How should the US President get elected?

[bilateralrope]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

If the majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities, then why would presidential candidates focus on those 25 cities if we went by national popular vote?

I looked it up. Based on census estimates, the 25 most populous cities in the country combined have a bit over 37 million people in them. Going by an estimated US population of just under 319 million, that comes out to about 11.7% of the total US population lives in the 25 biggest cities.

If you seriously try to win a national popular vote by courting a small minority of the population to the exclusion of everyone else, then I think you have not thought your brilliant plan all the way through.

That's why I just can't wrap my head around people wanting to keep the EC or some kind of it that still disenfranchises people but to a lesser degree.

I get the feeling that some people are just repeating pro-EC propaganda. Maybe because they believe it, maybe because they don't want to state their real reasons for wanting to keep the EC (don't like change, know it favours their side, etc)

[Tsyroc]

I would prefer that we keep a version of the EC but I would prefer that it be proportional per state and that each state have a ranked voting system where people rank the candidates and based on whoever has the most points based on that ranking would get the most electoral votes.

For example. I fucking hate Hillary and think that Trump is a clown who should probably be in jail. So voting in the Arizona election I would have voted "in the lesser of 4 evils fashion" because they all suck for various reasons.

1. Johnson (Fucking Libertarian economics , but at least he's "run a state" before and is very open to personal rights. That "Allepo thing" though.
2. Clinton (Should probably be in jail or permanently out of office but will probably stick close to the status quo)
3. Trump (Of fuck it!, Let's see how this works out. Some of what he says sounds promising, the rest... OH MY GOD!?! WTF?)
4. Stein (Maybe a bit too tree huggery and I'm not sure she could really run the government).


From that the candidates would get a certain number of points for each spot and then the points would determine how many electoral votes they would get from the state.

I mainly want to maintain the EC in some form because FUCK California and FUCK New York!, and I hope that by ranking the votes that it might help give parties outside of the big 2 a better shot of making a name for themselves.

I figure this election would have been a great one to have a ranked vote. Stein and Johnson would likely have had more of impact, and perhaps scared the Democrats and Republicans a bit.

Wouldn't election night be more interesting if the vote were more complicated because of things being ranked? It would totally fuck with the media's exit polling. I'd probably be okay with a straight up popular vote if it included ranked voting. I suppose it might still be a massive failure if voters only vote their party's candidate and leave the other slots blank. I wonder how much that would have to happen to make ranked voting essentially worthless? Would it just give the election away to the people who aren't dedicated to the two main parties?

[Titan Uranus]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

If the majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities, then why would presidential candidates focus on those 25 cities if we went by national popular vote?

I looked it up. Based on census estimates, the 25 most populous cities in the country combined have a bit over 37 million people in them. Going by an estimated US population of just under 319 million, that comes out to about 11.7% of the total US population lives in the 25 biggest cities.

If you seriously try to win a national popular vote by courting a small minority of the population to the exclusion of everyone else, then I think you have not thought your brilliant plan all the way through.

That's only if you are counting the city proper and nothing else.
Actually I'm not sure how you got numbers that low even just counting the city proper. The metro areas of NYC+LA+Chicago alone account for 42 million.

The point is that you will have a certain percentage of turnout over the nation as a whole (until everyone realizes you are catering to the biggest cities at the expense of everyone else), due to base-level engagement and national television. However, after that the most effective way to win is to use big rallies in large cities and to dump ads on the largest media markets to reach the largest number of people (although frankly I think rallies are more effective).

Flagg, Trump won in large part because he held tons of massive rallies and HRC did not. If he was able to increase turnout among those who went to see his rallies by 25% it would have been more than enough to make the difference between victory and defeat in most of the swing states that he took.

[Flagg]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

If the majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities, then why would presidential candidates focus on those 25 cities if we went by national popular vote?

I looked it up. Based on census estimates, the 25 most populous cities in the country combined have a bit over 37 million people in them. Going by an estimated US population of just under 319 million, that comes out to about 11.7% of the total US population lives in the 25 biggest cities.

If you seriously try to win a national popular vote by courting a small minority of the population to the exclusion of everyone else, then I think you have not thought your brilliant plan all the way through.

