As has been the case for over 200 years, the Electoral College will determine the outcome of the U.S. presidential race this fall. Yet most Americans have long supported moving away from this system.
The Electoral College allocates a number of electors based on how many senators and representatives each state has in Congress (plus three electors for the District of Columbia, for a total of 538). Most states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins that state.
More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) would instead prefer to see the winner of the presidential election be the person who wins the most votes nationally. Roughly a third (35%) favor retaining the Electoral College system, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 9,720 adults conducted Aug. 26-Sept. 2, 2024.
deviousmajik on
A vote in Michigan, Georgia or a handful of other states counting more than a vote anywhere else is majorly fucked up.
[deleted] on
[deleted]
Wonderful-Variation on
I just want it to be done so that you don’t get all the electors for a State just by winning the state by 51%. If you win by 51% then you should only get 51% of the electors. That would solve the whole issue while technically preserving the electoral college.
KnownAd523 on
My French relatives don’t understand it at all, and I’ve given up trying to explain it. Since Republicans have won the popular vote just once since 2000 they will fight like hell to keep it in place.
DiarrheaMonkey- on
I wonder how many of those 46% of Republicans who support the change realize that it would mean a Republican would not hold the presidency in the foreseeable future.
We need to work on state-level trigger laws that would mean states cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote. But Republican-controlled states would never get on board, no matter what percentage of Republicans, either fair enough or ignorant enough to support it, did.
ShogsKrs on
It’s acceptable that a simple majority of votes cast in all elections in America from student class president to state and federal representatives determines the winner.
I’m in strong favor of doing the same for the highest office I vote for.
No more gamesmanship.
No single state should hold more sway than another.
kfadffal on
No shit, most voters are disenfranchised by it.Â
AINonsense on
In a democracy, it would be gone.
dbag3o1 on
Literally nobody likes the electoral college unless they’re a slave owner.
thelightstillshines on
Well yeah a system that was literally designed to give slave states more power is probably a bit antiquated in 2024. Who woulda fucking thought?
deJuice_sc on
a majority of Americans want to move away from MAGA
V-r1taS on
The threshold for changing the constitution is two-thirds of both the House and the Senate as a starting point. Until we have at least 67% of Americans supporting this there isn’t anything resembling the necessary popular mandate to pass the required amendment.
We would be much better served by focusing on trying to adjust the way the electors are allocated within states (e.g., Maine / Nebraska, National Popular Vote Compact) through targeted ballot measures and/or lobbying state legislatures to shift away from the existing winner take all method in more states. It is the only viable path to address the absurdity of the current model and empower more voters across more states in the near-term.
papibigdaddy on
I think if anyone runs into someone defending the electoral college or saying “a handful of big cities shouldn’t decide things for everyone,” they need to ask them this question: “how do you feel about the winner-take-all system? Shouldn’t the electoral vote be, at the very least, proportional to the vote count?” I personally would have less issue with this system if Oklahoma Democrats and Massachusetts Republicans got whatever electoral votes are relevant to their percentage. If 40% went to the loser and 60% to the winner, the electoral votes should reflect that. But regardless, popular vote should determine the winner. It would encourage more turnout and if you think it’s unfair to rural voters, ask yourself why your platform is only appealing to rural voters? Why would you continue to foster an urban-rural divide when both voting blocs need healthcare, education, infrastructure improvements, and jobs?
jehunjalan on
Just spread the narrative that the electoral college is DEI and Republicans will turn on it hearing the buzzword…
rraattbbooyy on
Is there any realistic way for the EC to be abolished, or is it just not possible?
CrotasScrota84 on
Republicans would never win another election and news channels wouldn’t have anything to talk about for months.
Not happening
Kyxoan7 on
so you are saying, the large amount of people from cali and ny (the majority of the population) wants to abolish the rule that prevents them from controlling 48 other states?
Whoda thunk it.
PrajnaKathmandu on
It is total ridiculous that a candidate can win the popular vote by millions but lose the election because of thousands of electoral college votes.
woodspaths on
It wasn’t meant for the majority
Dat_Basshole on
But then how will we be able to over represent those states where cattle outnumber people 3 to 1?
Kind-City-2173 on
Only way they can do this is if there is a blue wave and they take control in all three branches.
Jusfiq on
It’s in the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Traditional_Key_763 on
ya but what do the 535 people who work in Washington DC think?
SubRyan on
The easiest way to bypass the archaic Electoral College is to get enough states to agree to assign their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote
This result, in addition to support for ending lifetime tenure on SCOTUS, winning a majority of opinion while actually achievable solutions to the problems like expanding the House and adding a couple DCOTUS justices are disfavored just blows my mind.
shod55 on
Since 2000 we’ve had to endure GW Bush and Trump because of the Electoral College. Can’t think of a better reason to change it. Ranked Choice voting is a possible way to ease out of a flawed and antiquated system.
GravityIsVerySerious on
Wouldn’t this mean all they have to do is campaign in like seven major cities and their suburbs and ignore everywhere else? Wouldn’t that divide us further?
