65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

  • Smacks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’d be nice to go beyond and have some sort of ranked voting while we’re at it. Essentially being forced to pick between two parties or risk having your vote being wasted sucks.

    • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unpopular opinion: ranked choice voting will do little to solve the USA’s democracy issues.

      For starters, there are plenty of countries that do use FPTP and still have plenty of third parties in their parliaments (Canada, UK, Taiwan, Australia off the top of my head). So FPTP does not inherently preclude third parties - rather, the USA simply doesn’t have any culture of multilateralism. I’d say this is mostly a byproduct of various cultural phenomena - the wealth gap, corporate media ownership, private campaign financing, win-or-lose mindset, etc.

      But the greater issue is that RCV doesn’t really ensure proportionality. As long as you have a single winner from each district, there will be distortions between the proportion of parties for whom people vote and the ultimate parliamentary body. For example, even if you implemented RCV across the entire USA today, I’m pretty sure most legislative bodies would still be entirely dominated by a single party because of gerrymandering and single-member districts.

      So if you want to fix the USA’s core issue, what you really need is a more proportional system - either have fewer, larger districts with multiple representatives from each one, or adopt something like MMP which is what Germany has (where you also cast a party vote to declare your preference for which party you most want represented in parliament and distribute proportionally along this tally across all voters). Not only does this make the final representation more fair, but it also does a much better job of making all votes matter, instead of only the lucky few in swing states or the rare competitive Congressional race.

      But RCV on its own won’t do much. It is still a small improvement, and if you have the opportunity to adopt it, I say go for it. But at best, I think it would take decades, or maybe even generations, before it starts to improve things.

      Also, while I know this doesn’t pertain quite so much to Presidential elections as the electoral college is used for, the USA is also fairly unique in that it has a directly elected head of government with much more power than other countries that also have a directly elected head of state. This is also a part of the problem - the executive branch is supposed to be the weakest of the 3 Federal branches - but it’s a discussion for another time.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Canada and UK third parties are still smaller parties, they have no possiblity of electing a head of state.

        • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          While also true in Australia, we have preferential voting as well and whilst smaller parties dont have the numbers or votes to become the ruling parties you can vote 1 for a smaller party and 2 for a major party so the smaller party gets a funding boost for future campaigns.
          And also if enough people vote for a smaller party them a larger party may have to team up with a smaller party to get the majority numbers to hold government.
          Then the smaller party may have a bit of clout to get some of their values and opinions into parlimertary debate or passing bills meaning we get a wider variety of input than the major party line and its members falling into line to vote with their peers blindly.

        • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Same as I wrote on the other sibling comment. I think these countries all have terrible electoral systems. But the point is, they’re still ahead of the USA in terms of the fact that they will still have an awareness and understanding of third parties, whereas >90% of Americans are just programmed to believe there are only 2 options.

          As a thought experiment, ask yourself what would happen if you could wave a magic wand and make every city, state and national legislative election use RCV over FPTP. Do you really think anything would change? I’m pretty sure 95% of the results would be exactly the same. Like I said above, RCV may make things better 20+ years from now, but there’s also a very good chance that so few people actually use their second options that it nothing ends up changing at all. This is why I think multi-member districts or MMP are better solutions.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the point is, they’re still ahead of the USA in terms of the fact that they will still have an awareness and understanding of third parties, whereas >90% of Americans are just programmed to believe there are only 2 options.

            Are you forgetting Ross Perot almost won? There is constant talk of Trump starting a third party, libertarian and green parties get a fair amount of attention, and not to mention the fact that the two major parties actually consist of many smaller factions in a coalition. There’s a reason primaries happen, and often congressmen vote against the majority of their party and votes are split on other lines than party lines. Most people are smarter than is popular to say on the internet, they just understand voting the lesser of two evil is their best option right now from a certain perspective. I prefer to vote third party to increase the viability of third parties in later elections.

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I contest your usage of Canada as an example. While it’s certainly not as polarized as the US, the effects of FPTP are still prominent. There’s a ton of vote splitting at the federal and provincial levels. Eg, conservatives rule Ontario despite the majority of people voting for one of the two left-er leaning parties, since the two parties basically split the left vote down the middle, while conservatives only have one party.

        I do completely agree that propositional voting is waaaaay better than ranked choice, though. Personally, I will take almost anything over FPTP, but some form of PR is vastly superior, as you noted.

