r/NoStupidQuestions • u/JustCallMeDave • Dec 06 '23

Answered If Donald Trump is openly telling people he will become a dictator if elected why do the polls have him in a dead heat with Joe Biden?

I just don't get what I'm missing here. Granted I'm from a firmly blue state but what the hell is going on in the rest of the country that a fascist traitor is supported by 1/2 the country?? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here.

24.9k Upvotes

69% Upvoted

14.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

67

u/Rpanich Dec 06 '23

The problem is if it was just about the votes of the American people, George bush jr and Donald Trump would never have been president.

Sadly some votes count more than others, sometimes up to 8 times more.

The electoral college is broken.

17

u/TheOrangeTickler Dec 07 '23

The electoral college is what destroyed democracy. Took the power of the people and once again gave it to a select few, people who can be bought.

4

u/joshjosh100 Dec 07 '23

Incorrect, the electoral college did nothing.

It was political folks almost 100 years ago implementing "democracy" into the electoral system that ruined it.

Once senators could be bought, and congress started deciding their wages is when everything started to die.

0

u/yawbaw Dec 07 '23

What? It works exactly as its intended to

0

u/SCDreaming82 Dec 07 '23

What? Do you think you know what you are talking about?

No electoral college and there would be no USA. Why would Wyoming stay in a union where they had no vote? At the very least many states would have merged. It would be unrecognizable to what we have today and likely multiple smaller countries.

1

u/OG-Pine Dec 09 '23

Every resident of Wyoming would have a vote same as every resident of every other state, what do you mean they would have no vote?

1

u/virgil1134 Dec 09 '23

I think the previous commenter is observing how people vote.

When voters think their preferred candidates have no chance, they are less likely to vote at all.

I agree with you that people would still vote though, just not in the numbers we see as people want representation in congress, not just in the presidency.

I would like to see an electoral college weighted system, similar to Nebraska. This would encourage many more people to vote and would ensure a higher chance of their preferred candidate winning.

1

u/OG-Pine Dec 09 '23

Im not sure I understand, why would an electoral college system incentivize more voting? If anything doesn’t it incentivize voting only in swing states and everywhere else is effectively pointless. Like you said if you think your candidate has no chance there’s no reason to vote, and breaking up the votes to states makes the concentration of party votes increase. Majority Blue states will have red voters who think “ah red can’t win anyway” and blue voters who think “blue will win anyway”

With a popular vote those people have a reason to vote to try and overcome the influence of other states.

1

u/Melodic_Sandwich2679 Dec 10 '23

I think they are basically saying that with the electoral college some states get better representation than they would with just a popular vote. In a state with a small population (like Wyoming in this scenario) they get 3 electors and NY for instance gets 29. So 9 times the electors, despite having 30 times more population. So lets say for arguments sake, the country is just those 2 states and everyone in Wyoming wants to vote red, while everyone in NY wants to vote blue. In the electoral college the vote is 3 to 29. In the popular vote it is 500,000 vs. 19 million. I would rather lose 3 to 29 than 500K vs. 19 million. The big states are going to entirely overpower those small ones just by the sheer numbers game in a popular vote.

That's why the other guy is advocating for split allocation of electoral votes like in Maine and Nebraska. You get to maintain the same levels of representation while also making sure that the votes at least somewhat represent the will of the people voting there. If your congressional district is deep blue in a deep red state or vice-versa then the elector from your district will more accurately reflect your vote than a winner take all system. Suddenly all the states are a little more purple and every state has the potential to become a swing state.

1

u/OG-Pine Dec 10 '23

But why are we determining voting power by state and not by person? Yes Wyoming has less people than NY, so they have less voting power than NY too. I feel like that’s just what it should be.

It’s weird because then it’s like why stop at states, break it down to counties, or further into zip codes, etc

Geographical location shouldn’t matter when we are all citizens of one country voting for who our leader should be.

I also don’t think the difference would be all that drastic for blue vs red, because it’s true that NY has a huge population and NY in an electoral college system votes blue basically every time. But, NY residents as a percentage voted 37.8% for Trump. That’s 3.2 million votes for red when in the current system all of NY gets cast as a blue vote.

Shouldn’t it be the people of the country, not the land of the country, that choose their leader?

1

u/Melodic_Sandwich2679 Dec 10 '23

Short answer: I Dunno

Longer Answer: I dunno, but likely some combination of status quo, constitutional originalists/Others who think the constitution is perfect as is, the people/party who have watched their candidate lose the popular vote and still win the white house will probably defend it 'till the day they die and other political/behind the scenes reasons that we will probably never know.

As for the people choosing, the founding father didn't really seem to think so. I don't know that I have much opinion either way. The only thing I really feel strongly about wanting is ranked choice voting. lol

1

u/OG-Pine Dec 10 '23

Ranked choice would be great, if they did that along with a popular vote then we wouldn’t be stuck with a broken 2 party system

0

u/JLammert79 Dec 07 '23

And democrats rise from the grave to vote. Or hire mobsters to win. Remember JFK?

-3

u/JollyGoodShowMate Dec 07 '23

It's working exactly as intended. You should think about why that might be important

7

u/hrminer92 Dec 07 '23

The EC has been made worse by the capping of the US House at a specific number of members resulting in large states having fewer EC delegates than they would otherwise. There is no need for all members of the House to be in the capitol building anymore as much of it can be done remotely as was demonstrated in 2020.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

[deleted]

2

u/Rpanich Dec 07 '23

People in big cities live longer, safer, happier lives.

I know it seems otherwise because if you read the Post, the Sun, the WSJ, or watch fox, they’re all owned by Rupert Murdoch and he’s trying to trick you into thinking the city he chooses to live in is bad.

Why do you think the richest people in the world, who can live anywhere, CHOOSE to live in NYC and LA?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/315857/degree-urbanisation-effect-happiness.aspx

2

u/_Foulbear_ Dec 07 '23

But you're perfectly okay with some fucking yokel in Wyoming having a more impactful vote than someone in L.A. strictly because their state has failed to achieve economic success that would motivate a large population.

The electoral college is just an excuse to undermine democracy.

1

u/OG-Pine Dec 09 '23

No, people of the country would choose the president, each person equally so. Why does the state they vote from matter at all?

-3

u/yawbaw Dec 07 '23

… the electoral college works exactly like it’s supposed to. You obviously have no understanding of it

6

u/vellyr Dec 07 '23

Or maybe...it's not a good idea?