013]

upstate NY should really get their electoral votes separately from NYC. more than 75% of the counties upstate were all red. it makes no fucking sense how all those counties were red and trump still didnt get NYS

[@idanoreilly]

SHOULD, but those states would only do that if it benefited them!!

[@MegaSlowe]

So, Colorado signed on to the national popular vote compact. Are they giving their votes to Trump?

[@Tim_the_Enchanter]

Minnesota did that, too, but I haven't heard a peep about it since Trump won the popular vote. Typical Democrat behavior: Stand nowhere. Believe nothing.

[@RoyaleSplendor]

No kidding, right? 😂 I was scouting for states this cycle that had said that in the past. Add to that 312, Colorado.

[@mikeeisler6463]

You know that there would be a lawsuit in Colorado

[@stewiesaidthat]

National Popular Vote only goes into effect when the popular vote winner is not the EC winner.

[@RoyaleSplendor]

@stewiesaidthat So a favored political party majority vote over the popular vote in a majority of each of the 50 states? Pass. You lost the popular vote and a majority of the state's popular votes. We're not going back. Sound familiar?

[@looneyville3]

California would have a 200% voter turnout. If that wasn't enough they would have a 300% voter turnout.

[@solomongrundy9735]

If that compact ever goes into effect, lawsuits will fly.

[@kennethhoffman8845]

It's simple really. This is the United STATES of America, not the MASS MOB of Amerika. To say you win the election by simply winning the 'popular vote' would be like an NFL team losing the Super Bowl by a score of 3-0 but claiming they won because they had more yard rushing and passing than the other team! 😂😂😂

[@Tom_Toodle]

Great metaphor, impressive.

[@kennethhoffman8845]

@@Tom_Toodle Thank you Mr. Tom. There are those who would say that only a simple mind like mine could come up with such a comparison. 😂 Hmm... Not sure if those people are paying me a compliment but I'll assume so... for now. 😂 01/20/25 cannot get here soon enough!

[@pigboyjp]

So since these states voted to give their votes to the winner of the Popular Vote, I expect all of them to cast their votes for Donald Trump when the election is certified. In line with their beliefs, regardless of their political motives, they should cast their votes for Trump...... otherwise..... SHUT UP!

[@melissamurray8307]

Exactly, since that would take away a majority of Harris’ votes.😂

[@somedude8468]

Voter ID, needs to have proof of citizenship, if not, dont even suggest this.

[@fd502]

But but but how would you cheat then? Also you have to have in person voting. If you don’t then all the (fake) people registered to vote with addresses that are business places like I’ve seen with my own eyes can still vote.

[@adanalyst6925]

Here’s why the electoral college is OK: -I like that it basically forces there to be two main options -I don’t see how a president winning with a small plurality is any better than what happens now -I like how it forces the winner to get broad support from across the country, and they can’t just rack up the vote tally in one place. -aligned with the above, I believe that the electoral college forces presidential candidates to be more moderate as the name of the game is getting independents in competitive states to swing to you, rather than just focusing on getting a big turnout in one-party areas.

[@Cell9074]

Bingo for these reasons it will never be abolished

[@RadicallyOptimistic]

Except both parties have shifted farther and farther from the center since 2012 or so

[@AdamantLightLP]

Yeah, popular vote basically makes it so all you have to do is cater to the cities and you win. Screw the rural communities I guess

[@adanalyst6925]

@@RadicallyOptimistic except I’m not talking about the parties, I’m talking about the presidential candidates. Romney, Obama, Biden, Bush, Clinton, were all pretty moderate in the general. Trump’s rhetoric may be extreme but his policies are almost like 90s democrats; he is not a conservative ideologue. Harris tried to cast herself as a moderate by highlighting her time as a prosecutor but I don’t think anyone believed her.

[@robertmusil1107]

Big cities can already decided how they want to live already. They have a lot of laws. Why should they determine how everyone else lives? They probably even have too much of a voice. Ten million people living in the same space thinking they know what is best for everyone else is just crazy. They already have trouble determining what is best for their city as we can see. If they could fix their little cities I would actually consider it but come on... drug addicts everywhere. People living like rats in a one apartment room. Everyone single and isolated because they can't get along with other humans... it's nothing you would wish for the rest of the country. Figure out your own city.