KillerZaWarudo on
Had biden stay in and somehow shithouse a electoral win but lose the popular vote it would have been 100%
Hardass_McBadCop on
When we create a system where losers can win, then we shouldn’t be surprised when they do.
grimpala on
Well, obviously. The electoral college isn’t FOR the majority.
31 Comments
As has been the case for over 200 years, the Electoral College will determine the outcome of the U.S. presidential race this fall. Yet most Americans have long supported moving away from this system.
The Electoral College allocates a number of electors based on how many senators and representatives each state has in Congress (plus three electors for the District of Columbia, for a total of 538). Most states award all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins that state.
More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) would instead prefer to see the winner of the presidential election be the person who wins the most votes nationally. Roughly a third (35%) favor retaining the Electoral College system, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 9,720 adults conducted Aug. 26-Sept. 2, 2024.
A vote in Michigan, Georgia or a handful of other states counting more than a vote anywhere else is majorly fucked up.
[deleted]
I just want it to be done so that you don’t get all the electors for a State just by winning the state by 51%. If you win by 51% then you should only get 51% of the electors. That would solve the whole issue while technically preserving the electoral college.
My French relatives don’t understand it at all, and I’ve given up trying to explain it. Since Republicans have won the popular vote just once since 2000 they will fight like hell to keep it in place.
I wonder how many of those 46% of Republicans who support the change realize that it would mean a Republican would not hold the presidency in the foreseeable future.
We need to work on state-level trigger laws that would mean states cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote. But Republican-controlled states would never get on board, no matter what percentage of Republicans, either fair enough or ignorant enough to support it, did.
It’s acceptable that a simple majority of votes cast in all elections in America from student class president to state and federal representatives determines the winner.
I’m in strong favor of doing the same for the highest office I vote for.
No more gamesmanship.
No single state should hold more sway than another.
No shit, most voters are disenfranchised by it.Â
In a democracy, it would be gone.
Literally nobody likes the electoral college unless they’re a slave owner.
Well yeah a system that was literally designed to give slave states more power is probably a bit antiquated in 2024. Who woulda fucking thought?
a majority of Americans want to move away from MAGA
The threshold for changing the constitution is two-thirds of both the House and the Senate as a starting point. Until we have at least 67% of Americans supporting this there isn’t anything resembling the necessary popular mandate to pass the required amendment.
We would be much better served by focusing on trying to adjust the way the electors are allocated within states (e.g., Maine / Nebraska, National Popular Vote Compact) through targeted ballot measures and/or lobbying state legislatures to shift away from the existing winner take all method in more states. It is the only viable path to address the absurdity of the current model and empower more voters across more states in the near-term.
I think if anyone runs into someone defending the electoral college or saying “a handful of big cities shouldn’t decide things for everyone,” they need to ask them this question: “how do you feel about the winner-take-all system? Shouldn’t the electoral vote be, at the very least, proportional to the vote count?” I personally would have less issue with this system if Oklahoma Democrats and Massachusetts Republicans got whatever electoral votes are relevant to their percentage. If 40% went to the loser and 60% to the winner, the electoral votes should reflect that. But regardless, popular vote should determine the winner. It would encourage more turnout and if you think it’s unfair to rural voters, ask yourself why your platform is only appealing to rural voters? Why would you continue to foster an urban-rural divide when both voting blocs need healthcare, education, infrastructure improvements, and jobs?
Just spread the narrative that the electoral college is DEI and Republicans will turn on it hearing the buzzword…
Is there any realistic way for the EC to be abolished, or is it just not possible?
Republicans would never win another election and news channels wouldn’t have anything to talk about for months.
Not happening
so you are saying, the large amount of people from cali and ny (the majority of the population) wants to abolish the rule that prevents them from controlling 48 other states?
Whoda thunk it.
It is total ridiculous that a candidate can win the popular vote by millions but lose the election because of thousands of electoral college votes.
It wasn’t meant for the majority
But then how will we be able to over represent those states where cattle outnumber people 3 to 1?
Only way they can do this is if there is a blue wave and they take control in all three branches.
It’s in the Constitution. Good luck with that.
ya but what do the 535 people who work in Washington DC think?
The easiest way to bypass the archaic Electoral College is to get enough states to agree to assign their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact?wprov=sfla1
This result, in addition to support for ending lifetime tenure on SCOTUS, winning a majority of opinion while actually achievable solutions to the problems like expanding the House and adding a couple DCOTUS justices are disfavored just blows my mind.
Since 2000 we’ve had to endure GW Bush and Trump because of the Electoral College. Can’t think of a better reason to change it. Ranked Choice voting is a possible way to ease out of a flawed and antiquated system.
Wouldn’t this mean all they have to do is campaign in like seven major cities and their suburbs and ignore everywhere else? Wouldn’t that divide us further?
Had biden stay in and somehow shithouse a electoral win but lose the popular vote it would have been 100%
When we create a system where losers can win, then we shouldn’t be surprised when they do.
Well, obviously. The electoral college isn’t FOR the majority.