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

Why have a complicated electoral college system that is full of issues regarding to gerry mandering and not transition to a popular vote system. This would greatly reduce the complexity of our election process.

The electoral college is inherently biased. Take California, for example. There are a lot of Republicans in California, but that state will remain blue politically my entire life. The same applies to most US states, regardless of their political leaning. Battleground states are few and far between, and that handful of states should not decide every election.

It actually ensures that campaigning is limited to viable states and lacks representation for communities in states which while as a whole will vote largely for one party may have a community within that are not represented fairly by the states electoral college.

The Electoral College does not actually properly represent the whole country because of gerrymandering. No one should win an election if they lost the popular vote.

This argument is ridiculous. The minority of votes should never win. There is no logic there. We are all Americans, why should the few in rural areas decide what the many get?Also, people in more dense populations understand social issues better than those in rural areas. I'm speaking as someone from a very rural area full of Trump voting Republicans. The ignorant untrue beliefs people hold simply because they don't know other types of people and watch propaganda media is baffling.

The electoral college does not represent the whole country. The popular vote is the majority. The electoral college hinges on swing states and could help a president elect who did not receive majority vote to win.

The whole country is all of the citizens of said country. Is the majority of the country supports a candidate then they should be elected it's the basic reasoning behind one vote one person.

Our electoral college system has been proven to not always line up with the popular vote. What's the point of giving us voting rights if the majority vote doesn't matter?

That makes no sense, popular vote represents the people and the electoral college is borderline fraud.

The electoral college still doesn't ensure representation for the whole country due to the heavily unbalanced amount of electoral college votes spread in the country as well as not guaranteeing to be representative of every citizen's ideals: instead of the electoral college, there should instead be a ranked voting system for candidates to eliminate strategic voting and ensure that all citizens have a candidate they're happy with.

It literally does give more influence to the minority rather than majority. It is the opposite of full and proper represenation.

Voting was supposed to let the people make the choices in their leaders. That is not always what happens with the electoral college. The people's vote can show one winner, and the electoral another.

The electoral college directly takes away the popular votes opinion and relies on the opinion of an upper few. By removing this we are adding everyones opinion.

It doesn't make sense, what is the point of the popular vote if there is an electoral college? It should just be based on who gets the most votes.

The Electoral college is not a fair way to elect the president it does not ensure one man one vote. Only the use of the simple majority will doe that.

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.

The electoral college is an undemocratic system which violates the systems of Direct Democracy which the originators of the concept of democracy would see as a disservice.

The electoral college should be demolished because it gives the power of an election to people in power, not the actual people themselves.

No vote should count more than another. The whole country can be adequately represented if each citizen had one vote.

As a directly voting democracy for president, vote totals are the only thing that should matter, not a semi-arbitrary system like the electoral college, that unfairly makes some people votes less valuable.

Major cities hold much of the population. When the electoral vote is not the popular vote, it is not representative of the entire state and therefore could not be representative of the entire country.

Presidential elections should be decided by the peoples' votes. The state in which you currently reside should not matter in how your vote is counted. People move to different states every day.

I do not have enough knowledge about this issue to form a concrete argument. What I DO know is that in 2016 Hilary Clinton won the popular vote and Donald Trump won the Electoral College. The majority of the people of the United States voted for Clinton, but Donald won. This is a democracy, and if somebody gets into power that over half of the country didn't want, can we really call it that? The Electoral College is confusing, and I believe that it does not represent the best interests of our country. Abolish it, and vote normally where you count people's votes instead of points.

Why should I get more representation if I live in the middle of nowhere and less if I live in a city? I should get the same representation no matter where I live.

The electoral college has guaranteed that our votes mean nothing in an election. No matter your reasoning you can

No, it doesn't the popular vote measures all voters who vote for that party, while the electoral college only counts to the person who wins the state. So basically, even though you got more votes than the other party, you can still lose the election.

Our elections are supposed to represent the citizens, and the election results can differ from the popular vote as a result of the Electoral College, which doesn’t accurately represent us.

People argue the electoral college keeps the majority from ruling over the minority. So the minority ruling over the majority is somehow better? No thank you. I think perhaps we should evolve into perhaps some some new ways of thinking. Perhaps there can be one set of rules for urban areas and another set of rules for rural areas. Perhaps this could keep everybody happy instead of forcing one way onto all.

We are one country, and communication is the easiest it's ever been. A farmer in Oklahoma should not have 3 times the voting power has a New Yorker

the electoral college weights votes against large states. a national popular vote system would ensure fairness and would not disadvantage the smaller states and rural areas.

The major cities have the most people which is the representation of the whole country rather than the spread out people. Why should the minority have more say in the government if less people agree with them?

It actually does the opposite. Look at a map of visits during election season. Candidates focus on swing states and some larger safe states for fundraising and visits.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/10/30/where-presidential-candidates-traveling-run-up-election-day/6062441002/

USA Today shows where Biden and Trump were traveling during the month preceding the election. If you remember the states that were close during that campaign you will notice a correlation between those states and the states visited.

This trend holds for the last month, in general.

While the electoral colleg…  Read moree overrepresents smaller states in terms of voting power, and underrepresents larger states, it does not get people to care about their issues. Candidates either go for what swing states care about ( the importance of protectionism for Rust Belt voters for example) or national issues (COVID, Black Lives Matter, Border Protection etc).

The election of the president currently does not fulfill the premise of one person, one vote. The Electoral College only emerged due to debate among the Founding Fathers, many of whom argued that Congress should reserve the power to choose the president. Their opponents, who supported the popular vote method, had to accept the new system in order to break the stalemate and reach a consensus. Furthermore, the Electoral College was introduced when political parties didn't exist, and electors could choose candidates independently. That's no longer the case, meaning each state (in pract…  Read moreice if not always in principle) has all of their electors vote for the candidate who won that state.

Why represent an entire state with just a couple people who can still choose what they think is the best for the country.