[@jasonwhite7905]

Just call the "popular vote" aka "Democracy" what it really is... MOB RULE.

[@neilcarter77]

I live in PA, this election was wild -and you’re welcome!!

[@Todd-jx9jr]

Terrible idea. Interest in elections would plunge. Rural interests would be ignored. We'd still be waiting for California to find more dem ballots.

[@mooganify]

theyd never need to, theyd just win

[@f.j.c4444]

This is not a new idea. In addition to taxes, the popular vote was one reason for the creation of America. The Founders recognized its flaws; therefore, the Electoral College was implemented to address those issues.

[@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi]

It reduces cheating because each state is important.

[@Cyrus992]

Many who advocated against the EC since 2016, supported it in 2012

[@DavidRichardson-yb3ef]

To be fair, Trump used to argue against the EC but I give him the benefit of the doubt because that’s before he was a political figure. And also, he won because of it in 2016 so that means it’s good. And he’d tell you exactly that 🤣 I say that as a 3 time trump voter. The guy is a character, can’t deny that.

[@Eternalwarpuppy]

If all of these states that want to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, I say more power to them. The next republican who wins the popular vote is going to have 400 electoral votes and can be justified in calling his win a landslide.

[@troydestroys]

it will Never happen

[@JohnSmith-zw8vp]

A Constitutional Amendment needs 2/3 House and 2/3 Senate and 3/4 of state legislatures to agree. NO CHANCE.

[@donaldjones9830]

Yep. Electoral college is in the Constitution.

[@JohnSmith-zw8vp]

@@donaldjones9830 Not to mention there's been no Constitutional Amendments in over 30 years...and the second to last Amendment was over 50 years ago. So yes, in their wisdom the Founding Fathers made it really tough to change the Constitution...but not near impossible like it was under the Articles of Confederation (all 13 colonies had to agree).

[@bethanyh1637]

The Electoral College has built into it protections for the people that the "popular vote" could never make accommodations for. There are too many variations in demographics, geography, climates and laws to account for everything, but the Electoral College mitigates most of those issues by limiting the effect of any problem to just its state election. Hurricanes in the south, blizzards in the north, and earthquakes in the west only effect their regional election. States with more children, non-citizen immigrants, and other non-voters aren't disenfranchised to the more mobile voting-age states and urban areas. And the presidential election can be called even if California keeps counting ballots for 3 years.

[@Sheogorath7676]

Dont you need a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College? Which requires 38 states if im not mistaken. And there are already more than 13 that would veto the proposed amendment.

[@stewiesaidthat]

The constitution guarantees a Republican form of government. Each group, aka, state is afforded equal representation. Their combined representation in congress goes towards their EC votes. To change it would essentially mean dissolving the union as states would no longer be equally represented at the Executive branch level.

[@PennsylvaniaPumpkinPie]

This compact is a vote for state legislatures to have their own Electors vote according to the will of people in the other states vs. voting for how the voters in their very own state voted. It is not to eliminate it, but change how their own electors cast their votes for President. But a "compact" is also questionably constitutional as such compacts require the permission of Congress to be entered into.

[@evanrushing7495]

@@stewiesaidthatno. No it doesn’t. The left is so far gone that we are now questioning the fundamental aspects of American government now?

[@stewiesaidthat]

@PennsylvaniaPumpkinPie it's ironic that Trump did the same thing in 2020. An alternate group of electors was selected by the state legislatures of seven states. So what's the difference?

[@jeffmattson5766]

@@stewiesaidthatTrump was cheated in 2020. The Democrat Ballot Harvest of 2024 suffered a Great Drought.

[@ecks0071]

We not a democracy

[@tgs9740]

Yes try telling democrats leftist and the educated that. The idiots think we are like the rest of the world.Even though the idiots don't know the rest of the world is not a democracy many countries do not have a democracy. And we are one of them.

[@mgatelabs]

If they signed the compact, they would throw it out the second a person who they did not like won the popular vote and contest it's entire existence. I don't see CA allowing any of their votes to go to any republican. I really want to go further with the electrical college, break it down to counties voting, don't allow large population centers to overwhelm the outskirts.

