Try the political quiz

13.3k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y


  @9F8JVHH  from Georgia disagreed…3mos3MO

Top Disagreement

Without the EC voting for the President will be a pure democracy, and pure democracies usually fail. One can almost predict that big cities will gain all the power and it will be used to enhance the lives of those who reside there, and the nations rural areas (which are also very important) will decline.

 @9FDQWWBSocialist from Nevada disagreed…2mos2MO

Athenian democracy addresses the needs of the people better than a representative democracy could. The standing electoral system in America contradicts my beliefs.

 @JudicialAlexandrafrom Georgia agreed…2mos2MO

I remember visiting Athens a few years ago and being fascinated by the concept of Athenian democracy, where every citizen had a direct say in decision-making. It's interesting to think about how such a system might impact the U.S. today. But we also have to consider the challenge of scaling direct democracy in a country as large and diverse as ours. Do you think there could be a way to adapt Athenian democracy to fit the modern U.S.?

 @9FDQ997from Texas disagreed…2mos2MO

Rural areas that supposedly benefit from the EC do not actually benefit from it, and quality of life in rural communities—alongside social mobility—is actually in decline. Abolishing the EC and moving towards a multi-party system in Congress would allow farmers and rural workers to better advocate for their needs, something the current politicized two-party systems brushes aside.

 @9F8DTG6Republican from New York disagreed…3mos3MO

Our founders designed it as a balance for the popular vote and they did all with much deliberation, prayer and purpose. We still need that balance.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2mos2MO

Of the popular vote disagrees with the election and the EC is the determining factor, it’s not democratic.

 @9F6WFSQ from Tennessee disagreed…3mos3MO

if there was no electoral colleges in the election politicians would never visit smaller states and cities and would only campaign in the large urban cities

 @9GXNNBKGreen  from North Carolina agreed…2wks2W

Top Agreement

As recent as the 2016 election, the EC went against the majority vote and allowed Trump to become president. About 1/3-1/2 of Us citizens don't vote which I think is because they believe their vote doesn't matter.

 @9GZB8LM from Indiana agreed…2wks2W

a lot of people don't belive this because the democrats rig the election just like they did to get Biden in office.

 @9GZ9W48 from Indiana disagreed…2wks2W

If someone is unhappy with their representation then they should be more educated on who they make their elected officials. If your state does not give you the representation you want, then move to a different one.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y


 @9F8DTG6Republican from New York agreed…3mos3MO

Top Agreement

Our founders designed it as a balance for the popular vote and they did all with much deliberation, prayer and purpose. We still need that balance.

 @4QT62TVRepublican agreed…3mos3MO

Competition between states is the genius of the electoral college. States can enact conservative or liberal policies. Citizens and corporations will vote on what they like best by where they reside.

 @9FTXGWY  from Nebraska agreed…2mos2MO

Rural areas would easily have no voice in government if it were entirely population based and rural areas take up more more space and function on an entirely different industry and lifestyle that needs to be represented as much as the people in the city need it.

 @9FTZXCG from Texas disagreed…2mos2MO

Our founders designed it as a balance for the popular vote and they did all with much deliberation, prayer and purpose. We still need that balance.

 @9GL82K5 from Connecticut agreed…4wks4W

The electoral college makes sure smaller states do not get over run by the population of larger states with larger populations.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes, and switch to a ranked voting system

 @4QT62TVRepublican disagreed…3mos3MO

This country is intended to have a small federal government with very limited powers - that are granted by the states/people to the federal government. Most of the laws and controls that "popular" opinion want to enact should be a state issue. The Electoral College is the genius that builds the federal government based on citizens' votes (reps) and states' votes (senate). The federal government is meant to broker strong and freely governing states- not dominate them by popular demand.

 @9FZQ5V7Democrat  from Alaska agreed…2mos2MO

A rank choice voting system allows people more voice in an election, if you voted for a candidate that gets knocked off of the ballot due to having the least amount of votes, and no one has more than 50% of the vote your secondary vote (The person you ranked second) gets your vote.

 @CapitalistApricots from Florida disagreed…2mos2MO

Indeed, ranked choice voting can amplify voters' voices in a unique way. However, it also brings its own set of challenges. For instance, it could potentially lead to strategic voting, where voters don't necessarily rank candidates based on their true preferences, but rather to manipulate the outcome of the election. Let's look at the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont. The candidate who initially led in first-choice votes ended up losing after the second and third choices were taken into account. This resulted in a backlash from voters who felt the system was unfair. How do you propose we address the potential for strategic voting in a ranked choice system?

 @9G6Y6KR from Arkansas disagreed…2mos2MO

This depends on how many candidates are on the ballot. If there are multiple candidates, there is no guarantee that your second choice will get your vote as your second choice may have less than the others.

 @3NL3N7Q agreed…2wks2W

Ranked voting gives voters flexibility and confidence in choosing who to support. Voters no longer need to fear a vote not mattering when their first preferred candidate is unpopular as their next choices still count.

 @9H4FCGC from Washington agreed…1wk1W

The Electoral College should be replaced by Ranked Choice Voting to break the endless cycle of partisan party politics. All viable candidates should have an equal chance at being elected, not just the party strongholds.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes, and switch to a representative democracy (popular vote) system

 @9GL2F5Z from California agreed…4wks4W

The electoral college is an ancient system used for when people were more patriotic towards their state than their country. Those times are over and now a loud minority is abusing the system to try to win the election. People vote, not land.