        But at least with ranked choice, people can start to vote for another party without it feeling like a penalty. As a Canadian, I basically have to vote strategic. I don’t get to vote for my favourite party because of FPTP. Ranked choice would at least remove that issue.

        I think the two party system of the US is basically where FPTP systems are all at risk to end up, especially since voting strategically gradually results in that. But the US GOP is so crazy that it’s almost a necessity for any progressive to vote strategically, whereas at least in Canada, things aren’t quite as bad, which makes it easier for people to take the risk of voting for who they really want to.

      • Pipoca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Look at third parties and their success in the UK and Canada.

        The last general election in the UK was 2019. Conservatives got 43.6% of the vote but 56.2% of the seats. Labor got 32.1% of the votes and 31.1% of the seats.

        The biggest national third party, the Liberal Democrats, got 11.6% of the vote but a mere 1.7% of the seats.

        In comparison, look at regional third parties. The Scottish National Party got 3.9% of the vote and a whopping 7.4% of the seats. Irish regional parties like Sinn Feinn and the Democratic Unionist Party got a combined 2.3% of the seats with a combined 1.4% of the seats.

        Previous elections have been quite similar. In 2015, the far right UKIP won only a single seat after getting a whopping 12.6% of the vote.

        Canada is quite similar. The Bloc Quebecois consistently gets more votes than the national New Democratic Party, despite having gotten less than half as many votes.

        • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Understood, all of these countries have terrible electoral systems, that was not my point. My point is that Americans only have a culture of voting for one of two parties, so switching to ranked choice voting will likely change nothing at all, because Americans already practically never even consider alternate options. Hell, I doubt even 10% of them could even name a third party, so why would they consider voting for them all of a sudden just because of the switch to RCV? They’re constantly blasted with the same message that you have one of two options, so chances are that they’ll just pick one and ignore the rest, just like they do now.

          • Pipoca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Parties work a bit differently in the US vs e.g. Israel.

            In Israel, party insiders choose their politicians. If you want different candidates than an existing party is offering, you have to make your own new party with your own new list.

            By contrast, in the US, parties run primary elections where voters pick the candidates. The specifics depend on the state, but in most states the election is held for registered members of that party.

            Americans aren’t idiots. Most know third party candidates don’t do well in plurality elections. So smart progressives, alt-right etc. politicians don’t run as a third party candidate against mainstream Democrats and Republicans. Instead, they primary an incumbent Democrat or Republican, like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, or join the primary when the incumbent retired like Marjorie Taylor Greene.

            Somewhere like Israel, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Joe Manchin would be in two very different parties. In the US, they’re in the same party.

            In places where RCV is passed, you absolutely see more candidates running and getting decent percentages of the vote. Because that isn’t a terrible strategy any more. Someone like AOC might have run as a Progressive or something rather than primarying the Democrat.

    • Kerred@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For anyone living in Utah, a bill to enable Ranked Choice voting will be in November 2023.

      So anyone there please register to vote sooner rather than later.

      Currently people are being told it’s too confusing and too liberal, so they really could be more young people votes to help the cause.

      • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        RCV is a rebrand of the voting method IRV, which was used by many cities in the early 20th century. Due to inconsistent results, it was repealed. So, unfortunately, conservatives have a leg to stand on when they attack RCV.

        For clarity: their specific attacks take things to the extreme and often have some racist underpinnings, but there is a kernel of truth to attacking specifically on the method itself.

        That is why I support something like STAR voting, it doesn’t suffer from many of RCV’s issues

        I wish your ballot measure luck however, because at the end of the day it still is, mildly better than FPTP

        • Kerred@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wish for something like STAR as well, but much like voting now it’s all about the lesser of two evils between current voting and anything besides the current voting method haha

          • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well the thing about that is, RCV has been repealed in 6 states and counting for producing poor results. And it’s also given right wing groups like the heritage foundation a foothold to attack it. I’m actually seeing negative RCV sentiment on the ground when I talk to people about STAR so their message is spreading. When I explain STAR and how it fixes several of RCVs issues they come around to it, so it may in fact be better to push that instead of tag along with RCV if it’s going to end up being a waste of political capital

              • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t see it being on the radar of the major parties at the moment. RCV is in the spotlight so far. But that can change very soon because in Eugene, Oregon this week they are finishing up getting STAR on the ballot for their elections, then they’re also pushing for it to appear on the state ballot in May. The effort is led by non-partisan groups like the equal vote coalition.