That's only if you are counting the city proper and nothing else.
Actually I'm not sure how you got numbers that low even just counting the city proper. The metro areas of NYC+LA+Chicago alone account for 42 million.

The point is that you will have a certain percentage of turnout over the nation as a whole (until everyone realizes you are catering to the biggest cities at the expense of everyone else), due to base-level engagement and national television. However, after that the most effective way to win is to use big rallies in large cities and to dump ads on the largest media markets to reach the largest number of people (although frankly I think rallies are more effective).

Flagg, Trump won in large part because he held tons of massive rallies and HRC did not. If he was able to increase turnout among those who went to see his rallies by 25% it would have been more than enough to make the difference between victory and defeat in most of the swing states that he took.

Well that's some fancy goalpost moving. And Trump didn't win the popular vote which is why we're having this discussion.

[Civil War Man]

That's only if you are counting the city proper and nothing else.
Actually I'm not sure how you got numbers that low even just counting the city proper. The metro areas of NYC+LA+Chicago alone account for 42 million.

The point is that you will have a certain percentage of turnout over the nation as a whole (until everyone realizes you are catering to the biggest cities at the expense of everyone else), due to base-level engagement and national television. However, after that the most effective way to win is to use big rallies in large cities and to dump ads on the largest media markets to reach the largest number of people (although frankly I think rallies are more effective).

I got those numbers from census data. Also, your numbers get skewed, because that 42 million you cite (which is still only 13% of the US population, aka still not remotely enough to win a national popular vote), almost half of that is the NYC metro area, which includes the northern half of New Jersey and the western half of Connecticut. NYC is also an outlier in this country in terms of population. It is almost twice as big as the next largest city (LA), more in terms of city population (8.4 million versus 3.9 million) and less in terms of metro area population (20.2 million versus 13 million), and city size shrinks dramatically after that. Only 10 cities total in the US have a city population of more than 1 million (it's harder to compare metro areas, because several of them overlap).

Also, those large influential metro areas you're complaining about? They don't stop existing with the electoral college. It just makes Columbus, Ohio (city pop 822,000, metro pop 2 million) and Miami, Florida (city pop 427,000, metro pop 5.5 million) have more say in who becomes president than NYC (city pop 8.4 million, metro pop 20.2 million).

[Flagg]

That's only if you are counting the city proper and nothing else.
Actually I'm not sure how you got numbers that low even just counting the city proper. The metro areas of NYC+LA+Chicago alone account for 42 million.

The point is that you will have a certain percentage of turnout over the nation as a whole (until everyone realizes you are catering to the biggest cities at the expense of everyone else), due to base-level engagement and national television. However, after that the most effective way to win is to use big rallies in large cities and to dump ads on the largest media markets to reach the largest number of people (although frankly I think rallies are more effective).

I got those numbers from census data. Also, your numbers get skewed, because that 42 million you cite (which is still only 13% of the US population, aka still not remotely enough to win a national popular vote), almost half of that is the NYC metro area, which includes the northern half of New Jersey and the western half of Connecticut. NYC is also an outlier in this country in terms of population. It is almost twice as big as the next largest city (LA), more in terms of city population (8.4 million versus 3.9 million) and less in terms of metro area population (20.2 million versus 13 million), and city size shrinks dramatically after that. Only 10 cities total in the US have a city population of more than 1 million (it's harder to compare metro areas, because several of them overlap).

Also, those large influential metro areas you're complaining about? They don't stop existing with the electoral college. It just makes Columbus, Ohio (city pop 822,000, metro pop 2 million) and Miami, Florida (city pop 427,000, metro pop 5.5 million) have more say in who becomes president than NYC (city pop 8.4 million, metro pop 20.2 million).

But can't you see!? It's not fair if there's no method of castrating the popular vote!

[Starglider]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

Technically, even the top 250 cities combined is still under half of the US population. However this is partly due to the way US cities are zoned and the relatively large suburban areas; e.g. New York officially has 8.5 million inhabitants, but the New York metropolitan area (which is pretty much culturally contiguous with the official city) has 23.7 million inhabitants.