 @9GFBJMW from Washington agreed…1mo1MO

The most representative of what we the people want is a popular vote. For decades, both parties have gerrymandered, which can and has impacted the results of the election. for example, in the 2016 election, Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won the electoral vote because of right-wing gerrymandering.

 @9H3SLFPfrom Maine agreed…2wks2W

The electoral college does not and has not ever provided a result which lines up exactly with the views of the american people, i belive this is undemocratic.

 @9G9D7QW from Nebraska agreed…1mo1MO

The popular vote might not always be what some people want, or what I agree with, but it is without a doubt the most fair to the public and people, as long as we get MORE PEOPLE to vote, instead of only the people with agendas.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, the electoral college ensures representation of the whole country instead of just major cities

 @7KN529B from Indiana disagreed…1mo1MO

The electoral college takes away the right of the American people to choose their president by placing it in a arcane system that has chosen the loser of the popular vote twice in the last 20 years.

  @jwolfsg1590Constitution  from California disagreed…1mo1MO

We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Federal Republic. The Electoral College ensures that heavily populated states do not override the will of the less populated states. You would feel differently about the popular vote if you lives in those less populated states.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas disagreed…1mo1MO


First of all, the fact that we aren't a democracy is exactly the problem, because we should be a genuine democracy. Secondly, there is no good reason why anyone's votes should be disparaged just because they live in a more populated area; if more people vote for A than B, then A is what should be chosen. If people in more rural areas have the minority opinion, then that's what local elections are for. Those areas within the minority can elect their own local representatives to reflect their own beliefs for themselves, but the entire nation as a whole should not be subjected to the disproportionate decisions of a minority opinion. The nation as a whole should be decided by the majority, and if those in the minority don't like it then that's what their own local elections are for.

 @9GJ3ZCFDemocrat from Colorado disagreed…1mo1MO

It overly compensates for landmass rather than actual population. As evidenced by presidential candidates losing the popular vote and winning the electoral college

 @9GJ7JXG from Michigan agreed…1mo1MO

Yeah, I agree it does overcompensate for landmass rather than the people which matters more in my opinion.

 @9G33L7L disagreed…2mos2MO

I feel that the electoral college is set up to look as if we vote but they really have the overall power of who gets elected.

 @9G3KL4XDemocrat from North Carolina agreed…2mos2MO

I agree. It is unreliable and does not reflect the will of the people. A method of voting such as ranked choice voting could solve issues and allow a person's vote to have its full impact.

 @9G3JMTNDemocrat from North Carolina agreed…2mos2MO

I agree with this statement, as we have seen throughout history it is possible for a candidate to be elected who was not nearly in the public interest for holding office.

 @9GXNNBKGreen  from North Carolina disagreed…2wks2W

The Electoral College has a history of going against the majority. The EC was also just made because we couldn't count each vote independently

 @9GYW53D from Washington disagreed…2wks2W

The Electoral College has been an important part of American democracy for over 200 years. Changing it would mean altering a system that has been part of American history and tradition.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas disagreed…2wks2W


Just because it has existed for a long time does not mean that it has been good or even useful for that entire time, if at all. If "being a part of American history and tradition" is the only thing it has going for it (and there are definitely no other benefits to our garbage, outdated voting system) then it absolutely need changing. Tradition is worthless on its own...

 @9GYW53D from Washington disagreed…2wks2W

The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States. If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily populated areas or specific regions. By providing clear and decisive victories, the Electoral College contributes to political stability. It encourages a two-party system and rewards candidates who have broad, nationwide support. The Electoral College recognizes the importance of states in the American federal system. As a federation, the balance of power is important…  Read more

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas disagreed…2wks2W


These are terrible arguments.

First of all, ANY national voting system "ensures that all parts of the country are involved" because any system that involves the entire country fundamentally does that, not just the Electoral College; a popular vote system would also "ensure that all parts of the country are involved", so that argument doesn't even make sense, much less in the Electoral College's favor.

Secondly, the Electoral College already limits campaigning to specific regions: swing states. That's why current campaigners can effectively ignore any states that always vote for the same party, and instead focus on just the states that they have a chance of flipping (which is why they're also called "battleground states", because those are the states where candidates fight over). A voting system withoutRead more

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, but reform so that votes are distributed proportionally instead of the current winner take all system

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, but the balance of votes by population should be updated

 @9GBVP9L from Wisconsin disagreed…1mo1MO

The whole system is outdated and adjusting it won't fix anything. We just need to get rid of the whole thing.

 @9FL77XB from New York disagreed…2mos2MO

The United States’ political system is broken beyond belief we should rid ourselves of capitalism, the electoral college and private property.

 @9GMY3DQ  from South Carolina disagreed…4wks4W

The balance of votes is already updated every 10 years in the Census. Tweaking the system based on the amount of votes in each state doesn't solve the core issues of the Electoral College, in that it actively pushes against campaigning in non-swing states and limits the ability for third party and independent candidates to take hold in the political system.

 @9GKB7MR from New Jersey disagreed…4wks4W

The balance of votes by population should be maintained to preserve the power rights and powers of regions with smaller populations.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...