                So far my conversations with both sides of the aisle have been fruitful, and I hope that is how it continues

    • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I prefer score ballots over ranked ballots, expressing magnitude of preference is important!

      Ranked choice specifically is one of the worst ranked ballot options out there and I hope we can push for something else

        • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, it’s not.

          Given ballot options of Socialists, Democrats, and Republicans, I’d rank them 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, when expressing my feelings about the election: I love the Socialists, dislike the Republicans, and prefer the Democrats slightly over the Republicans.

          This nuanced opinion isn’t captured on a ranked ballot.

          With a score ballot, like STAR voting, I’d give the Socialists 5 stars, the Democrats 1 star, and the Republicans 0 stars. This method not only captures my preferences but also the depth of my feelings for each party. This is then reflected in both the final score and the automatic runoff step of tabulation.

          • arensb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Reminds me of the Blackadder episode where Baldrick won by 16,000 votes, even though there was only one voter:

            H: One voter, 16,472 votes — a slight anomaly…?

            E: Not really, Mr. Hanna. You see, Baldrick may look like a monkey who’s been put in a suit and then strategically shaved, but he is a brillant politician. The number of votes I cast is simply a reflection of how firmly I believe in his policies.

      • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        RCV will do nothing to break the duopoly in America. RCV will basically allow you to vote for the Democrats or Republicans without bubbling their name on your ballot.

        Contrary to what is stated, RCV falls apart as soon as more than 2 parties become viable. It suffers from the spoiler effect.

        RCV, like plurality voting, only reflects your preference for one candidate at a time. In fact, it’s relatively accurate to say that RCV is just plurality with (literally) extra steps (rounds).

        One of the better ballot changes we can make is to move to something like STAR voting, which can capture the nuance of magnitude of preference for ALL candidates at once.

        However, changing voting method alone is not enough. Proportional representation and expanding the number of elected officials are two powerful ways to introduce new ideas and break up power structures.

        And, of course, campaign finance reform such as democracy vouchers

        • Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think I get it.

          As I imagine it it would be: Republicans HATE Democrats. Democrats HATE Republicans. If all Democrats rank the R candidate dead last and Republicans do the same for the D one, their votes pretty much nullify each other, and whatever third party that got less First-choice votes but also way less Last-choice votes has a better chance at winning. Isn’t that how it should work?

          • arensb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mostly. Yes, RCV tends to elect compromise candidates, ones who may not be anyone’s first choice, but that most people can live with. I think Joe Biden is a good example of this. Everyone was rah-rah for some else during the primaries: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee… but Joe Biden has broad tepid appeal.

    • nxfsi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ranked choice still doesn’t solve the winner-takes-all situation that is the presidential election. Instead it should be appointed by a group of competent people, who in turn are voted in by something like ranked choice or whatever.

      • TunaLobster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        The original intent from the Constitution was that the winner was president and the second place was vice president. Since the vice president also is the tie breaking vote in the Senate, that doesn’t sit very well with the president. So they changed it to the running mate system.

        The group your talking about would essentially be the cabinet? Right? They get approved by Congress. So indirect approval by the people.

        • nxfsi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The cabinet doesn’t appoint the president, so no. More like Congress members members get voted in by ranked choice, and they vote on someone to represent the country in international affairs.

  • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    BREAKING: group of people whose only chance of getting elected is relying on the Electoral College not thrilled about the idea of abandoning the Electoral College

  • Changetheview@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Part of this piece has an excellent insight into the dichotomy of the Republican Party. Of those highly engaged with politics, only 27% want to ditch the electoral college! These people understand the party is unpopular and the tactics used to hold power are a necessary way to get their policies.

    The rest of the group feels otherwise, probably NOT because they don’t care if their candidate gets elected, but rather that they don’t understand how crucial it is to their party (along with gerrymandering). And their first gut instinct is that popular vote is justified/rational/logical whatever.

