this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1042 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18933 readers
2795 users here now

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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 39 points 3 days ago (13 children)

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.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago (8 children)

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.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

and replace it with the election being won based primarily on turnout in California

No, it would replace it with a majority FPTP country wide system. Californians are a minority of the country. They do not get sole control, nor would they under a popular vote system.

California was larger than their margin nationally.

But not all of that margin comes from California, and not all of Californians vote blue.

Where you live should have no effect on how much of a voice you have in the federal government. Everybody's vote should be counted, and counted equally, because we're all made equally. The current system completely fails at that.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 hour ago

No, it would replace it with a majority FPTP country wide system. Californians are a minority of the country. They do not get sole control, nor would they under a popular vote system.

Unless this also dramatically changes voting patterns nationwaide it's essentially the same thing. Every time in recent history the electoral college and popular vote have yielded different results, the difference was smaller than the margin in California.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)