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.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months 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
        0
        ·
        9 months 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
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months 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.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

    Introduced in 2006, as of August 2023 it has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions have 205 electoral votes, which is 38% of the Electoral College and 76% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

  • Shadywack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

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

  • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Instead of tilting at the windmill that is removing the EC how about we do something much easier and simpler and simply expand the House of Representatives? Not only would this add votes to the EC and make the Presidential Elections more representative it would also, you know, make the HoR more Representative! For extra fun it would also diminish the returns of gerrymandering since there would be so many more districts.

    All we need is a change to the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929. There is no good reason that the size of the HoR is fixed at 435. None.

    • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      In 1929, each representative represented about 283k Americans. Now each representative represent about 762k Americans. That’s almost a 300% increase. This means each American’s voice is only about 1/3rd as powerful as it was in 1929. To have as much political power as they did in 1929, we’d need about 1200 Representatives.

      • SexyTimeSasquatch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        And yet, having more representatives fundamentally reduces the power of each as well. Your vote is fundamentally worth less as the population increases. Something you’re just gonna have to come to terms with.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m ok with my vote meaning more or less as long as it’s the same vote everyone else gets…that’s not the case with the current system.

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      No. It’s because states that have huge populations would choose the president with basically zero say from most others. Technically a non representative government.