    Now for a little thought experiment: What would happen if this became an actual campaign issue? I’d put my money on those 27% being able to convince the rest of the party how important it is, flipping their view. Maybe I’m wrong, but since many R voters tent to put self interests above all else, it logically follows that they’re just not understanding how critical the electoral college is. If their talking heads went on air/TV each day and stopped talking about how immigrants are stealing jobs or poor people are taking their hard earned money, and instead focused on the importance of the electoral college, they’d flip. Not because they think it’s right or justified. Because they think it’s best for themselves and their party. And it’s the current rallying cry.

    Now apply this across an entire party, with those highly engaged telling the others how to vote, what to think about policy, and what the outcomes will be. Bring together uneducated people already susceptible to misinformation, and pair them with intelligent and extremely vocal/active groups who can sell snake oil like the best of them. Take that minority vote and put some real numbers behind it… likely not enough to get a majority, but enough to win a sophisticated electoral college or gerrymandered district.

    • PupBiru@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      they probably wouldn’t even try and hide it: they’d literally just come out and say the electoral college helps keep the democrats out and they’d vote for it

      • Changetheview@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good point. It’ll likely take three words to get a lot of those people to flip: own the libs.

        Sometimes I forget how little value some people place in consistency of beliefs. Small government! Except ____. Ad nauseam.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They already have these talking points. They used them when Hillary won the popular vote.

        Tyranny of the majority, nobody would have to listen to rural Americans ever again.

        It’s all bullshit obviously. But it cut through to moderates last time it made the rounds. And these are swayable voters I’m talking about.

    • Syrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The rest of the group feels otherwise, probably NOT because they don’t care if their candidate gets elected, but rather that they don’t understand how crucial it is to their party (along with gerrymandering). And their first gut instinct is that popular vote is justified/rational/logical whatever.

      The (European) centrist part in me think the “less engaged” Republicans are those who like the central right-wing ideas (small government, less taxes etc.), but don’t like how crazy the current Republican party is, and since they have no real representative they identify themselves as “less engaged”. Those people would probably prefer for the electoral college to be abolished so that the current Republican party never gets elected again and they’re forced to shift to candidates that are actually sane in order to win back votes.

      …but yeah, your analysis might be correct too, those “less engaged” people could also be MAGAs that just don’t understand how they wouldn’t win an actually democratic election.

      • Changetheview@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sure you’re right about some people. They’re feeling abandoned and disgusted by what’s supposed to have their support and ideologies in mind, therefore not as active. That makes sense.

        I know there are a lot of good/reasonable people who just want the government to play a smaller role in society and I think that’s a necessary part of any well-functioning system. And I agree with the sentiment in specific applications. Hopefully there is a way forward for those types to force a change for the better from the current GOP. Because it’s gone off the rails.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, I think the rabble would quickly fall in line against changing the electoral college. We saw them growing more accepting of LGBT people for a few years only to whiplash back to homicidal hatred once their high priesthood started ranting against the gays again. These poll results are kind of like an interesting Freudian slip though: like you said, when they’re not paying attention a majority of Repubs can organically move to the reasonable opinion before the elites can apply their brainwashing again.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Republicans would never win a nationwide election again. They’d actually have to come up with policies people want. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

    • markon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve had family that votes Republican say this, they will literally defend the minority vote winning. They see democracy as “mob rule.” Well, if a bunch of rich assholes getting to decide who’s president, and a system where the people with the least votes win, how is that not mob rule?

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have lots of minority protections in place to avoid mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College is the tyranny of the minority.

      • arensb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        And yet, none of them will support using an Electoral College to elect the governor of their state. I guess mob rule is fine when it comes to governors, senators, mayors, and sheriffs, but not presidents.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          “As long as the party I identify with is in charge then it’s fine.”

          It’s really not surprising when they support going full dictator.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The cons really showed their hand more recently when arguing over things like suppressing the vote, and mail-in voting and telling everyone that “voting is not really a right enshrined in the Constitution”.

        Well, tell us how you really feel.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait, are you implying that only crafting policy around what the elitist of the elite want and waging stupid performative culture wars for the clueless gop base is unpopular with most Americans?

  • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the president was chosen by popular vote, I think you could make a reasonable case that the last Republican president would have been George H.W. Bush in 1988. George W. Bush did win the popular vote against John Kerry in 2004, but he lost it to Al Gore in 2000 so it’s debatable whether or not he would have beaten an incumbent Gore in 2004 I think.

