And I say that not as a blue voter! I was GOP for decades and since 2016 firmly independent. I just want Texas to acknowledge the many blue voters and their priorities. There are more than the news leads us to believe. Proportional representation would help!
With the voter suppression that is actively taking place in Texas, I think even if we DID go Blue, we would not end up that way after Abbott and Paxton were done with it.
I do, too! 💙💙 When I was at UT registering voters last week I was told that if just 6% of registered Texas voters [Democrats], who have not been voting—would vote—Texas would flip blue! 👀 Could that really be correct?! I don’t math.
Forgive me Sharon. I'm not in a "swing" state (Colorado)...but wanted to add my two-cents anyway. As a former h.s. government teacher--for years, I touted the 'genius' of the Electoral College. My primary reason was that most elections were relatively close considering the popular vote. The Electoral College, however, could provide the perception of a 'mandate.' This often allows a President to move their agenda through Congress, and simply get things done. About ten years ago...I started teaching the 'cons' of the Electoral College. Recently, it has now become a 'tool' for the less popular candidate to exploit. The very idea that it gives more weight to a voter in Wyoming, than California is--on its face--ludicrous.
This!! 1 electoral college voter in CA “represents” over 700K people. 1 in WY “represents” less than 200K. (Rough calculations based on 2022 overall population data, not actual votes or registered voters, but still. I know people in other states don’t want to hear this, but CA and other heavily populated states are *vastly* underrepresented at the federal level.)
This is the case for Senate representation too: "David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them." (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-variedand-globalthreats-confronting-democracy-1511193763)
I am still hoping that we can get Ohio back to a purple state. So frustrated by the gerrymandering here, but I remain hopeful our citizen led initiative against gerrymandering will pass and with time we will be better represented.
My hot take is that this year we might? I know JD Vance is from Ohio and has homefield advantage, but I worked on the campaign in 2016 in Northeast Ohio (yay Akron!) and from what I understand about the state (which is a little different than what Sharon describes here) it's more about whether you can get those Northeast Ohio votes out the door to counteract the red southern part of the state. I can't speak to 2020, but when we lost in 2016, the conversations I had with voters were much more along the lines of 'I don't want to Trump to win but he won't and I don't want to vote for Hillary" aka, apathy, than a real sea change from blue to red. I could be wrong, but I know those NE Ohio organizers, and with the evident enthusiasm about Kamala Harris, I'm cautiously optimistic that we may be surprised at how close the results are come Nov.
Gerrymandering is bad, yes. But suggesting the gerrymandering is the reason that Ohio (or any other state that is winner-take-all) assigns votes for a presidential candidate is incorrect. Whichever candidate wins more votes in Ohio popular vote wins 100% of Ohio delegates, and district lines don’t directly impact that.
Personally, I hate living in a swing state, with the constant bombardment of negative political ads, most of them outright lies. I kind of wish someone would pass a law saying you can't broadcast ads containing falsehoods. But Republicans, shown by polling and state laws, are very much against things like using the popular vote to choose the President, because the only two candidates since the 1800s to ever lose the popular vote and win the electoral college were Republicans. It's all of a piece with gerrymandering and voter suppression, which is the only way a political party with such unpopular policies like gerrymandering, voter suppression, abortion bans, tax cuts for the wealthy, promoting fossil fuels at the expense of renewables, Project 2025, etc., can maintain power at the state or federal level. So since a Constitutional Amendment needs a 2/3s vote of both Houses of Congress before it even goes to the states, the only way to get it done is to vote down ballot for people who support such a change. At least then your vote will mean something even if it won't have much of an effect on the vote for President.
I live in MI and have noticed a lot of political activity here lately. It doesn’t affect me as a voter as I have already made up my mind. But I totally support a change that will make our democracy more representative of the will of the people. A true one person/one vote scenario.
I’m in GA, a newish swing state. The 2020 election was insane for us. The county I grew up in was watched closely because it’s predominantly blue but has a very strong red presence.
To be honest, it’s not pleasant. I’m thankful the impact of my vote doesn’t feel wasted in a sea of sameness, but there are still people, including the former President, who say those votes weren’t legitimate.
We all know how the past 4 years have played out, and I see it happening again in November if Harris wins.
