-4 points
Common Dreams - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Common Dreams:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.commondreams.org/news/electoral-college-map-2024

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
40 points

Large majority of voters want to change a system where the large majority of voters don’t have as much say as a a minority of voters.

If the Democrats actually get the house and the senate this election, they should definitely looking into changing the voting system. It would be in their best interest.

permalink
report
reply
30 points

Would require a constitutional amendment to do so. 2/3rds majority of the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of all state legislatures to outright remove it.

Or the interstate voting compact which just needs a couple more states. But that’s a less direct mechanism that keeps the electoral college intact, just changes the way electoral votes are distributed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

There are still some other things that can be done federally to help. If they change the size of the house (determined by legislation not constitution), it also changes electoral votes for states. Electoral votes are based on house + senate seats per state

On its own that makes the electoral college much closer to representing the population of each state

I would also presume it likely would also make the popular vote compact way closer or cross the needed majority of electoral votes. Though I haven’t done or seen any analysis on that directly so not 100% sure because the ways seats are appropriated can be funky and non-linear

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

I feel like it would be more realistic to repeal the Apportionment Act of 1911. At the very least, it would correct the massive inequality in congressional apportionment. It would also increase the number of electors in the largest states, which would mostly benefit democrats.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes and no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

The NPVIC may work to get around the electoral college without amending the constitution. It would still be FPTP which wouldn’t be great. But it would at a minimum be an improvement, because it would do away with swing states, red voters stuck in blue states, and blue voters stuck in red states.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

because it would do away with swing states, red voters stuck in blue states, and blue voters stuck in red states.

…and replace it with the election being won based primarily on turnout in California. Like seriously, the last few times a candidate won the electoral college but lost the popular vote it was a case where their margin in California was larger than their margin nationally. As in across the other 49 states more people voted for the person who won the electoral college, and California by itself was responsible for the swing to the other direction. Because California is just so ridiculously big compared to the other states.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

While dramatic things like making the senate votes proportional or abolishing the electoral college might require a constitutional amendment, the text is silent on plurality vs RCW or what have you.

Congress could mandate a switch with a simple law, and point to their power to ensure democracy, same as the post bush v gore laws that mandated electronic voting machines.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Or the interstate voting compact which just needs a couple more states.

Of course, it’s already got every state that benefits from it being passed, and a few more that signed on but only benefit so long as their preferences are always in line with California. Which collectively isn’t enough for it to go active.

Now you’ve got to convince states that will both lose power and routinely get results out of line with their preferences to sign onto the thing that will do that.

…and once it goes active it will go to the courts where the argument will be whether as an interstate compact it has to be federally approved or if the state’s right to assign their electors as they please trumps that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Don’t the states choose the voting system for their particular state? If so, it will never happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

As if Dems would do anything that could compromise their own power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Dems face an electoral cliff if they do nothing. In a few more cycles, it may be impossible to win the senate or the presidency, even with a majority vote behind them, due to too much power in small states.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Democrats generally favor ending the electoral college, if nothing else because it would tend to make them win elections more due to the packing effect of NY and California and the tendency of rural states to get more votes per capita. In fact several states, pretty much all the solid blue states in the last couple of elections, have passed a compact to give all electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-52 points

The only reason they want a popular vote system is because it would have worked in their favor in 2000 and 2016.

The minute it goes against “their” candidate they’ll scream to go back to the electoral college.

See the multi-state pact here:

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

Currently passed in 17 states for 209 electoral college votes, it doesn’t take effect until there are 270 accounted for.

But do you really think the residents of a state like Oregon, or Washington, or California will just be OK with their electoral college votes being passed to a popular vote winner who is a Republican?

Especially if that person failed to win their state?

permalink
report
reply
22 points

Is the suggestion here that the only people who support the electoral college are those who don’t want the president to represent the majority of the voting population?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-21 points

No, the suggestion here is that the people supporting the popular vote are doing it because they got burned in 2000 and 2016.

Had it gone the other way, they wouldn’t be agitating for it.

If Trump somehow wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college, WA, OR and CA will be THRILLED.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Your suggestion is wrong. Eliminating the Electoral College is advocated for by everyone who supports Democracy. It is also not a coincidence that the Electoral College disproportionately benefits one party over the other. And to cement that advantage they employ anti-Democratic measures in an attempt at voter suppression.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I think the argument boils down to the same one that created both a Senate and House of Representatives, which is does the US have allegiance to it’s citizens or it’s States.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Representation by population vs representation by area. The same kind of arguments made in favour of switching the U.S. to a fully proportional system (getting rid of all forms of representation by area) could equally be made in favour of having one world government with proportional representation.

When we think about it that way (world elections would be dominated by Asia), it’s easy to see why we might not want such a system. Then, returning to the U.S. system alone it’s easier to see why many people want representation by area preserved. Although the cultural differences between states are much smaller than the differences between continents, they’re still very much present and the issues often dominate American politics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It would be nice to implement stuff like one of the voting systems under the broader ranked choice voting umbrella first before getting rid of the electoral college.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

But do you really think the residents of a state like Oregon, or Washington, or California will just be OK with their electoral college votes being passed to a popular vote winner who is a Republican?