Weighting of votes towards geographical distribution is not about geography per say, but is supposed to protect distinct cultural groups from domination by more populous groups (somewhat ironic considering the US history). Of course the congruity between 'cultural group' and 'geographical region' is substantially less clear than it used to be. Legally though it would be wrong to impose a popular vote system on states without at least a substantial majority of state support e.g. as in the US amendment mechanism.

[Agent Sorchus]

I voted other, because I'm against all the options. Sure the electoral college is a pile of manure from the 1780's but a pure popular vote is just a popularity contest, in which only name recognition matters.

So what I would like is that the election actually use both systems, one for the VP and one for the President. In part this gets rid of the VP being a marketing gimmick that the presidential hopefuls use to get more of the vote (see Pence probably helping Trump in the midwest take some of the traditionally blue states).

[Flagg]

I voted other, because I'm against all the options. Sure the electoral college is a pile of manure from the 1780's but a pure popular vote is just a popularity contest, in which only name recognition matters.

So what I would like is that the election actually use both systems, one for the VP and one for the President. In part this gets rid of the VP being a marketing gimmick that the presidential hopefuls use to get more of the vote (see Pence probably helping Trump in the midwest take some of the traditionally blue states).

Yeah, we used to do that. Didn't work all that well. And the EC vote is still a popularity contest.

[Flagg]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

Technically, even the top 250 cities combined is still under half of the US population. However this is partly due to the way US cities are zoned and the relatively large suburban areas; e.g. New York officially has 8.5 million inhabitants, but the New York metropolitan area (which is pretty much culturally contiguous with the official city) has 23.7 million inhabitants.

Weighting of votes towards geographical distribution is not about geography per say, but is supposed to protect distinct cultural groups from domination by more populous groups (somewhat ironic considering the US history). Of course the congruity between 'cultural group' and 'geographical region' is substantially less clear than it used to be. Legally though it would be wrong to impose a popular vote system on states without at least a substantial majority of state support e.g. as in the US amendment mechanism.

A popular vote system is imposed in states, since winning by a single vote sends every elector to the college to vote for the winning candidate, effectively nullifying every single vote not cast for that candidate in that state. And even though one party has been the beneficiary, with changing demographics the catastrofuck of a POTUS election could easily flip and see a Democrat with an electoral victory and a popular vote defeat. I can imagine the call to arms now.

[Tribble]

This raises an interesting question. We know that in a nationwide popular vote Clinton would have been the leader (though not necessarily the winner under the current system as she did not get an absolute majority, so the House would get to decide the president while the Senate decided the V.P.).

What would have happened with a state-wide popular vote?

Here is my (very rough estimate) for state-wide proportional vote. Note that I am just going to post the rough number of electors because I am lazy, here is the wiki link for the poll results I'm using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2016:

