How americans vote

    I would say that a fundamental flaw of the american politic is that the votes are just first past the post voting

    most votes win, voters only one vote.

    (americans do it a lil differnt: qualifier voting rounds sorts out the top two candidates and then they duke it out for majority)




    I propose that it should be changed to Instant runoff voting.

    You'll rank candidates by ones you want the most to ones you want the least. if you don't want them at all, just don't rank them; your vote won't count for them

    The first round of voting, the number one spots of each person's ranking is counted. the lowest is eliminated, and then the ones who voted for the lost canidate will have their second ranking added to the first round, and so on and so forth.

    and it goes on until one of the candidates reaches past 50%

    Quote from Kataphract

    I propose that it should be changed to Instant runoff voting.

    You'll rank candidates by ones you want the most to ones you want the least. if you don't want them at all, just don't rank them; your vote won't count for themt

    NewYork has rank voting from what i remember.

    Quote from licoricebtch

    The problem with American elections is that the Electoral College actually votes for the President and not based on majority vote of the nation.


    Trump lost the popularity vote back in 2016, but won the presidency by winning in a few small states that had higher electoral points….

    i still dunno how that happened but i'll say it was some very skilled gerrymandering at work

    smiley273 (1).gif

    Quote from Kataphract

    there was a lot of "voting for not X" as well.

    tbh, i was still too young to fully understand what was going during that election anyway.

    i just know 11 year old me thought my life would be over if he became president

    151866-karina-fake-cry-gif

    Quote from zuzuhhaa

    i still dunno how that happened but i'll say it was some very skilled gerrymandering at work

    smiley273 (1).gif


    The electoral points favor smaller states, that happen to be more conservatives.


    You can literally win all the votes from California and New York (most populated states and democratic) yet still lose the election because the smaller states are won by a republican.


    It doesn’t make sense.

    Quote from licoricebtch

    The problem with American elections is that the Electoral College actually votes for the President and not based on majority vote of the nation.


    Trump lost the popularity vote back in 2016, but won the presidency by winning in a few small states that had higher electoral points….

    The two stages of voting (voting for electors and voting for president using the electors) are both the first system in my OP.


    Being that as it was, we can replace both stages with the ranking system to ensure that the system change has some effect in the president's election.


    The original idea behind the electoral college was that information passed so slowly that the electors were used to ride to the capitol where the information was most accurate and have good faith that they would vote for who they felt was best for their constituents. The electors would preferably be appointed from their representative voting district.


    Now that information travels so fast, a few states have passed a law to make it illegal to "vote traitorously" where if an elector was to vote against the candidate that they were told to vote for, they could be found guilty and jailed. (the issue with that -- err -- is that one cannot rescind the erroneous vote because it is protected by constitution)


    The national popular vote interstate compact (NPVIC) is a compact that says "screw it" and member states will award all state votes to the candidate that won the popular vote in the state, removing the elector all together.

    Quote from Kataphract

    Now that information travels so fast, a few states have passed a law to make it illegal to "vote traitorously" where if an elector was to vote against the candidate that they were told to vote for, they could be found guilty and jailed. (the issue with that -- err -- is that one cannot rescind the erroneous vote because it is protected by constitution)

    Correction: erroneous votes can be voided

    Correction: some electors are simply removed instead of being jailed.

    Addition: if erroneous votes can be voided and electors replaced, effectively whatever the vote should be, will be.

    Addition: 14 states have "faithless elector" laws. basically electors can't vote for the other team.

  • AllKill VIP

    just gonna leave it here to make you all smile

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from licoricebtch

    The problem with American elections is that the Electoral College actually votes for the President and not based on majority vote of the nation.

    That's not a problem at all - that's the intentional design of the Founding Fathers, who did not want easily misled mobs in the cities used by bad actors to assume total control over the country.


    Unfortunately, that's where we have ended up today, anyway.

    whilst true the issue is what can one do about it?

    that and something like gerrymandering and "hatred" of the other side is so ingrained in US politics...

    Quote from selfmate

    whilst true the issue is what can one do about it?

    that and something like gerrymandering and "hatred" of the other side is so ingrained in US politics...

    yea and currently the way its set up, the current system is a negative feedback loop. If a new candidate came out and ran, the party with the closest views to that new candidate would suffer because voters would be split between the two candidates and the adversary would win.


    It would require a new third candidate that vows to change the voting system and does not share any views with the current political parties and drawing enough votes away to overtop both incumbent parties.


    In short it'll take a flying pig, a talking dog, a cow that jumped over the moon, and a whole bushel of miracles to make it happen.


    Gerrymandering will be alleviated with more parties, honestly but I wish they resorted to a mathematical system of division, rather than a political way of division. (heck why not even do popular vote lmao )

    I actually appreciate the electoral collage despite being not from there, because it seems better for rural voters compared to urban voters. In contrast Canada is essentially dominated vote-wise by urban voters in specific cities for better or worse which is part of why the west/east divide is as bad as it is(wexit won't ever happen pipedream but the movement has some basis in this).

    Quote from TheBotter

    Yes but in a country like the US quality of life, distribution of individual wealth and opportunity can differ vastly between states, especially richer to poorer states so just voting based on pure numbers would also shift power to these states.


    In the current system is it even possible to call a popular voting system fair?


    It’s not even about quality of life which I’m fine with if that was the case. But most of these smaller states are conservative Christian states that push their personal beliefs unto others when it comes to abortion, lgbtq rights, immigration, voters rights etc etc. If anything they’re impacting the quality of life of minorities in a negative way.


    edit: they’re also anti social welfare, anti free health care, anti free higher education. Which is weird because many of these smaller states have a smaller income than bigger states.

    Quote from NEO

    Get rid of the Electoral College.


    I know right…. if Obama didn’t win in his first term same-sex marriage would still be illegal and millions of Americans would be without health insurance. When Trump won because of the Electoral College he tried to get rid of universal healthcare and many of his conservative supporter tried to abolish same-sex marriage, thank goodness they didn’t succeed in either despite nominating super conservative supreme court judges.

    Quote from licoricebtch

    I know right…. if Obama didn’t win in his first term same-sex marriage would still be illegal and millions of Americans would be without health insurance. When Trump won because of the Electoral College he tried to get rid of universal healthcare and many of his conservative supporter tried to abolish same-sex marriage, thank goodness they didn’t succeed in either despite nominating super conservative supreme court judges.

    As someone who doesn't live in the US, the Electoral College doesn't make sense at all. lol It probably did like 200 years ago when the discrepancy between large states and small states was bigger and not everyone could vote.


    Even if the people don't always make a wise choice, it's still better to let them vote and decide the elections themselves.

    Quote from NEO

    As someone who doesn't live in the US, the Electoral College doesn't make sense at all. lol It probably did like 200 years ago when the discrepancy between large states and small states was bigger and not everyone could vote.


    Even if the people don't always make a wise choice, it's still better to let them vote and decide the elections themselves.


    Yeah when the US was first formed it made sense since everyone during that time shared the same general ideals. US citizens started having different views when the idea of slavery came into question. Hence why a civil war broke out.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login