Yes, because they won. People who favor democracy understand they won’t always be in the majority, and that’s OK bedause they aren’t shitbags. People who only want the system to work in their favor are called Conservatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

You have more faith than I do. If Oregonians thought their vote was overturned because of a national popular vote winner, there would be riots.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Their vote wasn’t “overturned” their vote counted just as much as anyone else’s they just lost.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

You mean if they lost? How many riots have there been in Oregon when the candidate Oregon shows didn’t win the electoral college? Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, but we didn’t see riots in Oregon.

That’s not your best argument against a national popular vote agreement. The best argument is that no national campaigns would give a shit about Oregon if the goal was winning the national popular vote. Oregon is a progressive coastal state, but it’s still a flyover state.

In fact, states wouldn’t matter at all. State borders are just imaginary lines drawn around population centers. Campaigns would focus exclusively on demographics and high density population zones. Oregonians as a demographic would be considered “safe” for progressives and “lost” for conservatives, so neither side would give them much effort. California Republicans and Texas Democrats would be the big winners. States like New York and Florida would become the new battlegrounds, as candidates spoke to the concerns of the most people.

And in a way, that would be much better. It would encourage more voters to actually show up, and local races would become more important. But with first past the post, winner take all national elections, you’ll still have two parties demonizing the other.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

This runs counter to the Lemmy narrative which says we need like 40 years of Democratic rule to unfuck the country.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

To unfuck the Supreme Court. That’s still an issue regardless of how the voting is done. And it’s usually referenced to discredit people just saying “let the system work it out” and in favor of quicker solutions like packing the Court.

permalink
report
parent
reply
161 points

Cool. Can we also get moving on Ranked Choice Voting?

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Star Voting is better in every way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Approval voting is the only method that meets all the requirements for a fair election without elevating an unpopular candidate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I’ll take better over perfect especially since better is on the ballot as an option this year for me, but who knows might try to get approval voting on the ballot for next time

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Approval voting still encourages strategic voting and “dishonesty” and does not strongly correlate with actual preference. If there are three candidates, Love, Tolerate, and Hate, 60% could strongly prefer Love, and 30% strongly prefer Hate, but both groups would prefer Tolerate over the other alternative, then Love voters would be smart to not make a second choice even though they would approve of Tolerate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

We should put all options for voting on the ballot. Then FPtP will win because the reform vote will be split and the status quo people will vote as a bloc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

First I’m hearing of this. I’ll look into it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
73 points

I’d take RCV over nothing, but STAR and approval are significantly better like the other user said.

Some reasons for approval

  • Addition is the only math involved. So it is extremely easy to get live results during counting. It makes auditing votes extremely easy.
  • It is dead simple to understand, so the least amount of voters will be confused by it.

A longer form explanation of some of the other stuff:

https://dividedwefall.org/star-and-approval-voting/

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Approval voting sounds good.

One issue I see with the star system is that people tend to have preconceptions about star ratings. E.g. some people never rate 5 stars on principle or will rate something 3 stars without realizing that is a 60% rating. My point is I think you might see some weird skew in the results based on this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I can see that happening, which is why I think approval is the best of them all.

And with that said, so long as not all the votes are given equal scores, their votes would still matter even if they don’t believe in 5 star perfection.

And IIRC, there is nothing actually stopping a STAR system from using a 1 to 10 point scale instead of 5, which would further help with that issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I love how this video explains the differences between the voting methods. It’s what made me prefer STAR over RCV.

https://youtu.be/Nu4eTUafuSc

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I am a little disappointed that they didn’t include approval as one of the examples.

But still a fantastic video.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

This is the only issue worth campaigning on. Fuck everyone for not realizing it. We will never get this system under control if it continues to misrepresent what the majority wants. There is no amount of bargaining and compromise that will ever bring forth the change we need to stop global climate change. Ranked choice - for its simplicity. Star - for its utility. Etc. Etc. Make the debate strictly about how we will reform voting and push everything else to the end of the list.

BTW, I’m not asking politicians to do this. I’m ask you, the people, if you will make your voice heard and enshrine it with a government that truly represents you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Tough luck, if you want to ask the people and want to have a say in national discourse, you have to buy a media outlet like billionaires do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Defeatism

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Keep carrying water for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

This is the only issue worth campaigning on.

You’re not going to like the people campaigning on it, though.

Spoilers: It’s the Spoiler Candidates

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Every candidate should be campaigning on it. Not until the Republicans are brazenly defending the broken system, or alternatively join the move for reformation because they think they can capitalize on it, is the country moving in the right direction.

When the pollsters call you your answer to every question should be, “I don’t care we need vote reform.”

When the media focus groups you,“I don’t care we need vote reform.”

When the NAZIs try to bait you, “I don’t care we need vote reform.”

I know, this isn’t a fully fleshed out strategy but it is a stance that will elevate the discussion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You’re not going to like the people campaigning on it, though.

Spoilers: It’s the Spoiler Candidates

…because the Dems and GOP benefit from the current system. Any move away from FPTP harms them, so they aren’t going to support it and any other party is a “spoiler candidate” because of how FPTP works.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Lol … when has the will of the common people ever mattered to politicians who are beholden to the ultra wealthy.

I’m in Canada and we suffer from the same problem.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Lol … when has the will of the common people ever mattered to politicians who are beholden to the ultra wealthy.

The French Revolution leaps to mind.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 212K

    Comments