[@aaroncostello8812]

It would have been very simple for the Founding fathers to simply allow the populations of Philadelphia, Boston, and New York to determine who the president was every year. They recognized how stupid that would be if they expected to keep the United States united, which is why we have the Electoral College.

[@JoseFernandez-qt8hm]

I'm voting to keep the Electoral College.... more democracy than the way DEM0cRATS picked Kamalalalalala.....

[@WickstarRunner]

Also remember, that 209 votes that they “have” for this compact likely drops significantly after the 2030 census. Last estimate I saw had the liberal states losing as much as 12 votes. Let’s also ignore the fact that the compact is very likely unconstitutional and would stand no chance in the current Supreme Court when it gets that far….

[@mooganify]

yeah but then these people just move to red states and ruin those anyway

[@JoeMACofNAC]

Trump should pass nationwide Voter ID laws. Lock the democrats out of federal positions.

[@markborishnikoff5485]

HARD AGREEA

[@shaunholt]

"Why should Wyoming get the same amount of votes as California?" Rhode Island gets as many senators as Texas, and Republicans don't complain about it. That said, California gets a lot more electoral votes than Wyoming. The electoral college is a compromise where the largest states get a larger say, but not the only say. It prevents a presidential candidate from only campaigning in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and forces them to go to places like Scranton, PA and Sandy Springs, Georgia. It ensures the president has broader appeal throughout the country, not merely 2-3 large cities (which are awfully run). Because the president should be president of all, not merely one small geographic area e.g. NYC and Los Angeles. So the electoral college is a way to ensure presidential candidates need to appeal to more parts of the country, not simply 50% +1 of the people largely from 2-3 big cities. The needs and wants of the people in Los Angeles may be vastly different than the needs and wants of the people in a small CA town. Does the left believe or not in protecting the voice of minorities? Or should 50% +1 always rule? That's 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. 3 men and 1 woman voting if they should 😍.

[@rocketgroot4311]

*I'm from LA and I don't want our state deciding the future of the rest of the 49..*

[@Schi8694]

This effort is a vast waste of time, and is probably unconstitutional.

[@Sparkles-u7e]

Thanks. Pray to Jesus for guidance, miracles, PEACE USA,world

[@Chaud31423]

These days I'm seeing less "how can we fix this country" and more " How do I win this country" from democrats

[@beerasaurus]

This comes up every election cycle by the losers.

[@markborishnikoff5485]

Never seen republicans do it

[@JL13675]

I imagine the Supreme Court would strike down this compact.

[@x3dominator28]

unfortunately no, because it’s not a law, they’d still be using the electoral college. We need to stop and repeal this effort in each of these states

[@nohandle-n9l]

@@x3dominator28interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact never received Congressional Approval

[@DavidRichardson-yb3ef]

I will take the electoral college any day over whatever the hell they do in England, where a party could get 40% of the vote but only 6% of the representatives.

[@freeman7296]

the process to amend the constitution is too much to overcome right now.....

[@AnvilMAn603]

they need an amendment to the constitution to do so, that will most likely never happen again ever

[@justasurfer8596]

We are a United States...when one handful of states can dominate every election, the laws that follow would significantly favor those states and impose and untenable situation for the rest....it comes down to one party rule....so much for the dems fight for Democracy

[@ajb625]

Over the last couple years, I see more and more wisdom coming from the Anti Federalist Papers.

[@RedHerring137]

Right on

[@JSFGuy]

Did you even watch it?

[@trith72]

That's a really handy way to cause about 40 states to secede immediately....

[@madelinewhitley14]

They're just upset because Harris didn't get in, if she did, this wouldn't even be an issue.😂

[@MaskMcGee]

They had a good idea up in North Dakota to counter this, where they'd pass a law to keep the popular vote in the state secret until after the Electoral college has voted. Just get all the red states to pass that law, so they'll have no idea what the popular vote is until it's too late.

[@hunterdolatowski7995]

Getting rid of the electoral college is so dumb and will and should not happen!

[@olibertosoto5470]

In a country as large and diverse as ours, if all voters were well informed and fair then the popular vote would be fine. On what planet would that be?

[@patrickc3419]

I don’t lose any sleep worrying about this, for one reason: it requires a constitutional amendment, which will NEVER happen. Our country is too polarized, too divided, for there to every be a constitutional amendment passed for any issue; not simply this. There hasn’t been one since I believe 1992.