Ditto for blue states. But I think that there are FAR more red states in that situation than blue in recent times. And, for that reason, the compact has actually lost support recently, and states that previously were for it are now against it.
When you’re playing a deadly game of power chicken no one wants to be the first to blink or else the other side will seize the power you surrender. That’s why only something extreme like a convention of the states through a grassroots movement could possibly do something on a national scale to change it. I think we are far better off identifying one state most likely to have support for proportional representation and push together to have that state change its laws to award electors proportionally. Once one state has done it and shown that it works others could be brave and follow. Maine and Nebraska are kind of proportional but it’s a half measure since gerrymandering can still poison the truly representative nature of their electors.
Is the Maine approach similar to Nebraska? I only recently looked at Nebraska, and as you said, it's very dependent on districts that can be gerrymandered.
Yes, both states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). Here in Maine, we also use Ranked Choice Voting in federal elections.
I am very interested in seeing the details in the “what can be done about it” points. Could you complete the outline for us—a)b)c) under each point? WHO is responsible for initiating the move? HOW can ordinary citizens help the movement? WHEN could it be initiated?
Are we waiting for the elected officials to make the change? Why would they ever do that?
At least some of those were grassroots movements. You can google initiatives in your state and how to get involved if you're interested in supporting it!
Utah pushed for a ballot initiative to allow an independent commission be in charge of drawing redistricting maps. The legislature attempted to overrule it and it’s gone through the courts for 6 years until now. It’s a slow fight for change and rights but it’s worth it.
While we fuss about the electoral college which there is good reason too, let's consider how campaigning would work if only the popular vote counted. Would we see politicians only fighting for votes in major cities? Would the Northeast, California, and a handful of other cities determine the fate of America leading those in the middle to feel completely unheard?
I see what you’re saying although I would say they are still focused more on big cities in the swing states so small towns are still ignored. I don’t live in a big city and while the presidency affects everyone the most important politics are local. The reality is that big cities are going to decide national or statewide elections for the most part and that makes perfect sense, that’s where people are. So if you live in a “blue state” but your town is “red” it’s true that you won’t really impact the state wide races but you have a lot of say over local races.
Local and state races matter so much! Much more than people seem to have paid attention to, ever? In recent years? I would love to see that discussed. Have local races always had less emphasis. And if not when did that change. Also yes also to small towns being ignored in most cases for larger national races!
I wonder about the possible connection between fewer and fewer truly local news sources and engagement in local elections. I've been tossing around the idea of emailing a set of questions to each of our local candidates just so that I can share those answers with my family and neighbors - I did that last year for our school board elections, and it got a lot of positive responses in our local FB group. Our town is under 5k people but our turnout for local elections rarely tops 200 people.
OK I just thought I lived in a small town! Although our county is still small! I like your idea a lot and it's something I'm going to think about doing here.
Perhaps. But I think many people in “middle America” feel this way now. I live in Louisiana. Presidential candidates don’t bother coming here at all because we’re a “red state”. Many democrats feel like their vote just gets thrown away as it is. If it were popular vote, or even proportional EC votes I can least know my one vote is going towards my candidate in some way.
This is what Mosheh recently pointed out in one of his story responses: "Right now the only voters that matter are about 45-50 million voters in 7 states. Tell me how the electoral college protects rural voters who don't see a presidential candidate any election.
"About 52 percent of people in the US describe their neighborhood as suburban, while about 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent as rural. The 7 competitive states all have a combo of those. And all 50 states have a combo of those.
"I think one can make an argument there are millions of Republicans in places like IL, NY, MA and CA who don't even bother voting cause their vote doesn't matter.
"Same for Dems in Idaho, WV, Alabama, etc. I think turnout would be insane on both sides if we went to popular.
"Also, I know Republicans who live in cities and Dems who live in rural areas."
If we want more people to vote, we need to make their actual vote count. TN has one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country. It is horribly gerrymandered, ballot initiatives are not allowed, and I am shocked everyday by the number of people that don’t even bother to pay attn to local state politics. It’s a full red state that had blue pockets, but gerrymandering has broken them up. I would love to see every citizen vote. We should be encouraging mail in ballots for the home bound, providing transportation to those who do not have a ride to the polling location, and make an event out of turning 18 and registering to vote at school! We need everyone to be proud of this constitutional right!
