I don’t get this argument as a non American. Is the presidential a total vote regardless of geography? Most democratic countries you vote for local member. A lot of countries share the problem of progressives living close together and landsliding one electorate, but have no horses in other rural seats.
In Australia the standard story is the Liberal (conservative) party getting the most first preference votes, followed by Labor (centre left) then the Greens (progressive) coming 3rd but giving enough preferences for Labor to win.
Voting is based on electoral districts, which are areas mapped out every decade by state legislatures, and each district has electors which are given to a candidate who wins the vote in it.
The problem is that citizens of less populated states have more voting power due to the rules on how many electors a state gets.
Plus, conservatives often gerrymander – intentionally drawing the districts so ethnic minorities are divided, and most districts are designed to have a majority of Republican voters while all the areas with mostly Democratic voters are all put together into 1 or 2 districts. States like West Virginia also lower the amount of districts in the state as part of the strategy. The gerrymandering has lead to some pretty insane looking maps (North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio)
Also electors may not actually vote for the candidate that wins the election in their district, which is technically illegal but also not really illegal and has happened quite a few times.
This accurately describes it. Further explanation:
Election of the President - Electoral College
Each citizen of Wyoming with a population of around half a million has somewhere around 3.7x the voting-weight as a Californian citizen. Why? Because each state’s electoral votes to the president is the # of Congressional delegates it has.
For Wyoming: 3 Electoral Votes for the President
2 US Senators (Every state gets 2 US Senators)
1 US House Representative (proportionate to their population)
5.19 electoral votes per million people.
For California: 54 Electoral Votes.
2 US Senators
52 US House Representatives
1.37 electoral votes per million people.
Thus, you get elections where Presidents don’t win the popular vote, and we expect our country to function…???
This may not seem like a big deal, but across 15-20 low-populated rust/bible-belt states, the effect adds up, leading to some of our worst Presidents in history being elected by a minority vote, including Bush Jr., in 2000, and Trump in 2016. In fact, Republicans have only won the Presidential popular vote ONCE in over 30+ years (which was Bush Jr.'s 2004 reelection when the country was wrapped around fear post-9/11 and Iraq invasion…).
The electoral college is an antiquated remnant of the slave era. In order to get America functioning properly again, it must go.
Election of US House of Representatives - Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering leads to mapping Congressional districts in ways that favors one party over another. This is probably the best layperson video to explain it. Traditionally this has been done far more nefariously and effectively by Republicans, who have also been in power at key moments, including the 2010 and 2020 Census.
Gerrymandering itself has no effect on US Presidential elections except for perhaps reducing peoples’ interest in showing up to the polls in the first place if their district is gerrymandered.
Election of US Senators
This (and Governor races—effectively the President of the state) is how the US Presidential election SHOULD happen at minimum. Each individual in the state gets an equal vote regardless of where they live, and the person who receives the most votes wins.
We can discuss getting rid of FPTP later, but baby-steps.
I am not American. I am also from a non federal (unitary) state.
While non federal systems far from perfectly democratic, federal systems are inherently less democratic because they add another entity to the election process than the people, federal states. This is actually most egregious in senates where every federal state gets the same amount of members for being a state regardless of how many people it represents. Non federal parliaments have a similar problem because you have way smaller number of electors to represent the people.
At least in US presidential elections states are awarded electors based on their populations. However some or all states (can’t really remember) have all their electors vote for the leader even if he won the state 51% to 49%. This acts like a filter and always changes the result as in the percentage of voters for candidate A is different than the percentage of electors for candidate A. It usually does not distort the result enough to flip the election but it happened in 2016.
It can theoretically happen in parliamentary systems as well but it’s much more difficult. Also it’s an unnecessary issue in the US because the head of the executive is not required to have the support of the legislative branch and the electors serve no other purpose.
I believe the most democratic way to elect the president would be a runoff like France’s presidential elections.
I don’t get this argument as a non American. Is the presidential a total vote regardless of geography? Most democratic countries you vote for local member. A lot of countries share the problem of progressives living close together and landsliding one electorate, but have no horses in other rural seats.
In Australia the standard story is the Liberal (conservative) party getting the most first preference votes, followed by Labor (centre left) then the Greens (progressive) coming 3rd but giving enough preferences for Labor to win.
Voting is based on electoral districts, which are areas mapped out every decade by state legislatures, and each district has electors which are given to a candidate who wins the vote in it.
The problem is that citizens of less populated states have more voting power due to the rules on how many electors a state gets.
Plus, conservatives often gerrymander – intentionally drawing the districts so ethnic minorities are divided, and most districts are designed to have a majority of Republican voters while all the areas with mostly Democratic voters are all put together into 1 or 2 districts. States like West Virginia also lower the amount of districts in the state as part of the strategy. The gerrymandering has lead to some pretty insane looking maps (North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio)
Also electors may not actually vote for the candidate that wins the election in their district, which is technically illegal but also not really illegal and has happened quite a few times.
This accurately describes it. Further explanation:
Election of the President - Electoral College
Each citizen of Wyoming with a population of around half a million has somewhere around 3.7x the voting-weight as a Californian citizen. Why? Because each state’s electoral votes to the president is the # of Congressional delegates it has.
For Wyoming: 3 Electoral Votes for the President
5.19 electoral votes per million people.
For California: 54 Electoral Votes.
1.37 electoral votes per million people.
Thus, you get elections where Presidents don’t win the popular vote, and we expect our country to function…???
This may not seem like a big deal, but across 15-20 low-populated rust/bible-belt states, the effect adds up, leading to some of our worst Presidents in history being elected by a minority vote, including Bush Jr., in 2000, and Trump in 2016. In fact, Republicans have only won the Presidential popular vote ONCE in over 30+ years (which was Bush Jr.'s 2004 reelection when the country was wrapped around fear post-9/11 and Iraq invasion…).
The electoral college is an antiquated remnant of the slave era. In order to get America functioning properly again, it must go.
Election of US House of Representatives - Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering leads to mapping Congressional districts in ways that favors one party over another. This is probably the best layperson video to explain it. Traditionally this has been done far more nefariously and effectively by Republicans, who have also been in power at key moments, including the 2010 and 2020 Census.
Gerrymandering itself has no effect on US Presidential elections except for perhaps reducing peoples’ interest in showing up to the polls in the first place if their district is gerrymandered.
Election of US Senators
This (and Governor races—effectively the President of the state) is how the US Presidential election SHOULD happen at minimum. Each individual in the state gets an equal vote regardless of where they live, and the person who receives the most votes wins.
We can discuss getting rid of FPTP later, but baby-steps.
I am not American. I am also from a non federal (unitary) state.
While non federal systems far from perfectly democratic, federal systems are inherently less democratic because they add another entity to the election process than the people, federal states. This is actually most egregious in senates where every federal state gets the same amount of members for being a state regardless of how many people it represents. Non federal parliaments have a similar problem because you have way smaller number of electors to represent the people.
At least in US presidential elections states are awarded electors based on their populations. However some or all states (can’t really remember) have all their electors vote for the leader even if he won the state 51% to 49%. This acts like a filter and always changes the result as in the percentage of voters for candidate A is different than the percentage of electors for candidate A. It usually does not distort the result enough to flip the election but it happened in 2016.
It can theoretically happen in parliamentary systems as well but it’s much more difficult. Also it’s an unnecessary issue in the US because the head of the executive is not required to have the support of the legislative branch and the electors serve no other purpose.
I believe the most democratic way to elect the president would be a runoff like France’s presidential elections.