1. The US was not nearly as diverse when it was founded so that doesn't apply. Second political ideology is not a protected class and never has been. But this line of argument is telling. Hey guess what, the whites will be fine since that's what you're worried about.

Correct, it sure isn't a fucking reason to keep the electoral college. The US doesn;t have direct democracy, never has and changing *1 election* to popular vote *like every governor, senator, house member, city councilman and fucking dog catcher* isn't changing that. This is fucking cope.

Fucking NO. They pay attention to the 5-10 swing states in any year. Trump literally talks about how he "won the 7 swing states". You are just flat out lying. When has a Republican seriously campaigned for Oregon or a Democrat seriously made a play for Idaho. You're just lying, this is one of the most common complaints about our elections. It's all swing state shit.

No, it's the minority wanting to have a *disproportional* amount of influence. They want more power than they actually deserve. Also there's a reason we have a law based system *with minority protections*. And frankly as Republicans have gleefully stepped on the grave of the VRA I really don't give two shits about protections of minority. Ya'll can get fucked.

It in fact was not described unless you mean "states representation" which, im sorry, doesn't apply to President or i'm not convinvinced. Like I said, you have multiple layers of legislative representation for states. Give me anything else.

I never said it wasn;t in the Constitution or it wasn't law. You brought up some original-ism style argument here. Part of the contract, we have a baked in process to change the contract and have. This isn't an argument, this is a tautology.

If we agree that winner take all state level is not good then the line between our positions is much narrower. What is the functional difference you are defending here other than "always been this way so always should be" which is silly.

Also you can't just say tyranny of the majority, you need to define it. Give me an example or your fear here because elections work on "who gets the most votes win". Are all elections tyranny of the majority.

Yet again and you need to respond to this for once in this in this discussion: We have the Senate and the legislative can overpower the Executive on anything.

If you read the rest of the founders stuff you'd know that it isn't actually 3 "coequal", legislative is by design more powerful than the other two.

I'm sorry but "Tyranny of the majority" is cope for Republicans who can't deal with their ideas not being as popular as they want them to be so instead of changing those ideas they use shit like this.

It's also very telling that Republicans like yourself automatically believe that if liberals get too much power they'll just absolutely fuck over rural voters for... some reason. And the reason you all believe that is because it's exactly what you would do in power and currently are doing. You're cruel so you expect everyone else is too. Well sorry but it ain't true.

And while they're not silent the battery tools are far more tolerable on a weekend morning than the rumble of 2-stroke blowers and trimmers.

Ok, so no answer there. It being the oldest actually cuts against your argument, other nations looked at our system and decided not to use that system.

Not an answer.

Popular vote for President doesn't change that. Again, we have just one election that has to operate this way. The Senate and Congress and all that still operates the same. This is just about President, one office, one person. One vote per citizen.

This is why I feel like the arguments against popular vote are all vibes and Republicans who want to maintain minority rule. Same as why they wont' support eliminating gerrymanders, they only care about power, not principles.

It's easy to eschew popular vote when you don't actually care about democracy after all!

And I would say that it sounds like "checks and balances" but really, what is it checking? What is it balancing? Judicial/Executive/Legislative, they all have areas of the government that they interface with, who does the electoral college balance with? States interests? This is the executive, states have their own legislative both in their states and in Congress.

As you said yourself the EC was a compromise and logistical solve, not a legal one. Also it's form today with winner-take-all is far from how the Founders imagines it in the Federalist, I would imagine Hamilton would not like the system and outcomes it delivers now.

I would have to hear how the peoples interests and states interests are not represented in a nationwide popular vote.

Third parties are suppressed in the USA due to the fact we use First-Past-The-Post voting which is going to naturally lead to just two parties. Right now actual candidates can participate in either party primary, its pretty loose all things considered, there's no "You have to be a Democrat for X years to run in the primary" type rule.

I wholeheartedly support moving to a ranked choice or approval voting or STAR voting system but that's a different fight altogether.

Moving to national popular vote for the President is a good first step even with the two party system.

Because if they don't have minority control it's mob rule! So simple! As long as they always win that's what is fair!

Can you name another country that uses and Electoral College system?

Can you show examples of "mob rule" in other nations that use popular vote systems?

Also is our system now not a sort of reverse mob rule? Explain how not and how popular vote would be so starkly different?

1. Nobody is asking Congress to choose the President.

2. Nobody is asking for state by state voting, popular vote would be nationwide.

3. This isn't compelling enough.and none of that in particular applies to national popular vote.

Like I said, these arguments are far from compelling and almost all of them are not applicable.

Also Madison who initially supported popular vote:

“There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”

We have exactly 1 office where the entire nation votes. Just one and they represent everyone.

We do not need the electoral college for some "urban/rural" balance, we already have the Senate.

Also there are literally way more people living in cities so why shouldn't they get a greater say, there is literally more of them.

Just saying this doesn't mean it's true, you have to make the case, it's not self actualizing.

What does that even mean, "myth popular results are meaningful". Those are literally elections! The person with the most votes wins.

Firstly, the Electoral College is actually *not* checks and balances. Secondly, again, you can't state that, you have to state *why*.

That's called the Senate and it's skewed heavily in favor of the "country". Shit, there shouldn't even be two Dakotas.

We have exactly 1 office where the entire nation votes. Just one and they represent everyone, city and country alike. So everyone gets to vote for it and have their vote count the same.

Then the candidates actually have to craft to appeal to both the city and the country.

That's great and all but it's 250 years later. At the very least we can use a popular vote for the single election that everyone in the nation votes for. I have yet to hear any compelling argument against this. It's clean, it's fair, it's simple.

That alone is a great argument for popular vote.

The term "datacenter" is also losing much of it's meaning and that is having consequences elsewhere.

For the past 4-5 years a local company has been building a new office/datacenter building as they are growing. Now this isn't some AI company building a multi-hundred-megawatt facility, this is a local company who does colocation, web hosting, servers, you know, all that stuff the term datacenter used to stand for. Doubly so that this company decided to make at least an interesting looking building instead of another flat, windowless white box.

Now on local social media this building has been swept up in opposition with folks repeating boundless conspiracy theories and wanting the whole thing shut down. You try explaining the difference but it's deaf ears. You even try and tell them "hey, their existing datacenter has been like 1 mile away for a decade and there is another, larger datacenter down the block that's been there better part of 3 decades and nobody has complained.

  Now on the one hand I also can empathize with them a bit, the layman isn't going to know the difference between those and these new AI centers but people are ready to spike an actual local company, a small business that has grown quite a bit, the exact thing we should be celebrating.

Once again I don't so much blame AI itself but it's proponents and the companies behind them. So far their tech and business is making so many things worse faster than it can do any of it's so called improvements.

You can't even engage with the question, what a joke.

Everyone is 12.