65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/news@lemmy.world/t/488620

65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

  • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
    2·
    1 year ago

    So you’ve shifted from votes only matter in swing states to votes only matter

    No, I haven’t shifted, I’m describing several different problems.

    • Swing states are the only ones that make a difference. That’s why candidates only visit swing states for the most part.

    • Votes are ignored when your state votes against you (Ex: California votes 51% blue 49% red, but 100% of the electoral votes go to blue, effectively ignoring half the voters). Your vote should go to your choice, not the opposition.

    • Each vote is weighted differently based on citizen location, which is antithetical to democracy

    None of that matters, each person’s vote is counted once.

    This is irrelevant, the issue is not the number of times counted, it’s how it’s counted.

    You are conflating the outcome of the election to whether the vote counts.

    That is quite literally how the electoral vote works. Blue votes from Texas are ignored, with the electoral votes going to red.

    It’s like saying everyone who voted against an issue that passed vote did not count.

    Maybe that’d be true if electoral votes reflected the actual vote within a state, but they don’t, it’s almost always winner take all.

    • jimbolauski@lemmy.world
      11·
      1 year ago

      Swing states are not the only votes that make a difference. If enough people believed that in a solid state and didn’t vote the outcome would change ie their vote counts.

      Your vote should go to your choice, not the opposition.

      Your vote doesn’t get changed based on the outcome it stays the same. It is still counted.

      Issue voting is winner take all and unless I missed it you don’t have a problem with that.

      What you are asking for is a more granular representation for votes, not to “make everyone’s vote count”.

      • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
        31·
        1 year ago

        I’ve already addressed basically everything you’ve said here, so I’m going to leave it at that.

        • jimbolauski@lemmy.world
          13·
          1 year ago

          You’ve yet to address how votes in states that lose are not counted. I can see 6,006,429 people in California voted for Trump in 2020 so their votes were counted.

          • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
            4·
            1 year ago

            Votes are ignored when your state votes against you (Ex: California votes 51% blue 49% red, but 100% of the electoral votes go to blue, effectively ignoring half the voters). Your vote should go to your choice, not the opposition.

              • PizzaMan@lemmy.worldOP
                3·
                1 year ago

                This is some real woosh material right here. The point I’m trying to make seems to be sailing right over your head while you gripe about technicalities.

                Those people effectively did not have their votes counted. They effectively voted for Biden in the end because their electoral votes that represent them voted against them.

                • jimbolauski@lemmy.world
                  12·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not arguing about technicalities, everyone’s vote counts, except in the minds of election conspiracy theorists.

                  Your points are not about making everyone’s vote equal they are about making the outcomes more granular.