Try the political quiz

124 Replies

  @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.

 @9F844BB from Texas disagreed…3mos3MO

Electoral officials can override the popular vote of their state and completely jeopardize the statutes of American Democracy.

 @9GMY3DQ  from South Carolina agreed…4wks4W

The Electoral College as-is actively limits the ability for a third party to take hold. If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to the House of Representatives. As a result, Martin Van Buren helped push for a stable two-party system back in the 1800s as a way to mitigate the need for this back-up method to choose a victor. Without the Electoral College, the United States could move to another voting system that more actively encourages third party and independent engagement without the fear of an election in the House or playing "spoiler" in your specific swing state.

 @9GN4G2P from California agreed…4wks4W

I do not think that the Electoral College currently holds back third parties as it is unlikely they will get the votes anyway. still, I think if there ever was a third party that got some attention, it would most likely hold them back and I think overall the Electoral College is a very poorly thought out and unnecessary system.

 @97J4T59 from West Virginia commented…1yr1Y

Understand politics before making decisions that effect everybody

So then smaller states with smaller populations just get no say so correct??? Cause that's the purpose of the electoral!!! All states (which actually means people in politics) are different sizes. Therefore smaller states less population versus bigger states with bigger population. If we went by popular vote because electoral college is gone then these smaller states would not be able to compete with bigger states. For example, lets say California has a population of 1.5 billion half those people (750,000,000) feel democratic while other half (750,000,000) feel republican. But Montana…  Read more

 @1andonlymikusGreen from Ohio commented…1yr1Y

It isn't that smaller states don't get a say, it's that the PEOPLE'S say is what matters, not the states'. The whole "bigger states/bigger cities will decide elections" is not true whatsoever. It doesn't even make sense when you read into it. The people in those cities and states are what matters. Changing to a popular vote system (including stuff like ranked voting, what Australia does) will lead to people actually feeling as if their vote matters. If politicians have issues with it, they just need to adopt more popular policies that align with the views of their voter base, ya know, the people who put you in charge and the ones that you're governing. Land shouldn't vote, people should.

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington disagreed…6mos6MO


 @itguru_ianConstitutionfrom Nevada agreed…6mos6MO

I understand your concern about protecting individual liberties and rights. A specific example that comes to mind is concerns about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Some people worry that a shift in power could lead to stricter gun control laws, impacting their rights. How do you think a popular vote system would affect the balance of power and the protection of our rights?

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington agreed…6mos6MO

It would make the cities infect the entire electoral system and destroy representation for farmers and small-town folks.

 @9F24W72 from California commented…3mos3MO

 @9F24W72 from California agreed…3mos3MO

 @93VKT3J  from Michigan commented…10mos10MO

One of the main reasons electoral college was made was because 250 years ago there was no way to collect all the votes of the land owner white men that were privileged to vote. So they could send a proxy voter "Elector" to vote for all that couldn't go.

There was zero thought about population density in some states.

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington disagreed…6mos6MO

Have you ever bothered to read a single Founding-era document? Because obviously you're either lying through your teeth or don't know a thing about what you're talking about. I've studied it for THREE YEARS and am WRITING A 400 PAGE BOOK ABOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION and from a Historian's perspective let me tell you that the electoral college was created to stop MOB RULE, not uphold "white privilege." It disgusts me the lies you liberals spew in our faces. So why don't you do your gall-darn research before you hurl a bunch of baseless crap at conservative's heads on a website supposed to be based in FACT!

 @FilibusterFlightConstitution from South Carolina agreed…6mos6MO

You're absolutely right about the Founding-era documents! It's crazy how some folks jump to conclusions without doing a deep dive into history. For instance, take the Federalist Papers. No. 68, written by Alexander Hamilton, talks about how the electoral college was meant to prevent "tumult and disorder" and ensure that "the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." Sounds like they wanted to avoid chaos and make sure the right person got the job, not uphold "white privilege," right? Now, how about we chat about the implications of the electoral college for modern-day politics? Any thoughts on how it could potentially balance the power between highly populated and less populated areas?

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington agreed…6mos6MO

My thoughts are in line with the Founders about the need to stop the cities from ruling the country. "The mobs of the cities add just so much support to a pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body." Thomas Jefferson there.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas disagreed…1yr1Y

So then smaller states with smaller populations just get no say

No, it just means all people would get an equal say; under the electoral college, people in smaller states are given a larger "say" than people in larger states...which is blatantly anti-democratic. If some people have more of a say than others, then that's not democratic, that's just inflating the beliefs of a minority simply because they're in a minority. Everyone should have the same, equal vote, and if that means a minority belief is unpopular...then that's just how majoritarianism works. Plus, smaller states/towns always have their own local elections anyways, so I don't even understand the issue? If the majority of the country votes for Party A, then that's obviously who should lead nationally, but if your small state/town votes majority Party B, then your state/town should be lead by Party B...

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington disagreed…6mos6MO

I am strongly Anti-Democratic and darn proud of it because I AM A REPUBLICAN NOT A DEMOCRAT!

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…6mos6MO

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but the political party names are not actually representative of being pro-/anti-democracy.

More importantly, why are you strongly against democratic decision-making? So that implies that you believe that not everyone should be allowed to vote, right?

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…6mos6MO

Absolutely. So Democracy is majority tyranny. What I believe in is a Republic, which our nation, by the way, actually is -- and that means that consent of the governed is retained while individual rights, being uninfringable and inalienable, cannot be voted away by mob rule. Actually the party names are representative of being pro/anti-democracy. Republicans were founded to abolish slavery because they knew that just because the voters said slavery was right didn't make it legal. Democrats were founded to protect the institution of slavery and racism because that's what the majority wanted. So yes the parties are an anti/pro democratic system.


The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...