So I’m a New Zealander and I have a pretty good idea on how the electoral college system works but it honestly sounds like something that can be easily corrupted and it feels like it renders the popular vote absolutely useless unless I’m totally missing something obvious?

So yeah if someone could explain to me what the benefits of such a system are, that would be awesome.

Edit - Thanks for the replies so far, already learning a lot!

  • juliebean@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the main ‘advantage’ i believe is that it allows non-voting people to lend weight to the votes of those who do vote. it allows states to disenfranchise voters, without that impacting their state’s influence on national politics. it also allows smaller states a larger proportional influence than their population would make reasonable.

    personally, i don’t see those as advantages, but i’m not some wealthy slave owner from the 1700s.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget the 18 people from Wyoming who really enjoy it too, they get to be counted the same as hundreds of thousands of new yorkers

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a decent idea that’s been devastatingly crippled. We could fix almost all the problems with it by doing two things: unbinding electors, and uncapping the House. If more states moved to a proportional system, that would help, too.

    The thing is… to forbid states to bind their electors (binding means the elector is not free to choose their vote for President, but must vote as dictated by state law) or to force states to choose electors proportionally, is beyond the power of the federal government. It would be better for everyone if states did this on their own, of course, but they can’t be forced to do so.

    Uncapping the House is desirable both in itself (for greater, and more granular, representation in Congress) and would also make the EC more representative by allowing more electors to populous states, without diminishing the representation of less populous states. But making the EC more democratic, without the check that unbound electors provide, could be dangerous, pushing the country further towards populism.

    • projectmoon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How would allowing electors to vote whatever they want be an improvement over binding them to state law?

      Uncapping the house, yes, is a good thing. But I can’t see how allowing unfaithful electors is a good idea.

        • projectmoon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But alternatively, it could be easily abused in the opposite direction. Better to just get rid of it and replace with some better voting system in my opinion.