[@plumbingscam2667]

Three words: Equal Rights Amendment. The chance of passing a Constitutional Amendment so that the presidential election is determined by the popular vote, not by the electoral college is the same as passing the Equal Rights Amendment is basically zero.

[@gishjalmr5628]

We live in a country called the United States of America, not the Unite Voters of America. The issue with any change, regardless of who wants it, is that the states are in control of elections. If one state wants to change that carries no weight anywhere else.

[@alvanrigby6361]

The Democrats should be careful what they wish for.

[@AggressiveSkunk]

This is why the electoral college should exist, its harder to rig elections, Lets say Betsy somehow casts 100,000 ballots in California, if we had the popular vote it would make a huge difference, with the electoral college it matters but nowhere near as much.

[@kavalere]

its simple....we are 50 different states, so it has to be done on a representational basis

[@spacefun101]

The bad thing about removing the electoral college is imagine how boring election night would be! Instead of seeing each state come in one by one with suspense, it would just be one race that matters.

[@wmhhealth2018]

They have a zero chance

[@wafflebroz]

4:40 These states said "Only if it would swing the result of the election" In other words: Only if a Democrat wins the popular vote but not the Electoral College. I looked that up because I wanted to see if they would give it to Trump

[@ethanol1586]

They have as much chance of getting rid of the EC than I do of suddenly being able to fly

[@notprovided1131]

I voted for Trump in Washington State

[@S0nyToprano]

That’s why when we made America great again, we had to make it too big to rig. And we did!

[@dragonhoff7715]

Considering they'd need 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and 3/4 of the states, this is more of a political show more so than an actual attempt at this. They know they have absolutely zero chance of even getting through a single chamber.

[@jimogden4076]

Why not keep electoral college but pass a law that all states cannot use “winner” takes all and uses Nebraska/Maine approach. I’m guessing this doesn’t require an amendment, but it likely would.

[@RScott413]

Why would they bother? This is a tremendous waste of time.

[@melissamurray8307]

I would say allow the popular vote if everyone is required to show valid ID.

[@klavier285]

A glaring issue with going by the popular vote is the lack of ID and that every state does not have the same process for counting and security measures. It would be too open to fraud.

[@RScott413]

If they make it popular vote that would put the feds in charge of it and CA couldn't run up the score.

[@ThemePro24]

Only via Constitutional Amendment and would never pass

[@DeejonLoy]

"The same swing states" Remember when Florida, or Ohio, or Tennessee, or even California and Texas were swing states?

[@mityace]

Well, you can also argue, the opposite, how many Republicans don't vote in CA either? That point works both ways in any state where one party is dominant.

[@mikeeisler6463]

Precisely. Eliminate the EC, and most campaigning will be 4 or 5 states. And reliably blue states mostly trended to the right. Imagine every state had a Scott Presler getting out the GOP vote. GOP would win the popular vote most times. Plus there are quite few low population blue states with those 2 extra EVs for their Senator that benefit from the EC. A national popular vote will neutralize them. I welcome a popular vote.

[@michaelfloyd1127]

I doubt the other states would allow California and New York to determine who is POTUS.

[@michaelreich4827]

You need 38 state legislatures to pass an Amendment for this. Ain't happening.

[@MadSociety-uy6zg]

They would have to change the Constitution 😂

[@randomguy1807]

Oh boy Obama already freaking out he lost.

[@tommyhunter1817]

I wonder if Kalifornia is going to give its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote this round???

[@czarcastic1458]

Time to stack the supreme court. I am sure the Dems wouldn't mind.

[@Iodotoluene]

The problem is it would probably be struck down by the Supreme Court. It violates one man one vote

[@user-bl7em8sx6o]

Then these ppl clearly dont understand why it exists in the first place. And if theres no electoral college, theres no point in having state governments. Everything would be controlled by the federal government. This isnt passing

[@fishy4617]

no matter what happens, every election, they will find a way to cry about the electoral college. some people i know legitimately think Trump lost the popular vote.

[@dr.emilschaffhausen4683]

As soon as you think you're smarter than our founding fathers you need to step back and check your ego!