President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

I would be fine with a proportional Electoral College. Winner-take-all is the problem.
100% of Californians aren't Democrats, and 100% of Texans aren't Republicans.

The problem with a popular vote election is about a dozen counties - not even states - could dictate the outcome. That isn't right, either.

 

But that would be true for proportional Electoral College, too. There are always going to be more people in Los Angeles County than in most states. The point of a national popular vote is that it would be in the interest of, say, the Republican candidate to campaign there for once (the Democrat, too). All they do now is attend fundraisers in Beverly Hills. Places with lots of people will have outsized sway in election because people vote, not land. As it stands, the Electoral College benefits only those states that are close. All the other states are afterthoughts. In an election where every vote mattered equally, you might see more energized Republicans here in Massachusetts, and more energized Democrats in Alabama. Benefits everyone. Also, it's just fair.

 

If all 50 states did electoral votes by congressional districts (plus two more for the statewide winner), gerrymandering battles would go into hyperdrive.

Why shouldn’t politicians spend more time where the people live? For weeks we’ve been told that the residents of 43 states might as well get in line for Taco Tuesday instead of bothering to show up and vote for President.

If you live in Erie, Pa., right now your vote is considered incredibly valuable, to the point you could practically talk each candidate into coming over to give you a back rub. Drive 90 minutes either direction on I-90 and your neighbors in Buffalo and Cleveland may as well be registered on Neptune.

 

There has to be some better way to make it truly representative to where Iowa doesn't dictate how New York is governed, and Orange County, Calif. doesn't dictate how Missouri is governed.

 

It's a NATIONAL election, the winner is the president of the entire fucking country. It should not be an election where only Michigan, Pennsylvania and several other swing states matter. But that's what it's become.

And why shouldn't California have more influence in an election than North Dakota, when there are 45 or 50 Californians in the country for every North Dakotan?

One person, one vote. A vote for Harris or Trump in Texas means as much as one in Vermont or one in Wyoming.

We have the Senate to protect the interests of the small states. We don't need the electoral college.

 

I'm fine with a national election. I'm just clear-eyed about it being different than what we have. National polls are meaningless aside from being used by the media to subtly suggest that a non-electoral-college system would be perpetually benefit Democrats. No one knows that.

 

Does it end at the back?

 

Great plan

 

You should know by now that no politician is delivering a happy ending.

 

Same difference

 

She finished the jingle, that probably flipped her like 50 votes