I also think that voter turnout would increase in states like IL if we did go to popular vote. I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college but it’s had unintended consequences - the main one being that many feel their votes do not count. I would be interesting to see how that would play out. Some states might actually flip! In any case, I’m glad both sides are working on increasing voter turnout.
I live in PA and turning on the TV is a nightmare. I have stopped following candidates on social media. I have unsubscribed from all emails and text messages. I block phone numbers from robo-callers, and don’t answer the phone for numbers I don’t recognize. I am tired of all of it, even from my preferred candidate.
I live in Georgia in a deeply red, rural county. Though my husband and I are conservative/independent (but Never Trump-ers), we realize that our presidential votes don't really matter. It's frustrating. I wish our state would allow a popular voting system. Even though they would vote differently than we do, I really think a lot of the rural voters would appreciate a popular voting system since the highly populated cities (Atlanta) usually carry a statewide vote.
I live in Georgia but a suburb of ATL. Our county is historically red but last election flipped blue. I happened to work on that campaign. Unfortunately when those folks lost here - they gerrymandered the results and changed our districts and now I believe it will be impossible to change the result. However in this election again, I feel like every blue vote matters especially for President because right now, many folks are hoping you lost hope and don’t vote. And even if we would differ on voting - I am a Democrat; I personally think your vote matters so much! I don’t think it’s right for anyone to ever make you feel like what you want to vote for isn’t important. It’s important to you, so in my opinion it is important! Thank you for caring about this matter!
If anything, your vote for president matters in rural Georgia more than anywhere else in the country. Your vote is far more likely to be "the one" that decides the presidency than anyone else's. The reason is that, like the congressional Senate race, the presidential race is actually based on the popular vote (the popular vote getter for the president gets all 16 electoral votes in Georgia) and not impacted by gerrymandering. You now live in a swing state and a few votes either way will make a HUGE difference. I am not comfortable with that fact, being in a non-swing state, but you shouldn't lose hope that your vote counts.
Came here to say this!! If anything your vote matters more in a red county in a swing state! Don't confuse a deeply red or blue county for a red or blue state - those contrary votes can mean a lot in terms of swaying the outcomes of elections.
Rachel has it right. I would say it this way: your state, like most states, has a statewide popular vote for president. There is nothing unfair about this system, but it actually does result in your vote and your influence at town, city, county and state elections more important than in non-swing states. Isn't that great? I'm in a swing state and I rue the day the other side turns our state solidly the other color.
I'm bummed @Sharonsaysso didn't explore the positives of the electoral college more. Basically, we need swing states to save us from the tyranny of the majority. Check out founding father Madison in the federalist papers. And of course, encourage everyone to vote!
While I appreciate the idea that the Founders wanted to avoid the tyranny of the majority, I'm certain that they didn't think that the minority should have more say than the majority, as is now the case due to Gerrymandering and the EC. The Senate was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority by giving every state equal representation, regardless of population. The separation of powers were designed to limit centralization of power that often results in the tyranny of the majority. None of it was designed to give power of the minority over the majority. That said, part of the design of the EC (and the Senate, for that matter) was to protect the desire of slave states to have more power than their population would allow in the absence of counting enslaved people as... well... people.
In this instance, the EC does not centralize power with the minority, it prevents centralized power in the majority. The EC is a genuis mechanism that works, among many genius mechanisms in our system of government that work to provide double and triple redundant checks that balances power between branches. I wouldn't trade it for anything!
You'll have to explain that with some data because what I've seen is that it's possible for the president to be elected by a minority vote because of the EC. And because gerrymandering significantly consolidates minority power in many states, AND because the backup for the EC not reaching the required threshold is that the House can select the president, the EC is not only incapable of preventing minority rule, it is increasingly likely to result in ministry rule.
With the EC system, you are correct that a small number of voters can determine the outcome of the election. That's precisely the point. It's not a data or numbers thing, it's a philosophy thing. My source is the federalist papers.
Gerrymandering is not applicable to presidential elections as each state has a statewide vote which is not impacted by state districts.