Alabama
Electoral Votes: 9
Clinton: 3
Trump: 6

Alaska
Electoral Votes: 3
Clinton: 1
Trump: 2

Arizona
Electoral Votes: 11
Clinton: 5
Trump: 6

Arkansas
Electoral Votes: 6
Clinton: 2
Trump: 4

California
Electoral Votes: 55
Clinton: 34
Trump: 18
Johnson: 2
Stein: 1


Colorado
Electoral Votes: 9
Clinton: 5
Trump: 4

Connecticut
Electoral Votes: 7
Clinton: 4
Trump: 3

Delaware
Electoral Votes: 3
Clinton: 2
Trump: 1

District of Columbia
Electoral Votes: 3
Clinton: 3 --> had >90% of vote

Florida
Electoral Votes: 29
Clinton: 14
Trump: 14
Johnson: 1

Georgia
Electoral Votes: 16
Clinton: 7
Trump: 9

Hawaii
Electoral Votes: 4
Clinton: 3
Trump: 1

Idaho
Electoral Votes: 4
Clinton: 1
Trump: 3

Illinois
Electoral Votes: 20
Clinton: 11
Trump: 8
Johnson: 1

Indiana
Electoral Votes: 11
Clinton: 4
Trump: 6
Johnson: 1

Iowa
Electoral Votes: 6
Clinton: 2
Trump: 4

Kansas
Electoral Votes: 6
Clinton: 2
Trump: 4

Kentucky
Electoral Votes: 8
Clinton: 3
Trump: 5

Louisiana
Electoral Votes: 8
Clinton: 3
Trump: 5

Maine:
Electoral Votes: 4
Clinton: 3
Trump: 1

Maryland
Electoral Votes: 10
Clinton: 6
Trump: 4

Massachusetts
Electoral Votes: 11
Clinton: 7
Trump: 4

Michigan
Electoral Votes: 16
Clinton: 8
Trump: 8

Minnesota
Electoral Votes: 10
Clinton: 5
Trump: 5

Mississippi
Electoral Votes: 6
Clinton: 2
Trump: 4

Missouri:
Electoral Votes: 10
Clinton: 4
Trump: 6

Montana
Electoral Votes: 3
Clinton: 1
Trump: 2

Nebraska
Electoral Votes: 5
Clinton: 2
Trump: 3

Nevada
Electoral Votes: 6
Clinton: 4
Trump: 2

New Hampshire
Electoral Votes: 4
Clinton: 2
Trump: 2

New Jersey
Electoral Votes: 14
Clinton: 8
Trump: 6

New Mexico
Electoral Votes: 5
Clinton: 3
Trump: 2

New York:
Electoral Votes: 29
Clinton: 17
Trump: 11
Johnson: 1

North Carolina
Electoral Votes: 15
Clinton: 7
Trump: 8

North Dakota
Electoral Votes: 3
Clinton: 1
Trump: 2

Ohio
Electoral Votes: 18
Clinton: 8
Trump: 9
Johnson: 1

Oklahoma
Electoral Votes: 7
Clinton: 2
Trump: 5

Oregon
Electoral Votes: 7
Clinton: 4
Trump: 3

Pennsylvania
Electoral Votes: 20
Clinton: 10
Trump: 10

Rhode Island
Electoral Votes: 4
Clinton: 3
Trump: 1

South Carolina
Electoral Votes: 9
Clinton: 4
Trump: 5

South Dakota
Electoral Votes: 3
Clinton: 1
Trump: 2

Tennessee
Electoral Votes: 11
Clinton: 4
Trump: 7

Texas
Electoral Votes: 38
Clinton: 17
Trump: 20
Johnson: 1

Utah
Electoral Votes: 6
Clinton: 2
Trump: 4

Vermont
Electoral Votes: 3
Clinton: 2
Trump: 1

Virginia
Electoral Votes: 13
Clinton: 7
Trump: 6

Washington
Electoral Votes: 12
Clinton: 7
Trump: 5

West Virginia
Electoral Votes: 5
Clinton: 2
Trump: 3

Wisconsin
Electoral Votes: 10
Clinton: 5
Trump: 5

Wyoming
Electoral Votes 3
Clinton: 1
Trump: 2


Total Electoral Votes: 538
Clinton: ~268
Trump: ~261
Johnson: ~8
Stein: ~1

Again, this is a rough estimate on my part.

In this version Clinton would win, assuming that there was another amendment so the winning candidate only needed the most votes rather than an absolute majority. What's interesting is that Clinton likely would have won more electors in a state-wide proportionate vote than she would have under a nationwide vote (even accounting for my margin of error), which means that state-wide voting would have benefitted the Democrats more than a nationwide vote would in this election (assuming the electoral college was still intact for the nationwide vote rather than abolished).

Also, it should be noted that if it was still required to get an absolute majority (whether via electors or popular vote) in order for a candidate to win in both the state-wide and nationwide popular vote there wouldn't have been a winner and it would have gone to the House (and the Senate for the V.P.).

[Civil War Man]

So in the arguments about population and voting, a thought occurred. Cities have a higher population density than rural areas, but that population difference is only relevant in elections if people vote. National popular vote rewards areas with high voter turnout (more voters = more votes). Electoral College rewards areas with low turnout (fewer voters = more electoral votes per person), because the number of electoral votes are determined by total population, but electors are selected by the voting population.

