One Presidential election popular vote won by Republicans in the last 36 years. 1992 D 44,909,806 R 39,104,550 1996 D 47,401,185 R 39,197,469 2000 D 50,999,897 R 50,456,002 2004 R 62,040,610 D 59,028,444 2008 D 69,498,516 R 59,948,323 2012 D 65,915,795 R 60,933,504 2016 D 65,844,610 R 62,984,828 2020 D 81,268,924 R 74,216,154 2024 D ????????? R ????????? Even with those vote totals the Supreme Court has a large conservative majority. Most sources you look at state Republicans gerrymander much more than Democrats: Gerrymandering is the drawing of legislative district lines in such a way that a political party elects more legislators than it would ordinarily be entitled to. Gerrymandering creates large numbers of “safe seats” for the dominant party in a legislature that cannot be lost, no matter how the voters are voting. But there is a distinct partisan bias to the gerrymandering of legislatures in the United States. Roughly twice as many legislatures are gerrymandered to favor the Republicans as are gerrymandered by Democrats. Those are the results of a 48-state study conducted by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Louis Jacobson was the lead commentator on the study. Social issues wise: An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say mar1juana should be legal for medical or recreational use. Republicans block this at every opportunity. 69% of Americans say they should be valid. Currently, 83% of Democrats, 74% of independents say gay marriage should remain legal. While Republicans try to reverse it. Again will of the people with abortion: Gun control: It found that 64% of Americans support stricter gun laws, while 29% oppose them. Again Republicans block these measures at every turn. Does anyone have any more examples that fit this? Or, thoughts in general?
This kind of weird imbalance is only going to get worse as our metro areas continue to soak up all the people and jobs. There will come a breaking point where the people won't feel represented by their government anymore, and **** will get real bad real fast.
if it were up to me we would only count New York and California votes. Think how much we could save on election costs and election campaign costs by ignoring the other 48 states. get 'er done Kamala
Why not just count people as individuals for a federal election? One vote having the same weight regardless of location? We got the Senate for disproportionate representation based on states.
I don't know why that means we need the electoral college. And hey, now if you live in Massachusetts as a Republican, your general election vote finally matters! That a great thing. Voter turnout would probably increase which would be good for the non fascist segment of America.
and I don't know why "We got the Senate for disproportionate representation based on states" was relevant either
Okay let's go back a bit. What do you believe is the purpose of the electoral college rather than just a regular cumulative national vote?
I always thought a nice middle ground would be 50% of the electoral votes go to overall winner. The remaining 50% is in proportion to the actual vote. Also, yes the turnout would increase.
There is no more need of the electoral college I hope we remove it soon. States with small populations already have equal rep in the Senate. The Electoral college was biased in the first place, and should be abolished. DD
That would be a good start, I have a feeling the gop would never go for it simply for the fact that they suck at the popular vote. But I like your idea
How about just make the electoral votes from each state proportional to the popular vote within that state, like what Maine and Nebraska does? I'm sure swing states won't like that, but that seems most fair to me.