In the case where the small number of voters results in no winner, it goes to the House. I don't see anything unfair about that, but it does helpfully point out that the quality of the expected outcome of who the House picks is directly impacted by gerrymandering (since the House is elected by District wide votes). So it does matter.
As a voter in a red state (Utah) it's disheartening to know that my vote, because it differs from the majority, doesn't count at all. I still vote, knowing full well it matters only to remind the majority that while they still lead, there are people who disagree with the status quo and will still stand for what we think is right.
Agreed. Every time another Utahn says I’m wasting my vote, I get so frustrated. Because if all of us “wasted vote” voters would show up and vote the way we want to, our numbers may not add up enough to change the final outcome, but I’m sure it would be very noticeable. Enough that our local politicians might have an uncomfortable wake up call, and start paying attention to us. Maybe they’d even try a little more to represent their constituents instead of just their party.
As a PA resident, I do feel like my vote gets more "power" than people in other states for this reason. I wonder how ranked-choice voting would layer into the electoral college. I wonder if it could break up some of the deep strongholds to make more states more competitive. Not only might there be a legit third candidate in some states, but RCV should encourage candidates to be more moderate and less extreme, so states like OH, TX, and VA might surprise us if people feel like they have two candidates with at least some platform items that appeal to them.
Could we see a break down of the last few elections of what a proportional electoral college would have changed in the elections compared with the popular vote? There is a reason we don't go with the popular vote....can you explain more about the WHY behind the dangers of doing so?
This person on Reddit created a graph that calculates this exact thing for Presidential elections since 2000: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/kwzxkc/comment/gj7bjih/ (if you scroll down, the first comment includes all of his citations and reasoning - other comments do point out that there are differing methods to calculate proportional EC votes)
That's super cool! Certainly, it could ensure that more attention gets paid to the people in all states and appealing to more people than just a handful of "undecideds" in a handful of states.
Love this explainer so much ‼️ Regarding the three options, can you further spell out for us what it would take from a voters perspective to make any of those happen? What officials would we need to elect with the intent to make any of these changes?
For instance, who do we need to elect in order to have our State added to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: Is it the Governor or the State Legislators, or both, that make this agreement?
Same question for the proportional allocation of electoral votes, but also can you explain some of the challenges to doing this? I understand why states might not be incentivized to make this change unless other states are also doing it, because Blue/Red states would lose guaranteed electoral votes, and Purple states would lose some of their stronghold on political attention/power.
For a Constitutional Amendment, I assume this would take Congress and the President, but then does it also require State Legislators to ratify the amendment? If so, how many states need to ratify for the amendment to be enacted?
Thank you for all you do! You are such a valued educator ❤️
Also, what is the alternative to passing a Constitutional Amendment outside of Congress? I recall there is a way of doing it through the states. How would that work? Who would voters need to organize around to make that happen? 👍
"In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that State’s consent." (https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/)
Now, I want to learn more about State "conventions." Who calls for one and how can we get two-thirds of States working together to make this happen?
I love the idea of State Officials working across the aisle to show Congress how it can be done, though I know this is probably also far fetched. (But maybe not?!) 😁
Having lived in PA, VA, and NC, I can say living in swing states during Presidential elections is exhausting. It feels like the campaigning never ends. The amount of hateful TV commercials and texts messages I see and receive daily are exhausting. I’ve donated small amounts of money to candidates (not Presidential) in both parties, so that’s super fun for me for the text messages daily. There are multiple/day even though I respond “stop” to every one. Maddening.
I live for the day when my Texas shocks the nation by going blue. It’s coming, and each senate race gets closer to a democratic winner.
I became a Volunteer Deputy Registrar thru LWV last month to help Texans register to vote. It was the most governerd-y thing I’ve done! 🫶🏻
And I say that not as a blue voter! I was GOP for decades and since 2016 firmly independent. I just want Texas to acknowledge the many blue voters and their priorities. There are more than the news leads us to believe. Proportional representation would help!
With the voter suppression that is actively taking place in Texas, I think even if we DID go Blue, we would not end up that way after Abbott and Paxton were done with it.
I really hope I live to see that day!