    • nxfsi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I could also make a reasonable case that election strategies would have changed to more populist stances to accommodate for that.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah, the ‘vote!’ stuff is hard to stomach living where i do, which went red on TV literally the minute polls closed

    • arensb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And so, neither party is going to bother trying to court your vote: one can take you for granted, and the other will write you off. So I hope you have the same concerns as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona, because that’s what you’re getting.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are already advantaged in both the house and the senate. Why do they need advantages in literally all elections to feel they are treated fairly?

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not quite, the number of house reps is not strictly proportional to the population of each state. California has 704,566 people per house seat, while e.g. Wyoming has 568,300 per house seat. This means a Californian house vote is worth roughly 80% of a Wyoming house vote.

      • licherally@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, because Kansas’s vote should hold the same weight as New York or California even though there’s less people that live in Kansas?

        • arensb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, but a Kansan’s vote should have the same weight as a New Yorker’s or Californian’s, or even a Pennsylvanian or Michigander. Not all Kansans vote the same way, and it would be nice to have a system that recognizes this.

        • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So its bad if peoples votes in densly populated places don’t matter, but it doesn’t matter if people voting in sparely populated areas don’t matter?

            • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The money and politicians will focus on the large urban areas, because that will maximize time and money invested.

              People in rural areas will not have the capacity to affect things at all.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They get to vote, don’t they? They just don’t get to have their vote given extra privileges just because they live in a sparsely populated area, that’s all.

  • Shadywack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Two things I’d love to see. Eliminating the electoral college and then getting rid of superdelegates. Two fundamentally anti-democratic concepts.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well superdelegates aren’t exactly something the government can legislate away because they’re just an internal thing of the DNC.

    • kirklennon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Under the 2018 rules, in the Democratic National Convention superdelegates can’t participate in the first vote and can participate only in a contested convention. Seems reasonable to me.

      Wikipedia also reminded me about this little bit of Bernie hypocrisy that I’d forgotten about: “Sanders initially said that the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates should be the nominee; in May 2016, after falling behind in the elected delegate count, he shifted, pushed for a contested convention and arguing that, ‘The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party.’” Talk about unprincipled political opportunist.

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who’s this dude like casually smoking a cigarette in what appears to be some kind of war zone.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can disagree with something Bernie said, but still be a huge supporter of his for his many other things I fully agree with. I maintain that superdelegates being in place to deal with a contested convention is still a bad thing and undemocratic. The real unhelpful part was when the DNC chair stated that it can also quell unintended grassroots efforts. I thought grassroots efforts were an example of a good thing about democracy, not a bad one.

        • kirklennon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Bernie Sanders is emphatically not a Democrat and doesn’t want to do any of the work of building or supporting the party, but when he decides to run for president, he suddenly wants the party’s money and infrastructure, only to abandon the party ASAP after the election. He may be fine as a senator, but as a presidential candidate, he’s just so utterly loathsome. He’s got major entitled old white man syndrome and it makes me lose absolutely all respect for him.

          If you’re on to a contested convention, you can’t directly reflect the will of the primary voters in the first place (because they didn’t pick a winner) so I can’t really find any reason to object to superdelegates, most of whom are elected Democrats and already literally representing their constituents in Congress, etc.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Won’t be good for Democrats either. System is rigged for two parties and two parties only.

      • eronth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This would not really change the two party system. All it would mean is that you genuinely need a majority of votes and not the majority of a weird convoluted combo of states.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It would destroy the party system. Suddenly there’s a progressive democrat party and the freedumb caucus becomes it’s own thing.

          I’m game for that.

          • Kethal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            First-past-the-post voting systems result in two conflicting parties. This would entrench the two party system. The current system is not good, but popular vote is only slightly better.

      • piecat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference is in what the voters want.

        Both parties wouldn’t be for it, but liberal voters would be for it. Conservative voters would be against it.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The whole thing is absurd and overly represents rural areas and Republicans. We already have a huge problem with the “2 senators per state” thing and the House representing Republicans far too much in relation to their numbers.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m 100% okay with the 2 senators per state thing. That’s a feature, not a bug. Even though cities are on the right side of history right now, I don’t want to completely silence the rural vote forever.

      However, arbitrarily limiting the number of House reps is absolutely absurd and counter to the purpose of the House. That is a bug.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, then, maybe we should start considering splitting up some states and joining others together then. A place like California is more future-minded and it’s where a great deal of the people are, as well as much of our economy. Also, it’s where a lot of our food is grown. And it gets 2 Senators.

