The electoral college is core to the structure of America and has been since it was founded. Without it, our president would be chosen by California and New York, and no other states would have any voice.
Leftist are ok with that. Ideology is more important than structure. Liberalism in current America is advanced zealous religious behavior that mirrors religious regimes in Iran and Afganistan. When unchecked, unintelligent progressivism can lead to dead end growth and advancement (like what is happening in SF), allowing vastly more intelligent and healthy constructs and growth, such as that in Austin. The current liberal construct, again like those found in Iran and Afganistan, are morally bankrupt groups desperately holding onto power by brainwashed hoards who struggle to think for themselves.
Actually, every single voter would have a voice of we did away with it. Personally I want Republicans in NY and California have their votes matter.
You’re right - they didn’t. But they were smart enough to realize that heavily populated cities would have more individual votes than rural areas in the country. And they brilliantly built a system that allowed rural areas to have a voice in presidential selection.
And they knew the people were so stupid, that they actually set up a system to ensure the political elite cast the official votes for President. They also didn't let women vote Or black people vote They are the same people that decided to count slaves as 3/5 of a person so they could have more voting power in those same rural areas. Is that really the side you want to be on?
That’s called the “popular vote”. The reason we don’t use the popular vote to select a president is because the population of California and New York is greater than the combined population of states like Idaho, Kansas, and Wyoming.. I don’t think those states should be voiceless. Do you?
Without the Electoral College, the idea that California and New York would decide elections is simply false. In a popular vote system, states wouldn’t matter—it’s about every individual’s vote carrying equal weight. Candidates would need to appeal to voters nationwide, not just focus on swing states. The real shift is that no state would have outsized influence—everyone’s vote would count equally, as it should in a modern democracy. The Electoral College is outdated and unnecessary in an era where technology allows candidates to reach every voter instantly. The strongest argument for keeping the Electoral College is the fear of populism—a valid concern. But ironically, this argument empowers a select group of elites over the general population. Those who oppose elitism should have a hard time with that reasoning. The strange twist is that Democrats, fearing Trump's usage of populism, should want the Electoral College, while Trump Republicans, who hate elitist (except for Trump and Musk), should want to abandon it. But since recent popular votes have favored Democrats, the opposite happens. A wild scenario would be Trump winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College. That NYT poll, even if an outlier, showed just that—Trump ahead in the popular vote but losing in key swing states like Pennsylvania.
They wouldn't be. They'd have the same vote that I do. The same vote that you do. We'd all have the same vote. Instead battleground states matter, and the rest of the states don't. I think every American, regardless of where they live should have a voice. As a GA voter, my vote is more valuable. That is not fair. That isn't how it should be. And the funny thing is, California used to be a Republican stronghold. And lets not forget every state has equal footing in the Senate regardless of population or geographical size.
Yes the founders were very concerned with populism and demagoguery. They said so specifically in the Federalist Papers and during the Constitutional conventions. Washington and others were very concerned about the rise of parties and that partisan differences would overwhelm unity and principle. That is a lot of what we see today. As such the electoral college, two tier legislature and other checks and balances that the Foudners put in have worked against what the Founders envisioned. Partisan loyalty has become much more important. Washington specifically warned against this in his farewell speech.
In the meantime you ignore or downplay how the current right is basically a cult now. Where even many Republicans say is led by a man who doesn’t understand or respect the Consitution.
Tom Nichols wrote an article—not exactly about this, but about the danger. He gifted it at the link below, and it's a really good read. Donald Trump Is the Tyrant George Washington Feared - The Atlantic Donald Trump and his authoritarian political movement represent an existential threat to every ideal that Washington cherished and encouraged in his new nation. They are the incarnation of Washington’s misgivings about populism, partisanship, and the “spirit of revenge” that Washington lamented as the animating force of party politics. Washington feared that, amid constant political warfare, some citizens would come to “seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual,” and that eventually a demagogue would exploit that sentiment. Today, America stands at such a moment. A vengeful and emotionally unstable former president—a convicted felon, an insurrectionist, an admirer of foreign dictators, a racist and a misogynist—desires to return to office as an autocrat. Trump has left no doubt about his intentions; he practically shouts them every chance he gets. His deepest motives are to salve his ego, punish his enemies, and place himself above the law. Should he regain the Oval Office, he may well bring with him the experience and the means to complete the authoritarian project that he began in his first term. For decades, I taught Washington’s military campaigns and the lessons of his leadership to military officers when I was a professor at the U.S. Naval War College. And yet I, too, have always felt a distance from the man himself. In recent months, I revisited his life. I read his letters, consulted his biographers, and walked the halls at Mount Vernon. I found a man with weaknesses and shortcomings, but also a leader who possessed qualities that we once expected—and should again demand—from our presidents, especially as the United States confronts the choice between democracy and demagoguery. The votes cast in November will be more consequential than those in any other American election in more than a century. As we judge the candidates, we should give thought to Washington’s example, and to three of Washington’s most important qualities and the traditions they represent: his refusal to use great power for his own ends, his extraordinary self-command, and, most of all, his understanding that national leaders in a democracy are only temporary stewards of a cause far greater than themselves. Popular military leaders can become a menace to a democratic government if they have the loyalty of their soldiers, the love of the citizenry, and a government too weak to defend itself. Even before his victory in the Revolutionary War, Washington had all of these, and yet he chose to be a citizen rather than a Caesar. It is difficult, in our modern era of ironic detachment and distrust, to grasp the intensity of the reverence that surrounded the General (as he would be called for the rest of his life) wherever he went. “Had he lived in the days of idolatry,” a Pennsylvania newspaper stated breathlessly during the war, Washington would have “been worshiped as a god.” He was more than a war hero. In 1780, when Washington passed through a town near Hartford, Connecticut, a French officer traveling with him recorded the scene: We arrived there at night; the whole of the population had assembled from the suburbs, we were surrounded by a crowd of children carrying torches, reiterating the acclamations of the citizens; all were eager to approach the person of him whom they called their father, and pressed so closely around us that they hindered us from proceeding. Washington was addressed—by Americans and visiting foreigners alike—as “Your Excellency” almost as often as he was by his rank. In Europe, a French admiral told him, he was celebrated as the “deliverer of America.” Alexander Hamilton, his aide-de-camp during the war, later described Washington as a man “to whom the world is offering incense.” ...
In many ways we lucked out having the founders we did. As noted Washington could’ve made himself a military dictator and there were many who wanted him to be king. The US also could’ve gone the way the French Revolution had and become a sectarian blood bath with a populist dictator stepping in. The Founders were flawed people but they understood that principles were more important than individual power and that to survive as a nation where there were major divides power had to be distributed and compromises made.
Then why has it changed multiple times throughout the years? Why did it change from what the founders envisioned?
