Isn't abolishing EC, etc. a Democratic power grab in some voters eyes?

[Suburbia]

If the Electoral College is abolished, the popular vote rules. Doesn't LA and NY get more voice than Kansas City, Dubuque, Little Rock, Omaha, etc. in that?

Will voters just see that it is a potential "Democratic power grab" in their eyes?

Also, what can Republicans do to be the first nominees since the Bushes in 1988 and 2004 to win the popular vote?

[S019]

It is a Democratic power grab, and it is the reason that I do not like Pete Buttigieg

[JG]

I will never get the argument that it gives more power to the people of LA or NYC. Each vote will count for one, whether they live in the desert or in Manhattan. How does that give more power to someone over someone else?

[Suburbia]

I will never get the argument that it gives more power to the people of LA or NYC. Each vote will count for one, whether they live in the desert or in Manhattan. How does that give more power to someone over someone else?

I would like to see the EC abolished so we can get more third party candidates, but this is what some people fear, that LA and NY may get more clout than middle America.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

If it wouldn't give Democrats a huge advantage they obviously wouldn't be pushing for it, so anyone with a functioning brain can see it's a power grab.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I love this argument and how people who use it outright ignore how the current system has quickly become extreme in the opposite we’re predominantly rural white regions are dictating the countries policy to the majority that predominantly live in big cities

[Pyro]

The person with the most votes should win a presidential election.
If that benefits the Democrats, that means they're winning more votes.
If (non-Atlas) Red States have an issue with that, then they have an issue with democracy.

[Xing]

It's grabbing power away from the Republicans, who have gotten away with over-representation for far too long. A true Democratic power grab would be gerrymandering the majority of swing states to favor Democrats (bacon-stripping large cities, for example), making states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas (but no blue states) split their electoral votes, trying to making Montdakoming one large state, and splitting California into five or six different states.

[Inmate Trump]

Sorry for the caps but, HOW IS IT A POWER GRAB???

If you want to win, WIN THE VOTES!  If you want to win, go after the voters.  Win the most votes, you win the election.

You're saying it's a power grab to win the most votes?  How is it some people cannot see the logic in that?

[S019]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

[Bojack Horseman]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

The framers also wanted slavery, an appointed Senate, and for women to be property with no rights and we got rid of all three.

[ProudModerate2]

I will never get the argument that it gives more power to the people of LA or NYC. Each vote will count for one, whether they live in the desert or in Manhattan. How does that give more power to someone over someone else?

The person with the most votes should win a presidential election.
If that benefits the Democrats, that means they're winning more votes.
If (non-Atlas) Red States have an issue with that, then they have an issue with democracy.

[S019]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

The framers also wanted slavery, an appointed Senate, and for women to be property with no rights and we got rid of all three.

Those three things are morally wrong. Allowing all 50 states to decide an election, instead of 4 gigantic states (CA, TX, FL, and NY) is morally correct.

[emailking]

If the Electoral College is abolished, the popular vote rules. Doesn't LA and NY get more voice than Kansas City, Dubuque, Little Rock, Omaha, etc. in that?

Yes but shouldn't a place where a lot more people live have more say on the outcome? I don't see why it's a bad thing. A person living in Kansas City would have the same effect as a person in LA. Right now a person living in Kansas City has more of an effect on the outcome than a person living in LA.

[Rookie Yinzer]

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1108250617909112833

[ProudModerate2]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

The framers also wanted slavery, an appointed Senate, and for women to be property with no rights and we got rid of all three.

Those three things are morally wrong. Allowing all 50 states to decide an election, instead of 4 gigantic states (CA, TX, FL, and NY) is morally correct.

There would be no "gigantic states" that would elect a president, if the EC were abolished.
There would be no borders between states, in a national election decided by popular vote (picture a map of the US with no borders lines separating each state).
There are simply people/voters, or Americans, that "decide an election" (not CA, TX etc).
So your entire premise in your argument that states (any state) "deciding" or "having more influence over another" is wrong.

[SteveRogers]

If the Electoral College is abolished, the popular vote rules. Doesn't LA and NY get more voice than Kansas City, Dubuque, Little Rock, Omaha, etc. in that?

Will voters just see that it is a potential "Democratic power grab" in their eyes?

Also, what can Republicans do to be the first nominees since the Bushes in 1988 and 2004 to win the popular vote?

