Current Events > Democrats have a serious Electoral College advantage tbh

(+) Yeah! (+)

Winning all the states Hillary won + Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania = 278 electoral votes

Democrats basically only have to care about the Northeast, the northeastern Midwest, and the West Coast. And they really only have to worry about Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

---

If you ignore the way a 3 percent popular vote win can result in a loss for them, sure
---

Get rid of it. Only popular vote should determine da presidency
---

ImAMarvel posted...

The dems are in such a good place to finally abolish the EC

Like fuck, they literally won the EC AND the popular vote. From a moral standpoint, they can end this shit and not look like a bunch of sore losers.

Republicans will literally never go along with it. It would destroy them.
---

TC doesn't know what he's talking about

---

They have an electoral college advantage when their coalition doesn't fracture like it did in 2016 and almost did this year

---

ImAMarvel posted...

The dems are in such a good place to finally abolish the EC

Like fuck, they literally won the EC AND the popular vote. From a moral standpoint, they can end this shit and not look like a bunch of sore losers.

yeah I dunno without the court and the senate I don't see it ever being abolished. If it were up to the popular vote the GOP would've lost seven out of eight of the last elections

---

The wins were razor thin.

---

It is pretty funny that we all knew Biden would win the popular vote but the election was uncertain.

---

ImAMarvel posted...

The dems are in such a good place to finally abolish the EC

Like fuck, they literally won the EC AND the popular vote. From a moral standpoint, they can end this shit and not look like a bunch of sore losers.

I think the only way to abolish the electoral college would be through an amendment or enough states agreeing to not follow it like with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

---

Antifar posted...

If you ignore the way a 3 percent popular vote win can result in a loss for them, sure

If Texas turns into a blue state, Republicans will never win anything again.

Will you still be okay with the Electoral College of that happens?

---

Bestoffuture posted...

The wins were razor thin.

Not in Michigan. We'll see what happens with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania though.

Donald Trump's wins in those states absolutely were razor thin however. Had Hillary focused on those states she easily could have won them. And I assume Democrats will never take those states for granted again. Still, those three states voted Republican once since the 80s.

---

EC might have made sense in the late 1700's. but not today. in modern times it actually undermines democracy and it really does need to be ended. If Republicans can't handle it without the EC, then maybe they need to change their party so it's not so hated by most americans

Tyranthraxus posted...

If Texas turns into a blue state, Republicans will never win anything again.

Will you still be okay with the Electoral College of that happens?

I'm not okay with it now!
---

For people saying Electoral College is bad, it is essentially impossible to get rid of it and much much easier to focus on winning it than get enough states to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

For people saying Electoral College is bad, it is essentially impossible to get rid of it and much much easier to focus on winning it than get enough states to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner

It is not actually.

If the popular vote compact passes, the appeal of an amendment increases because it'll give the other states a chance at renegotiating how the president is elected.

---

Just 13 states need to say no for a constitutional amendment to be denied

Alaska
Idaho
Utah
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Missouri
Mississippi
Alabama
South Carolina
West Virginia

^states that are never going to ratify an amendment getting rid of the electoral college

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Just 13 states need to say no for a constitutional amendment to be denied

Alaska
Idaho
Utah
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Missouri
Mississippi
Alabama
South Carolina
West Virginia

^states that are never going to ratify an amendment getting rid of the electoral college

Again, once the popular vote compact passes, those 13 states will be singing a very different tune and suddenly they will love repealing the Electoral College.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Again, once the popular vote compact passes, those 13 states will be singing a very different tune and suddenly they will love repealing the Electoral College.

Why?

Like I said passing the national popular vote will be a huge struggle to begin with. Republicans don't like it and it has only passed in solidly blue states.

---

Its never going to happen. Ohio, Florida, and other states like having their votes matter.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Why?

Like I said passing the national popular vote will be a huge struggle to begin with. Republicans don't like it and it has only passed in solidly blue states.

Like, IDK how to explain this more than I've already have. Imagine this scenario.

You're playing a "cake game" I just made up. The rules are as follows. You have a cake. 4 Other people want the cake but you have it. In order for someone to take the cake away from you, three people have to agree on who to give it to. Because everyone wants the cake, everyone votes to give it to themselves so you always keep the cake.

Then the 4 other people group up and decide "hey we're sick of this asshole always getting the cake, let's agree to just give it to someone else. And we will take turns all getting the cake."

Now every time you play 1 of the other 4 people take the cake away from you every single time and you never get the cake ever again.

Would you like to change the rules of the game?


---

Bandit_Keith posted...

Republicans will literally never go along with it. It would destroy them.

No it wouldn't. It would force them to adopt more rational platforms instead of catering to the crazies and ultra religious for more widespread support. Sure, local politicians and at the legislative level it would put the ones appealing to deep red areas at a bit of a cross-roads, but at the cost of bringing the whole national republican platform more to the middle. That allows the left to branch more to the left rather than stay at center right.

I'd much prefer left to center than far right to center right any day.

---

DundiesAward posted...

Its never going to happen. Ohio, Florida, and other states like having their votes matter.

As someone who's not american, I never understood this argument. I mean, it's the people that vote, and if it's through popular vote wouldn't every individual's vote matter?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

What is your point? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the institution of the Electoral College in this topic.

---

mehmeh1 posted...

As someone who's not american, I never understood this argument. I mean, it's the people that vote, and if it's through popular vote wouldn't every individual's vote matter?

