This is US focused but the principle of being involved in local issues is universal to all democracies.

Can I rant for a minute?

Why does every thread about voting devolve into removed about the flaws of the Electoral College?

Fun fact: the Electoral College only pertains to the Presidency and there’s almost nothing you can do about that directly.

Think local, that’s where you can make a difference. Your local school board has the power to either support students or drive them to suicide. Local races frequently turn on a handful of votes.

So go ahead, sit out the election because the choices for president stink. I humbly submit that your superior moral stance may not be based on very firm principles. That trans kid down the block didn’t need your help anyway. /s

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    4·
    8 months ago

    There are plenty, including myself, that feel the Electoral College is indeed the problem. Proportional allocation would be a step in the right direction, true, but it doesn’t address the larger issue that the number of electoral votes a state gets is not equally proportional to its population. This is a big problem.

    In 2016, Wyoming cast 255,849 popular votes and California cast 14,181,595. Wyoming has three electoral votes and California has fifty-five votes, meaning Wyoming cast one electoral vote for every 85,283 voters while California cast one electoral vote for every 257,847 voters. In other words, a voter in Wyoming is over three times more influential than a voter in California. It’s worth noting that this statistic considers actual votes cast in 2016, rather than all registered voters. Many voters in large states such as California are dissuaded from voting, as the Electoral College dilutes their votes.

    By the way, not all states are winner take all. Maine and Nebraska use systems of allocation that can split their electoral votes between candidates.

    Edit to add: Here is the real solution to the Electoral College issue. The Interstate National Vote Compact Agreement. Once enough states have passed this law to add up to 270 Electoral votes, then all of those states will allocate all their votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

    Under the National Popular Vote law, no voter will have their vote cancelled out at the state-level because their choice differed from majority sentiment in their state. Instead, every voter’s vote will be added directly into the national count for the candidate of their choice. This will ensure that every voter, in every state, will be politically relevant in every presidential election—regardless of where they live.

    The National Popular Vote law is a constitutionally conservative, state-based approach that retains the power of the states to control how the President is elected and retains the Electoral College. National Popular Vote has been enacted by 16 states and the District of Columbia, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 9 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, WA), and 3 big states (CA, IL, NY). These jurisdictions have 205 of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the law.

    The bill has also passed one legislative chamber in 8 states with 78 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, NC, NV, OK, VA), including the Republican-controlled Arizona House and Oklahoma Senate. It has passed both houses of Maine and Nevada at various times, and is endorsed by 3,705 state legislators.

    • meyotch@slrpnk.netOP
      1·
      8 months ago

      I certainly cannot disagree with you. I guess I’m making an argument about how an individual should spend their precious and limited time and emotional energy.

      How would you suggest a person get their state to sign the compact?

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        3·
        8 months ago

        Call and write your state legislatures. Try to get friends and family to do the same. If you know anyone in local TV, radio, or print media, you can try to get them to report on it. You could also write a letter to the editor of local papers. Join local social media groups and post about.

      • Kethal@lemmy.world
        21·
        8 months ago

        I think voters should petition their local officials to change their local election systems to use some sort of proportional voting. Then we’ll get better local officials and we can keep pushing this system to higher levels.

        I don’t like NPV. I wrote about that in response to someone else, but in short, it’s the same mentality as allocating all electors to someone who wins only a portion of the vote, which is inherently flawed. It’s better than what we have now, but it’s a hard sell because people never want their vote to go to a candidate they didn’t support, so there will always be states that rightly don’t support it.

        • meyotch@slrpnk.netOP
          21·
          8 months ago

          Excellent idea. That is more likely to be effective than waiting for it to happen nationwide first.

          Are you aware of any local efforts to do that? I’d love to hear of them.

    • Kethal@lemmy.world
      22·
      8 months ago

      Part of the problem seems to be that no one seems to know what the electrical college is. The difference in voting power you describe above is not the electoral college. That’s that fact that states have disproportionate voting power. The college reflects that, but it’s not due to the college. You could have that without the college. Also, that disproportionate power is something to disagree with, but it has not resulted in a president winning an election despite losing the popular vote. You could keep disproportionate power and the college, and if states allocated proportionally, none of the times the US has elected a president who lost the popular vote would have occured. Conversely, if you removed disproportionate power but kept allocating all votes to the pop vote winner in the state, not a single election outcome would have been different. The problem is that states don’t allocate proportionally. That’s it.

      I already said that two states allocate proportionally…

      NPV is minor improvement and a terrible approach. States don’t have an incentive to allocate their electors to a candidate that wasn’t popular in the state. That makes it hard to adopt, and certainly some states will never adopt it. It has gained ground, and maybe it will take effect in the states where it’s passed, but I guarantee that as soon as a some states are allocating electors to a candidate that wasn’t popular there, they’ll repeal it. Conversely, everyone is incentived for their vote to go toward the candidate they actually voted for. Getting states to do that doesn’t require buy in from a dozen states like NPV does. It’s a state level incentive that achieves everything NPV hopes to achieve, that’s far easier to implement, and has the added bonus of not further supporting the shitty two party system.