In the early days, the states that benefited most from the EC were states with a high slave population, since slaves could not vote, but still (partially) counted as part of the population in terms of determining congressional representation, and therefore number of EV. Virginia, in particular, benefited greatly, since it had one of the highest non-slave populations, along with more slaves than most states had people. By what is sure to be a complete coincidence and not at all influenced by that fact, 4 of the first 5 Presidents were wealthy Virginians, and the only one who wasn't was also the only one who was only elected for one term.

[Tsyroc]

This raises an interesting question. We know that in a nationwide popular vote Clinton would have been the leader (though not necessarily the winner under the current system as she did not get an absolute majority, so the House would get to decide the president while the Senate decided the V.P.).

What would have happened with a state-wide popular vote?

Here is my (very rough estimate) for state-wide proportional vote. Note that I am just going to post the rough number of electors because I am lazy, here is the wiki link for the poll results I'm using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2016:

<snip>

Utah
Electoral Votes: 6
Clinton: 2
Trump: 4


Total Electoral Votes: 538
Clinton: ~268
Trump: ~261
Johnson: ~8
Stein: ~1

Again, this is a rough estimate on my part.

In this version Clinton would win, assuming that there was another amendment so the winning candidate only needed the most votes rather than an absolute majority. What's interesting is that Clinton likely would have won more electors in a state-wide proportionate vote than she would have under a nationwide vote (even accounting for my margin of error), which means that state-wide voting would have benefitted the Democrats more than a nationwide vote would in this election (assuming the electoral college was still intact for the nationwide vote rather than abolished).

Also, it should be noted that if it was still required to get an absolute majority (whether via electors or popular vote) in order for a candidate to win in both the state-wide and nationwide popular vote there wouldn't have been a winner and it would have gone to the House (and the Senate for the V.P.).

Not that it would change anything but wouldn't McMullin get a vote in Utah? He was only at 21% to Clinton's 27% and Trump's 45% of the vote? Maybe take one of Trump's votes?

It is funny though. In this format a pretty good argument could be made for the third party candidates actually ruining it for either Trump or Clinton.

[Tribble]

Not that it would change anything but wouldn't McMullin get a vote in Utah? He was only at 21% to Clinton's 27% and Trump's 45% of the vote? Maybe take one of Trump's votes?

Quite so, thanks for double checking

So that would be:

Utah
Electoral Votes: 6
Clinton: 2
Trump: 3
McMullin: 1

So:

Total Electoral Votes: 538
Clinton: ~268
Trump: ~260
Johnson: ~8
Stein: ~1
McMullin: ~1

It is funny though. In this format a pretty good argument could be made for the third party candidates actually ruining it for either Trump or Clinton.

Of course without a constitutional amendment to change what happens if there is no majority (whether the electoral college is around or not) the House gets to pick the President, and the Senate gets to pick the V.P.. In that case given the House is Republican they could very well go for Trump even though he wouldn't have the greatest number of votes. Or they could go for a compromise candidate. Not sure which.

Assuming that there was a constitutional amendment so that the winner was simply the won with the most votes, Clinton would have won whether it was a statewide popular vote or nation wide popular vote, though with the former (given that the electoral college is intact) her margin of victory would have been a bit bigger.

[Flagg]

So in the arguments about population and voting, a thought occurred. Cities have a higher population density than rural areas, but that population difference is only relevant in elections if people vote. National popular vote rewards areas with high voter turnout (more voters = more votes). Electoral College rewards areas with low turnout (fewer voters = more electoral votes per person), because the number of electoral votes are determined by total population, but electors are selected by the voting population.

In the early days, the states that benefited most from the EC were states with a high slave population, since slaves could not vote, but still (partially) counted as part of the population in terms of determining congressional representation, and therefore number of EV. Virginia, in particular, benefited greatly, since it had one of the highest non-slave populations, along with more slaves than most states had people. By what is sure to be a complete coincidence and not at all influenced by that fact, 4 of the first 5 Presidents were wealthy Virginians, and the only one who wasn't was also the only one who was only elected for one term.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[Rogue 9]

Never mind, please delete.

[Beowulf]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

If the majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities, then why would presidential candidates focus on those 25 cities if we went by national popular vote?

