What if the person the majority of Americans voted for actually became President?

[msc545]

[Anonymous]

Long term, it wouldn't make any difference. There are periods where one group would benefit from one system (Electoral College or Popular Vote) or the other, but then there are other periods where the opposite holds true. Over the long run, if you just picked one system and stuck with it, it wouldn't make any difference.

The people who whine and bitch about this only do so because in the most recent period it disadvantaged them. But rest assured, they'll be the first to declare how vital the institution is the second it swings back to benefiting them.

That's why it's best to avoid the noise of the howling morons.

[exitseven]

The problem is that the country is really split into two groups. Urban and rural. In the state I live in for example the vast majority of towns voted for President Trump but the 5 major cities voted for Biden so the state is under Democrat rule. The whole country is like that , States that are big welfare places would vote for democrats and the states where mist people have jobs and work for a living would vote Republican.

[msc545]

@exitseven If Republicans didn't steal from and treat non-whites like shit this wouldn't happen.

[exitseven]

@msc545 If democrats did not create a welfare system that rewarded people for having more illegitimate kids we would not have such a big welfare class. Now that we are sort of digging ourselves out of that mess the democrats are replacing them with a brand new welfare class by opening the border and offering thousands of dollars in welfare benefits.

[msc545]

@exitseven Nobody but republicans is willing to let children starve to death. Have you no decency?

[exitseven]

They are eating better tan a lot of Americans including elderly and veterans. They should have priority over a future welfare dependent Democrat voting block. In Bidens America the citizens are second class

[msc545]

@exitseven Bullshit. More opinions with support.

[exitseven]

Where I live illegal aliens are getting 3 catered meals a day. The state has a contract for 64 dollars a day for each illegal alien.. Veterans are panhandling for spare change.

[msc545]

@exitseven Evidence?

[Opinion Owner]

Guys--what the hell does any of this have to do with the original question or my response?

[exitseven]

@msc545 Here is is
www.foxbusiness.com/.../vendors-charging-massachusetts-taxpayers-64-day-feed-each-illegal-immigrant-report

[WindAtMyBack]

If they did it that way, the campaigns would be run VERY differently.

People often talk about who won the popular vote. But there is no such thing and never has been. If they had run a national popular vote in past elections, the outcome is completely unpredictable.

I think if they changed it to actually run a national popular vote, chaos would erupt because most of the country would be completely neglected. Only a handful of big cities would matter, and nobody would care about the rest. That is NOT a representative government.

[whirled_up_girl]

I think it would be better than having just a handful of battleground states deciding the election.

[KrakenAttackin]

Pure Democracy is three wolves and two sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

[RoronoaZoro8]

An electoral college is like 6 wolves, split into two groups and 2 sheep deciding what to eat for dinner

[KrakenAttackin]

@RoronoaZoro8 No, the electoral college precents power from becoming centralized.

[RoronoaZoro8]

It doesn't really though cause all the power ends up going to swing states

[KrakenAttackin]

@RoronoaZoro8 Swing states can be fought over, which means power can change over time. Pure Democracy would give overwhelming power to population centers. Middle America would be ruled by idiots.

[RoronoaZoro8]

Population centres can also be fought over.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Well, other Third party candidates are hurting Biden why didn't Bernie Sanders run?

[DJB72]

You'd all be screwed. Suddenly the independent candidates would have a chance instead of the party fucktards and you'd be Italy on a bigger scale.

Proportional representation is the most unstable form of democratic election. Your Founding Fathers put the electoral college in place to provide some stability - although I doubt they'd consider the last decade "stable"

[slatyb]

It would be a very long time before we had another Republican President.

[ProbablyClueless]

Well... then the coastal centers would dominate the elections.

[Twalli]

It usually happens.
Gore won the popular in 2000
Hillary won the popular in 2016
Those are the only times in recent history where the electoral vote was opposite of the popular. I think it has happened about 5 times.

[SolitarySolace]

Thank the lord our God above that Hillary didn't become president

[NathanDavis]

it would be a different kind of stupid, and problematic...

[DrPepper12]

What if indeed. Gore would have won in 2000 and the alternate history timeline would have been SO MUCH BETTER!

[KrakenAttackin]

@DrPepper12. Gore was an insufferable asshole. I knew a few pilots who flew the VC-25 ( Air Force One ), three of these Colonels said Gore was such an asshole that they would retire if he was elected.

[JayBones2469]

We would be on deep trouble. Way more than half the voting public is either stupid, I'll informed or maliciously brainwashed

[handsomelad70]

It's happened in all but three Presidential Elections.

[MrShaun]

It would mean we wouldn't have the Electoral College which, as things stand, would favor the liberals.

[RealMarek]

There would be no point to states anymore.

[OtterMan68]

Trump dislike the electoral college before 2016

[RealMarek]

@OtterMan68 And Hillary loved it. She and the media had articles ready to emphasize how important the electoral college is just in case Trump won a majority but lost the electoral vote, which more people anticipated than the other way around on the eve of that election.

[OtterMan68]

so states would lose their rights to decide transportation, education, police policy, etc?

[RealMarek]

@OtterMan68 They have already lost many of their rights to the USG over the years, especially after the direct election of senators began. If a handful of large urban areas that determine the vote in the largest states decide every presidential election, the states would lose sway over the one branch of government that currently has to worry about what a large number of states think.

[OtterMan68]

who do you think decides US senate & governor's races?
I'd say every state should do like NE and ME: if a candidate carries a congressional district, he or she gets one EC vote, and he or she gets 2 for carrying the state. No more winner takes all, but we'd also have to do away with gerrymandering. I mean have you seen OH rep Jim Jordan's district map?

[RealMarek]

@OtterMan68 The electorate votes for senators directly. They used to be chosen by the state legislatures. The founders wrote that into the Constitution for a reason. If it had been maintained the USG would never pressure states to pass this law or that by threatening to withhold highway or other funding. Any senators that allowed that would be removed and replaced by their state assembly when their terms were up.

[DarkLegacy]

Surely that is what usually happens

[SolitarySolace]

You watching the Timcast Podcast?

[Anonymous]

Sounds like a good idea.

[OtterMan68]

Like Biden?