Gail, like Obama says, don't boo, vote! I'm just kidding!! You have a cool name.
🤣 I always vote! I married into the name. I miss my maiden name but this one is super fun at Halloween 👻
Ha, ha, I bet!
Rooting for you!
I do, too! 💙💙 When I was at UT registering voters last week I was told that if just 6% of registered Texas voters [Democrats], who have not been voting—would vote—Texas would flip blue! 👀 Could that really be correct?! I don’t math.
Forgive me Sharon. I'm not in a "swing" state (Colorado)...but wanted to add my two-cents anyway. As a former h.s. government teacher--for years, I touted the 'genius' of the Electoral College. My primary reason was that most elections were relatively close considering the popular vote. The Electoral College, however, could provide the perception of a 'mandate.' This often allows a President to move their agenda through Congress, and simply get things done. About ten years ago...I started teaching the 'cons' of the Electoral College. Recently, it has now become a 'tool' for the less popular candidate to exploit. The very idea that it gives more weight to a voter in Wyoming, than California is--on its face--ludicrous.
This!! 1 electoral college voter in CA “represents” over 700K people. 1 in WY “represents” less than 200K. (Rough calculations based on 2022 overall population data, not actual votes or registered voters, but still. I know people in other states don’t want to hear this, but CA and other heavily populated states are *vastly* underrepresented at the federal level.)
This is the case for Senate representation too: "David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them." (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-variedand-globalthreats-confronting-democracy-1511193763)
I am still hoping that we can get Ohio back to a purple state. So frustrated by the gerrymandering here, but I remain hopeful our citizen led initiative against gerrymandering will pass and with time we will be better represented.
My hot take is that this year we might? I know JD Vance is from Ohio and has homefield advantage, but I worked on the campaign in 2016 in Northeast Ohio (yay Akron!) and from what I understand about the state (which is a little different than what Sharon describes here) it's more about whether you can get those Northeast Ohio votes out the door to counteract the red southern part of the state. I can't speak to 2020, but when we lost in 2016, the conversations I had with voters were much more along the lines of 'I don't want to Trump to win but he won't and I don't want to vote for Hillary" aka, apathy, than a real sea change from blue to red. I could be wrong, but I know those NE Ohio organizers, and with the evident enthusiasm about Kamala Harris, I'm cautiously optimistic that we may be surprised at how close the results are come Nov.
I’m from Akron! Yay Akron!
Gerrymandering is bad, yes. But suggesting the gerrymandering is the reason that Ohio (or any other state that is winner-take-all) assigns votes for a presidential candidate is incorrect. Whichever candidate wins more votes in Ohio popular vote wins 100% of Ohio delegates, and district lines don’t directly impact that.
Personally, I hate living in a swing state, with the constant bombardment of negative political ads, most of them outright lies. I kind of wish someone would pass a law saying you can't broadcast ads containing falsehoods. But Republicans, shown by polling and state laws, are very much against things like using the popular vote to choose the President, because the only two candidates since the 1800s to ever lose the popular vote and win the electoral college were Republicans. It's all of a piece with gerrymandering and voter suppression, which is the only way a political party with such unpopular policies like gerrymandering, voter suppression, abortion bans, tax cuts for the wealthy, promoting fossil fuels at the expense of renewables, Project 2025, etc., can maintain power at the state or federal level. So since a Constitutional Amendment needs a 2/3s vote of both Houses of Congress before it even goes to the states, the only way to get it done is to vote down ballot for people who support such a change. At least then your vote will mean something even if it won't have much of an effect on the vote for President.
I live in MI and have noticed a lot of political activity here lately. It doesn’t affect me as a voter as I have already made up my mind. But I totally support a change that will make our democracy more representative of the will of the people. A true one person/one vote scenario.
I’m in GA, a newish swing state. The 2020 election was insane for us. The county I grew up in was watched closely because it’s predominantly blue but has a very strong red presence.
To be honest, it’s not pleasant. I’m thankful the impact of my vote doesn’t feel wasted in a sea of sameness, but there are still people, including the former President, who say those votes weren’t legitimate.
We all know how the past 4 years have played out, and I see it happening again in November if Harris wins.
Gwinnette or Cobb?