I looked it up. Based on census estimates, the 25 most populous cities in the country combined have a bit over 37 million people in them. Going by an estimated US population of just under 319 million, that comes out to about 11.7% of the total US population lives in the 25 biggest cities.

If you seriously try to win a national popular vote by courting a small minority of the population to the exclusion of everyone else, then I think you have not thought your brilliant plan all the way through.

25 top cities, perhaps, but now adjust to the 25 top metro areas. SF bay area, for example is a bunch of small cities, but aggregated, you're looking at 8 some million people. New York City is about 8 million people, but add in the surrounding metro area, and you're up to 24 million.

[General Zod]

The majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities.

If the majority of the US population does not live in the top 25 cities, then why would presidential candidates focus on those 25 cities if we went by national popular vote?

I looked it up. Based on census estimates, the 25 most populous cities in the country combined have a bit over 37 million people in them. Going by an estimated US population of just under 319 million, that comes out to about 11.7% of the total US population lives in the 25 biggest cities.

If you seriously try to win a national popular vote by courting a small minority of the population to the exclusion of everyone else, then I think you have not thought your brilliant plan all the way through.

25 top cities, perhaps, but now adjust to the 25 top metro areas. SF bay area, for example is a bunch of small cities, but aggregated, you're looking at 8 some million people. New York City is about 8 million people, but add in the surrounding metro area, and you're up to 24 million.

The entire state of New York doesn't have more than 20 million people in it. If you're talking about NYC as Manhattan, then you're looking at 3 million, and the surrounding boroughs give you the 8 million figure.

[Imperial528]

IIRC the NYC metro extends well into New Jersey and Connecticut.

[Flagg]

I fail to see why people who live in cities should have their vote count less than farmer John's. People just act like it's a given, when what they are saying is that land area should be a determining factor in vote counting which is stupid.

[Tribble]

I fail to see why people who live in cities should have their vote count less than farmer John's. People just act like it's a given, when what they are saying is that land area should be a determining factor in vote counting which is stupid.

It's actually not that hard of a concept to understand once you realise that the Untied States is a federal republic and the states are in many respects sovereign entities in their own right. Allowing the smaller states to have more influence in the senate and the presidential election was one of the compromises that was required to get them to sign up. Or in other words, larger states realised that there was more to be gained by having all the states join than would be lost by losing some of their proportionality. It should not come as a surprise that stripping the smaller states of that compromise with no compensation (which is what you are pretty much suggesting) would be met with resistance.

Note that this isn't unique to the USA - If Canada were to ever become a republic and have a directly elected president I would anticipate that something similar to the US electoral college would be needed because the smaller provinces would not tolerate Ontario and Quebec (and to a lesser extent B.C.) being the only places that mattered.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but it's not that hard of a concept to grasp. The people in the smaller know full well what a full proportionate vote would mean. What would you propose they get in return for giving up some of that influence? Or do you believe that a big "f*%K you!" would suffice?

...Wait who am I kidding this is Flagg I am talking to, of course a big "f&*k you!" would be your response! And that's you being generous!
(just teasing btw)

This is one of the reasons why I'm thinking a state-wide proportionate vote might be the best compromise. Barring some major mistakes on my part it seems like the results would be very similar to a full nation-wide vote*, but without the controversy of making it look like it was just a blatant power grab by larger states (whether justifiable or not that's how a full nationwide vote probably would be interpreted).

*Perhaps I should look at some other previous elections and see how well that holds up

[Flagg]

I fail to see why people who live in cities should have their vote count less than farmer John's. People just act like it's a given, when what they are saying is that land area should be a determining factor in vote counting which is stupid.

It's actually not that hard of a concept to understand once you realise that the Untied States is a federal republic and the states are in many respects sovereign entities in their own right. Allowing the smaller states to have more influence in the senate and the presidential election was one of the compromises that was required to get them to sign up. Or in other words, larger states realised that there was more to be gained by having all the states join than would be lost by losing some of their proportionality. It should not come as a surprise that stripping the smaller states of that compromise with no compensation (which is what you are pretty much suggesting) would be met with resistance.

