If the US president got elected by getting the most votes, there wouldn’t have been a Republican since Bush senior. I really don’t understand why electoral reform is not higher on the political agenda in the US.
Having it based purely on a popular vote will still wind up with a 2 party system. Ranked voting needs to be implemented. All of the benefits of a popular vote, with actual checks and balances to elevate 3rd parties.
This was the deal with the devil that people in the North made with people in the South to convince people in the South to join them in a government specifically set up to defy the British. The US as a democracy has always failed because it was designed to give ultimate executive power to the states rather than to the people.
Or because it would take a constitutional amendment. The only way around that would be making the electoral college irrelevant via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which has largely only been signed by democratic leaning states. In fact, of the states that have passed it, zero have been right leaning.
There are certainly shitty corporate democrats that do fall into your category but to say the party as a whole is that way is ignorant.
The DNC would actually benefit here because the popular vote would always bring in a Democrat. It’s the small, red states that will never let change happen because Wyoming enjoys having more direct representation than California.
The PEOPLE would benefit since they are the ones doing the voting, not the states. It is just as ridiculous that Republicans in California have little say in the presidency as Democrats in Wyoming.
It is just as ridiculous that Republicans in California have little say in the presidency as Democrats in Wyoming.
The Republicans in California have a better chance of seeing a Republican president with the electoral college than they would with a national popular vote, even if their particular votes carry less weight. In a sense that gives them more representation in the end, not less—their voices are ignored but they get what they wanted anyway.
If the US president got elected by getting the most votes, there wouldn’t have been a Republican since Bush senior. I really don’t understand why electoral reform is not higher on the political agenda in the US.
Having it based purely on a popular vote will still wind up with a 2 party system. Ranked voting needs to be implemented. All of the benefits of a popular vote, with actual checks and balances to elevate 3rd parties.
The Democratic party and Republican party are united in their opposition to electoral reform because they both benefit the most from it.
This was the deal with the devil that people in the North made with people in the South to convince people in the South to join them in a government specifically set up to defy the British. The US as a democracy has always failed because it was designed to give ultimate executive power to the states rather than to the people.
deleted by creator
Because the DNC enjoys power more than democracy and does not allow such things to happen.
That’s right wing spin.
Only the politically ignorant believe it.
Or because it would take a constitutional amendment. The only way around that would be making the electoral college irrelevant via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which has largely only been signed by democratic leaning states. In fact, of the states that have passed it, zero have been right leaning.
There are certainly shitty corporate democrats that do fall into your category but to say the party as a whole is that way is ignorant.
The DNC would actually benefit here because the popular vote would always bring in a Democrat. It’s the small, red states that will never let change happen because Wyoming enjoys having more direct representation than California.
The PEOPLE would benefit since they are the ones doing the voting, not the states. It is just as ridiculous that Republicans in California have little say in the presidency as Democrats in Wyoming.
The Republicans in California have a better chance of seeing a Republican president with the electoral college than they would with a national popular vote, even if their particular votes carry less weight. In a sense that gives them more representation in the end, not less—their voices are ignored but they get what they wanted anyway.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
deleted by creator
That must be why Republican-dominated states have passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. /s