Shockingly, Chatham. Savannah is very blue, but the other cities are either split pretty evenly or red.
Proportional electoral votes would be best but the duopoly of the two parties is so strong that it disincentivizes any state from doing so.
No local GOP in my home state will give up their power or betray the national GOP by giving up any proportional power in our safe red state.
Ditto for blue states. But I think that there are FAR more red states in that situation than blue in recent times. And, for that reason, the compact has actually lost support recently, and states that previously were for it are now against it.
When you’re playing a deadly game of power chicken no one wants to be the first to blink or else the other side will seize the power you surrender. That’s why only something extreme like a convention of the states through a grassroots movement could possibly do something on a national scale to change it. I think we are far better off identifying one state most likely to have support for proportional representation and push together to have that state change its laws to award electors proportionally. Once one state has done it and shown that it works others could be brave and follow. Maine and Nebraska are kind of proportional but it’s a half measure since gerrymandering can still poison the truly representative nature of their electors.
Is the Maine approach similar to Nebraska? I only recently looked at Nebraska, and as you said, it's very dependent on districts that can be gerrymandered.
I believe Maine and Nebraska award their electors similarly without much distinction.
Yes, both states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). Here in Maine, we also use Ranked Choice Voting in federal elections.
I am very interested in seeing the details in the “what can be done about it” points. Could you complete the outline for us—a)b)c) under each point? WHO is responsible for initiating the move? HOW can ordinary citizens help the movement? WHEN could it be initiated?
Are we waiting for the elected officials to make the change? Why would they ever do that?
At least some of those were grassroots movements. You can google initiatives in your state and how to get involved if you're interested in supporting it!
Utah pushed for a ballot initiative to allow an independent commission be in charge of drawing redistricting maps. The legislature attempted to overrule it and it’s gone through the courts for 6 years until now. It’s a slow fight for change and rights but it’s worth it.
While we fuss about the electoral college which there is good reason too, let's consider how campaigning would work if only the popular vote counted. Would we see politicians only fighting for votes in major cities? Would the Northeast, California, and a handful of other cities determine the fate of America leading those in the middle to feel completely unheard?
I see what you’re saying although I would say they are still focused more on big cities in the swing states so small towns are still ignored. I don’t live in a big city and while the presidency affects everyone the most important politics are local. The reality is that big cities are going to decide national or statewide elections for the most part and that makes perfect sense, that’s where people are. So if you live in a “blue state” but your town is “red” it’s true that you won’t really impact the state wide races but you have a lot of say over local races.
Local and state races matter so much! Much more than people seem to have paid attention to, ever? In recent years? I would love to see that discussed. Have local races always had less emphasis. And if not when did that change. Also yes also to small towns being ignored in most cases for larger national races!
I wonder about the possible connection between fewer and fewer truly local news sources and engagement in local elections. I've been tossing around the idea of emailing a set of questions to each of our local candidates just so that I can share those answers with my family and neighbors - I did that last year for our school board elections, and it got a lot of positive responses in our local FB group. Our town is under 5k people but our turnout for local elections rarely tops 200 people.
Emily, Inspiring us all to become local political journalists for our small communities 👏‼️
OK I just thought I lived in a small town! Although our county is still small! I like your idea a lot and it's something I'm going to think about doing here.
Perhaps. But I think many people in “middle America” feel this way now. I live in Louisiana. Presidential candidates don’t bother coming here at all because we’re a “red state”. Many democrats feel like their vote just gets thrown away as it is. If it were popular vote, or even proportional EC votes I can least know my one vote is going towards my candidate in some way.
This is what Mosheh recently pointed out in one of his story responses: "Right now the only voters that matter are about 45-50 million voters in 7 states. Tell me how the electoral college protects rural voters who don't see a presidential candidate any election.
"About 52 percent of people in the US describe their neighborhood as suburban, while about 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent as rural. The 7 competitive states all have a combo of those. And all 50 states have a combo of those.
"I think one can make an argument there are millions of Republicans in places like IL, NY, MA and CA who don't even bother voting cause their vote doesn't matter.
"Same for Dems in Idaho, WV, Alabama, etc. I think turnout would be insane on both sides if we went to popular.