        The 2 Dakotas have more than that, and what do they really represent for the future of America and the world? More fracking?

        Maybe states with really large masses and hardly anyone in them are combined. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming - one state. North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, another.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again, you’re intentionally defeating the purpose of the Senate. The entire point is to give rural, less populous areas more of a voice.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It feels like a compromise from a period of time that is no longer relevant to these times when we are trying to push this country into the future. I don’t want rural regions to have more of a voice, FFS. Look at what it is doing to this country. Having fewer people have an equal say with the majority of the people is also not great, the majority should win out. Why the fuck should tracts of land be voting?

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              We should never completely silence the voice of a group of people for all time, even if right now they’re pushing some heinous shit.

              Part of the reason for the phenomenon of Trump was the failure of politicians to care about the legitimate problems that rural voters have.

              In any case, if the House and Electoral College functioned like they should, the majority would win a lot more often. Don’t focus on the Senate, focus on the two institutions that weren’t designed to give rural people an outsized choice but have been manipulated to do so.

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                completely silence the voice of a group of people for all time

                I don’t think anything proposed here by anyone would do that? What is being proposed is to stop prioritizing the votes of people occupying vast tracts of land over the majority. To have a vote cast by someone in the hinterlands equal someone’s vote in more populous parts of the country is putting them on par with everyone else. I’m not so sure what is so magical about someone living in a remote area that their interests should not align with everyone else’s.

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s nothing magical. They will inherently have different priorities, and they deserve a voice in the political process.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              How is it no longer relevant? Do you know where your food comes from?

              You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legislative branch of the US government is structured, and why.

              Your concerns are valid, but you’re not aiming them at the correct House.

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not understanding the food part here.

                I understand the history of compromising with states that had less (free) people because of slave states; I’m saying it’s no longer relevant in modern society. It turns out rural areas are usually better represented by Democratic policies in any case. Ironically.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’d be an easier sell if the rural areas less consistently used their voice to shit up the world.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              True, but it’s not always guaranteed to be that way. We should never give one group absolute power.

              • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                To be honest bud, your point of view is very frustrating in the times we live, but it is an extremely sound argument and I begrudgingly can get behind it.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Republicans are the main reason we still have it … they know they’d never win if they had to play fair.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      But but but why should cities get to determine everything? Don’t you know that not only does land vote, everyone in a patch of land votes the same? So, why bother giving everyone in a city a vote, you know?

      Also, be sure to let the vice president cancel the whole thing if they don’t like the results.

      (Please tell me my sarcasm is obvious.)

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should just abolish the Senate. With the current formulation of the US government there’s no reason why a State should have extra power like that. Let the people make the rules. Expand the House, abolish the Senate, and remove the electoral college. And since we’re wishing for things that will never happen anyway, go ahead and use some kind of proportional vote (ranked choice, star, whatever, just literally anything but FPTP).

  • DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The electoral college was created at a time when faster-than-horse communication didn’t exist. It made sense then, but has not grown with the times.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The year is 1780. The printing press is the pinnacle of technology, there’s no such thing as an adding machine. Most correspondence is done on parchment with a quill pen. The majority of Americans cannot read or write. Information cannot travel beyond earshot faster than a galloping horse. Elect a president by popular vote. You have four months.

    • arensb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not even it. At the time the Constitution was adopted, there were states like Virginia that had a lot of people, but rather few voters. They were afraid that they wouldn’t have a real say in who the president was. The Electoral College was a way to inflate slave states’ power, and entice them to join the Union.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately the elected representatives don’t care what the majority of citizens want.

          • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are not shitty at voting, we are shitty to keep supporting the right wing duopoly. Not voting is a choice, and voting 3rd party is a choice. If the 76% of democrats that do not want Biden to run voted 3rd party they would win. People choosing to vote their fears instead of their conscience is whats holding us back

            • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              People choosing to vote their fears instead of their conscience is whats holding us back

              Otherwise described as: being shitty at voting.

  • msmeseeks2004@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I propose the National Popular Vote Interstate compact. Cgp grey has an amazing video on it. It’s a “petition” of sorts that basically says that states that sign it will have its elective representatives vote with the majority vote of their said state.

    Here’s the video if anyone wants to watch it: https://youtu.be/tUX-frlNBJY