Essentially the interest of these states in theory should take higher precedent than other states when you put out your platform as a presidential candidate, I think. So ending the EC would eliminate the special influence of swing states in politics. I think.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

What is your point? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the institution of the Electoral College in this topic.

I am explaining to you how states who currently benefit from the EC can be convinced to change it with an amendment.

---

ImAMarvel posted...

The dems are in such a good place to finally abolish the EC

Like fuck, they literally won the EC AND the popular vote. From a moral standpoint, they can end this shit and not look like a bunch of sore losers.

No one is in a good place to abolish the electoral college. It requires a constitutional amendment and I doubt we'll ever see another one of those passed with as polarized as things are in this day and age.
---

mehmeh1 posted...

As someone who's not american, I never understood this argument. I mean, it's the people that vote, and if it's through popular vote wouldn't every individual's vote matter?

Population is so stacked to New York and LA there is no point of an election without the electoral college. May as well just continuously appoint the next democrat every time

---

Phantom36 posted...

Population is so stacked to New York and LA there is no point of an election without the electoral college. May as well just continuously appoint the next democrat every time

Reagan got 53% of the popular vote. Bush won popular vote in 2004.

So..... Wrong?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Now every time you play 1 of the other 4 people take the cake away from you every single time and you never get the cake ever again.

Would you like to change the rules of the game?

The bigger of the 4 will get the cake more often then the smaller 3 and piss them off. Eventually going back to square one.

---

mehmeh1 posted...

As someone who's not american, I never understood this argument. I mean, it's the people that vote, and if it's through popular vote wouldn't every individual's vote matter?

That's exactly why the EC is bad, and a relic of the past that needs to go away. However, it's the only thing keeping the republicans in power, so it won't.

---

I see what you're saying.

But that would require the national popular vote act to be passed, and then Republican and swing states will actually gain influence if they get rid of the Electoral college. Right now swing states would lose influence and the Republican Party in their current form would never get another president elected again. So like I said, passing it will be a huge struggle.

---

3PiesAndAFork posted...

However, it's the only thing keeping the republicans in power, so it won't.

The Senate, also.
---

I feel like everyone in this thread thinks that the policy platforms in both parties are static.

Have we not seen the drastic shift of republicans from being small government fiscal conservatives to being the party of no platform or discernable policy, but rather just acknowledging the frustrations of a subset of various and separate populations like ultra religious, bigoted, and nationalistic, and giving them a voice?

Removing EC wouldn't mean a democrat wins every election. It would force republicans to take more moderate stances that plenty of democrats could get on board with if they stopped entertaining people that hate minorities, lgbt, and poor people. The EC map gives us a bias that we have this drastic split of blue vs red states. The reality is we're all a blend of purples as most races are within +/- 5-10% percentage points.

The closer both parties get to the middle and the narrower these margins become. It's only been the recent few election cycles where they took bigger risks with polarization.

A popular vote means 60% of NY and CA go to "blue" and 40% go to "red". By both parties adapting to this change, we'd see a return to the mean, more centrist policy with minor adjustments. Rather than a winner take all mentality which forces republicans to entirely ignore NY and CA and just cater to deep red areas.

The only voices we lose are deep back water regions that are out of touch with modern life and frankly aren't that affected by national politics to begin with except for possibly not endorsing their prejudices. Good riddance.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I see what you're saying.

But that would require the national popular vote act to be passed, and then Republican and swing states will actually gain influence if they get rid of the Electoral college. Right now swing states would lose influence and the Republican Party in their current form would never get another president elected again. So like I said, passing it will be a huge struggle.

Yes it's a huge struggle but the effort level in trying to push through a Popular Vote Compact in a couple of battleground states versus trying to cram through an unpopular amendment is colossal. This the best way to get the amendment passed is to make it not unpopular and the best to do that is to pass the popular vote compact. After that we'll see a massive surge in popularity for abolishing the whole EC and replacing it with something else such as ranked choice because yes popular vote is rather unfair.

---

Anyway, let's get back to the original point of this topic.

All of the states that Hillary won besides Nevada are likely blue states. All Biden had to do was win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (which all lean blue) and that's the election. This applies to future Democratic candidates as well unless something changes demographically in those states.

Basically the likely blue states have a greater population and therefore a greater electoral value than likely red states. Also as someone said, if Democrats can flip Texas it's over.

---

EC is garbage. The common argument made by people in favor usually say States like Florida and Ohio like having their votes matter. Gtfo.

Land doesnt vote. People do.

---

Yeah I was agreeing with your assessment that the EC gives an advantage to Democrats. It's really this simple.

1. Higher population density = more liberal votes
2. Permanent apportionment means you can add 600,000 people to Texas and not change how many EVs it has.
3. Of course if you added 600,000 people to Texas you're increasing the blue vote at a greater rate than red votes.
4. If Texas flips, the EC becomes a permanent fixture in favor of the democrats.

If you want to change it, the best time to change it is while you still have bargaining power.


---

mehmeh1 posted...

As someone who's not american, I never understood this argument. I mean, it's the people that vote, and if it's through popular vote wouldn't every individual's vote matter?

https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k

---

Speaking of that, I think they need to repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and get more representatives.

Theoretically they could add 3x or so more reps to the House. There should be at least 1000.


---

How you gonna forget Georgia, Nevada and Arizona you're such a hater lmao

---

I think what may be some middle ground is having split votes like Nebraska, I'm curious how that would've changed the result.

---