"Also, I know Republicans who live in cities and Dems who live in rural areas."
(August 10, 2024)
If we want more people to vote, we need to make their actual vote count. TN has one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country. It is horribly gerrymandered, ballot initiatives are not allowed, and I am shocked everyday by the number of people that don’t even bother to pay attn to local state politics. It’s a full red state that had blue pockets, but gerrymandering has broken them up. I would love to see every citizen vote. We should be encouraging mail in ballots for the home bound, providing transportation to those who do not have a ride to the polling location, and make an event out of turning 18 and registering to vote at school! We need everyone to be proud of this constitutional right!
I also think that voter turnout would increase in states like IL if we did go to popular vote. I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college but it’s had unintended consequences - the main one being that many feel their votes do not count. I would be interesting to see how that would play out. Some states might actually flip! In any case, I’m glad both sides are working on increasing voter turnout.
I live in PA and turning on the TV is a nightmare. I have stopped following candidates on social media. I have unsubscribed from all emails and text messages. I block phone numbers from robo-callers, and don’t answer the phone for numbers I don’t recognize. I am tired of all of it, even from my preferred candidate.
Pro tip from a voting registration officer: if your state offers early voting, do it — it takes your name off those contact lists
Ditto, here in Georgia. It is all one big nightmare.
I live in Georgia in a deeply red, rural county. Though my husband and I are conservative/independent (but Never Trump-ers), we realize that our presidential votes don't really matter. It's frustrating. I wish our state would allow a popular voting system. Even though they would vote differently than we do, I really think a lot of the rural voters would appreciate a popular voting system since the highly populated cities (Atlanta) usually carry a statewide vote.
I live in Georgia but a suburb of ATL. Our county is historically red but last election flipped blue. I happened to work on that campaign. Unfortunately when those folks lost here - they gerrymandered the results and changed our districts and now I believe it will be impossible to change the result. However in this election again, I feel like every blue vote matters especially for President because right now, many folks are hoping you lost hope and don’t vote. And even if we would differ on voting - I am a Democrat; I personally think your vote matters so much! I don’t think it’s right for anyone to ever make you feel like what you want to vote for isn’t important. It’s important to you, so in my opinion it is important! Thank you for caring about this matter!
If anything, your vote for president matters in rural Georgia more than anywhere else in the country. Your vote is far more likely to be "the one" that decides the presidency than anyone else's. The reason is that, like the congressional Senate race, the presidential race is actually based on the popular vote (the popular vote getter for the president gets all 16 electoral votes in Georgia) and not impacted by gerrymandering. You now live in a swing state and a few votes either way will make a HUGE difference. I am not comfortable with that fact, being in a non-swing state, but you shouldn't lose hope that your vote counts.
Came here to say this!! If anything your vote matters more in a red county in a swing state! Don't confuse a deeply red or blue county for a red or blue state - those contrary votes can mean a lot in terms of swaying the outcomes of elections.
Rachel has it right. I would say it this way: your state, like most states, has a statewide popular vote for president. There is nothing unfair about this system, but it actually does result in your vote and your influence at town, city, county and state elections more important than in non-swing states. Isn't that great? I'm in a swing state and I rue the day the other side turns our state solidly the other color.
I'm bummed @Sharonsaysso didn't explore the positives of the electoral college more. Basically, we need swing states to save us from the tyranny of the majority. Check out founding father Madison in the federalist papers. And of course, encourage everyone to vote!
While I appreciate the idea that the Founders wanted to avoid the tyranny of the majority, I'm certain that they didn't think that the minority should have more say than the majority, as is now the case due to Gerrymandering and the EC. The Senate was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority by giving every state equal representation, regardless of population. The separation of powers were designed to limit centralization of power that often results in the tyranny of the majority. None of it was designed to give power of the minority over the majority. That said, part of the design of the EC (and the Senate, for that matter) was to protect the desire of slave states to have more power than their population would allow in the absence of counting enslaved people as... well... people.
In this instance, the EC does not centralize power with the minority, it prevents centralized power in the majority. The EC is a genuis mechanism that works, among many genius mechanisms in our system of government that work to provide double and triple redundant checks that balances power between branches. I wouldn't trade it for anything!