Bronz, aren’t you the one who is always saying both parties should contest all 50 states? If the electoral college is abolished, then the votes of conservatives in California and liberals in Texas will matter for the first time in decades, and both candidates will have to go to those states to seek out those votes. It wouldn’t give more power to LA, because geographical units wouldn’t elect presidents anymore. Instead it would give power to people. Voters.

Would a shift to a popular vote benefit democrats in 2020? Probably. But that changes rapidly from election to election. In 2012 the conventional wisdom was seen as exactly the opposite. No party has a guaranteed lock on an advantage in the electoral college in the long run. The electoral college shouldn’t be abolished so democrats can gain power. The electoral college should be abolished because it’s an undemocratic anachronism from a bygone era.

Are Democrats currently the loudest opponents of the electoral college? Of course. They’re the ones who have been the most recent victims of it. If Republicans had won the popular vote but lost the EC in 2016, they would be the ones arguing for a change. It would of course be nice if people remembered to be outraged about the EC in between the elections where it turns out to matter.

For what it’s worth, for exactly this reason I would propose that a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college contain an 8-year time delay so that neither party would be perceived as benefitting from the change.

[Joe Republic]

If the Electoral College is abolished, the popular vote rules. Doesn't LA and NY get more voice than Kansas City, Dubuque, Little Rock, Omaha, etc. in that?

lol bronz.  Expert level trolling, as always.

[Suburbia]

If the Electoral College is abolished, the popular vote rules. Doesn't LA and NY get more voice than Kansas City, Dubuque, Little Rock, Omaha, etc. in that?

Will voters just see that it is a potential "Democratic power grab" in their eyes?

Also, what can Republicans do to be the first nominees since the Bushes in 1988 and 2004 to win the popular vote?

Bronz, aren’t you the one who is always saying both parties should contest all 50 states? If the electoral college is abolished, then the votes of conservatives in California and liberals in Texas will matter for the first time in decades, and both candidates will have to go to those states to seek out those votes. It wouldn’t give more power to LA, because geographical units wouldn’t elect presidents anymore. Instead it would give power to people. Voters.

Would a shift to a popular vote benefit democrats in 2020? Probably. But that changes rapidly from election to election. In 2012 the conventional wisdom was seen as exactly the opposite. No party has a guaranteed lock on an advantage in the electoral college in the long run. The electoral college shouldn’t be abolished so democrats can gain power. The electoral college should be abolished because it’s an undemocratic anachronism from a bygone era.

Are Democrats currently the loudest opponents of the electoral college? Of course. They’re the ones who have been the most recent victims of it. If Republicans had won the popular vote but lost the EC in 2016, they would be the ones arguing for a change. It would of course be nice if people remembered to be outraged about the EC in between the elections where it turns out to matter.

For what it’s worth, for exactly this reason I would propose that a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college contain an 8-year time delay so that neither party would be perceived as benefitting from the change.

You might be changing my mind, Steve.

One thing though, is that no EC means Election Night will probably be a county map wall on the TV.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I love this argument and how people who use it outright ignore how the current system has quickly become extreme in the opposite we’re predominantly rural white regions are dictating the countries policy to the majority that predominantly live in big cities

Because we've had nothing but republican presidents last few decades...

Plus Andrew Yang already has the compromise solution:

The problem with deciding Presidential elections via popular vote is that candidates would naturally campaign in urban areas with big media markets and their policies would follow suit. Better to have proportional electoral college votes in each state so you campaign everywhere.

[Pericles]

If it had been done after 2004, 2008 or 2012 it'd be a Republican power grab. Abolishing the EC isn't the right thing to do because it will benefit any particular party, it's the right thing to do because it's a matter of fairness and because the democratic system works better when everyone's votes count the same and whoever has the most support in the nation as a whole(since the President is supposed to represent the entire nation, not just a set of 'swing states') is elected.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It is a democratic power grab, yes.

[Tartarus Sauce]

It is a democratic power grab, yes.

^

All arguments regarding the Electoral College aside, the underlying reality is that more Americans in general support the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. That's the uncomfortable underpinning to this debate that the GOP doesn't want to acknowledge. Many aspects of our political system overweight the importance of the demographics currently representing the Republican base.

[Roronoa D. Law]

It only seems that way because the Electoral college currently has a Republican bias. The GOP can easily lose that advantage if they continue to lose support in metropolitan America.

[Suburbia]

It only seems that way because the Electoral college currently has a Republican bias. The GOP can easily lose that advantage if they continue to lose support in metropolitan America.

They have bases in NYC, Philly, Arlington, Tulsa, San Diego...but those city Republicans are too liberal.