Note that this isn't unique to the USA - If Canada were to ever become a republic and have a directly elected president I would anticipate that something similar to the US electoral college would be needed because the smaller provinces would not tolerate Ontario and Quebec (and to a lesser extent B.C.) being the only places that mattered.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but it's not that hard of a concept to grasp. The people in the smaller know full well what a full proportionate vote would mean. What would you propose they get in return for giving up some of that influence? Or do you believe that a big "f*%K you!" would suffice?

...Wait who am I kidding this is Flagg I am talking to, of course a big "f&*k you!" would be your response! And that's you being generous!
(just teasing btw)

This is one of the reasons why I'm thinking a state-wide proportionate vote might be the best compromise. Barring some major mistakes on my part it seems like the results would be very similar to a full nation-wide vote*, but without the controversy of making it look like it was just a blatant power grab by larger states (whether justifiable or not that's how a full nationwide vote probably would be interpreted).

*Perhaps I should look at some other previous elections and see how well that holds up

Well I understand why we have it, why we'll keep it, and why proposals other than chucking the EC are the best we'll likely ever get. But a system less broken is still broken.

[Civil War Man]

25 top cities, perhaps, but now adjust to the 25 top metro areas. SF bay area, for example is a bunch of small cities, but aggregated, you're looking at 8 some million people. New York City is about 8 million people, but add in the surrounding metro area, and you're up to 24 million.

So I went ahead and checked that. The estimated population of the top 25 metro areas, added together, total up to a bit over 135 million. Which is about 42% of the total population. In other words, assuming that every single person living in those metro areas is an eligible voter who votes for you, it's still not enough to win a national popular vote on its own. It's much closer, granted, but it still flies in the face of everyone claiming that someone can win by catering to those areas to the exclusion of everywhere else.

Of course, it's a nice bit of goalpost moving. "They'll just campaign in the big cities!" "Those cities aren't big enough." "They are if you include the populations of enough suburbs and smaller cities that are in the same general vicinity in order to inflate their numbers!"

It also does nothing to address the point that the EC rewards areas that have naturally low voter participation rates, or successfully engage in voter suppression, while a national popular vote rewards areas that are able to generate high voter participation. Though I guess that makes sense, considering that the EC was designed for people who think voter participation is a bug in the system.

[Flagg]

25 top cities, perhaps, but now adjust to the 25 top metro areas. SF bay area, for example is a bunch of small cities, but aggregated, you're looking at 8 some million people. New York City is about 8 million people, but add in the surrounding metro area, and you're up to 24 million.

So I went ahead and checked that. The estimated population of the top 25 metro areas, added together, total up to a bit over 135 million. Which is about 42% of the total population. In other words, assuming that every single person living in those metro areas is an eligible voter who votes for you, it's still not enough to win a national popular vote on its own. It's much closer, granted, but it still flies in the face of everyone claiming that someone can win by catering to those areas to the exclusion of everywhere else.

Of course, it's a nice bit of goalpost moving. "They'll just campaign in the big cities!" "Those cities aren't big enough." "They are if you include the populations of enough suburbs and smaller cities that are in the same general vicinity in order to inflate their numbers!"

It also does nothing to address the point that the EC rewards areas that have naturally low voter participation rates, or successfully engage in voter suppression, while a national popular vote rewards areas that are able to generate high voter participation. Though I guess that makes sense, considering that the EC was designed for people who think voter participation is a bug in the system.

Yeah the goalposts have been moved so far already I'm surprised they arent demanding we count domesticated animals.

[Crazedwraith]

I don't know about that. The basis of the argument in not literally about the cities themselves and the people inside their borders in the strictest sense. It's about being able to appeal to Urban dwellers as a whole over rural dwellers. The big flaw there is treating Urban and rural voters as distinct monolithic blocks that somehow will all think and vote the same.

-

I've little right to an opinion but Popular vote seems the way to go to me and for goodness' sake the weirdest thing about the American system is the possibility of faithless electors. That electoral college can vote against what they were told to and somehow it would still count. There's no need any more for them to anything more than theoretical entities even if you go with the first past the post-esque system.