You'll have to explain that with some data because what I've seen is that it's possible for the president to be elected by a minority vote because of the EC. And because gerrymandering significantly consolidates minority power in many states, AND because the backup for the EC not reaching the required threshold is that the House can select the president, the EC is not only incapable of preventing minority rule, it is increasingly likely to result in ministry rule.
With the EC system, you are correct that a small number of voters can determine the outcome of the election. That's precisely the point. It's not a data or numbers thing, it's a philosophy thing. My source is the federalist papers.
Gerrymandering is not applicable to presidential elections as each state has a statewide vote which is not impacted by state districts.
In the case where the small number of voters results in no winner, it goes to the House. I don't see anything unfair about that, but it does helpfully point out that the quality of the expected outcome of who the House picks is directly impacted by gerrymandering (since the House is elected by District wide votes). So it does matter.
Great Comments, Thanks!
As a voter in a red state (Utah) it's disheartening to know that my vote, because it differs from the majority, doesn't count at all. I still vote, knowing full well it matters only to remind the majority that while they still lead, there are people who disagree with the status quo and will still stand for what we think is right.
Agreed. Every time another Utahn says I’m wasting my vote, I get so frustrated. Because if all of us “wasted vote” voters would show up and vote the way we want to, our numbers may not add up enough to change the final outcome, but I’m sure it would be very noticeable. Enough that our local politicians might have an uncomfortable wake up call, and start paying attention to us. Maybe they’d even try a little more to represent their constituents instead of just their party.
As a PA resident, I do feel like my vote gets more "power" than people in other states for this reason. I wonder how ranked-choice voting would layer into the electoral college. I wonder if it could break up some of the deep strongholds to make more states more competitive. Not only might there be a legit third candidate in some states, but RCV should encourage candidates to be more moderate and less extreme, so states like OH, TX, and VA might surprise us if people feel like they have two candidates with at least some platform items that appeal to them.
Could we see a break down of the last few elections of what a proportional electoral college would have changed in the elections compared with the popular vote? There is a reason we don't go with the popular vote....can you explain more about the WHY behind the dangers of doing so?
This person on Reddit created a graph that calculates this exact thing for Presidential elections since 2000: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/kwzxkc/comment/gj7bjih/ (if you scroll down, the first comment includes all of his citations and reasoning - other comments do point out that there are differing methods to calculate proportional EC votes)
That's super cool! Certainly, it could ensure that more attention gets paid to the people in all states and appealing to more people than just a handful of "undecideds" in a handful of states.
Thank you for this!!
Love this explainer so much ‼️ Regarding the three options, can you further spell out for us what it would take from a voters perspective to make any of those happen? What officials would we need to elect with the intent to make any of these changes?
For instance, who do we need to elect in order to have our State added to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: Is it the Governor or the State Legislators, or both, that make this agreement?
Same question for the proportional allocation of electoral votes, but also can you explain some of the challenges to doing this? I understand why states might not be incentivized to make this change unless other states are also doing it, because Blue/Red states would lose guaranteed electoral votes, and Purple states would lose some of their stronghold on political attention/power.
For a Constitutional Amendment, I assume this would take Congress and the President, but then does it also require State Legislators to ratify the amendment? If so, how many states need to ratify for the amendment to be enacted?
Thank you for all you do! You are such a valued educator ❤️
Also, what is the alternative to passing a Constitutional Amendment outside of Congress? I recall there is a way of doing it through the states. How would that work? Who would voters need to organize around to make that happen? 👍
"In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that State’s consent." (https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/)
Awesome info, thanks, Emily!
Now, I want to learn more about State "conventions." Who calls for one and how can we get two-thirds of States working together to make this happen?
I love the idea of State Officials working across the aisle to show Congress how it can be done, though I know this is probably also far fetched. (But maybe not?!) 😁
Having lived in PA, VA, and NC, I can say living in swing states during Presidential elections is exhausting. It feels like the campaigning never ends. The amount of hateful TV commercials and texts messages I see and receive daily are exhausting. I’ve donated small amounts of money to candidates (not Presidential) in both parties, so that’s super fun for me for the text messages daily. There are multiple/day even though I respond “stop” to every one. Maddening.