Electoral or Popular Vote

[FA_Q2]

Which do you think it should be?

Wouldn't "popular vote" be more of a democracy" and "electoral vote" more closely related to republican form of government?

Yes. Not that there's much Republic left, but that's exactly why we should keep it

Except that, in its current form, the EC is not more ‘republic’ than democratic. As Greenbeard has been pointing out over and over and over and over and over again is that the EC is entirely based on popular vote. Regionally locking the popular vote does not make it ‘more republic.’

The electoral system allows people in small less populated States to have the same voting power as those in densely populated areas. The idea that popular vote (mob rules) when it comes to electing our leadership is completely ridiculous. With the mob rule mentality a politician need only campaign in cities like New York, Chicago, and L.A. to name a few... And those would be the places which would produce every elected leader under a popular vote system. Sorry, but the Founding Fathers got this one exactly right. The electoral process is the way it has been, and the way it should be. I for one don't want Liberal bastions like New York City deciding for me who will be my next President every time an election comes around. We may as well have a Dictatorship... Because a popular vote system wouldn't be much different.

As opposed to the system we have now where a very select few states are the ONLY places that politicians campaign and those select few places determine the election. As a matter of fact, each state is based on popular votes; do the candidates ONLY run in the populated cities there?

No, so your statement is flat out false.

I have yet to see one single election ad. None. That is because I live in a predominantly democratic state. They are not going to campaign here, why should they. No matter what they do, the votes are already decided here. If there were no EC, who knows, there would be an entirely different landscape.

That is the best argument for a straight popular vote. And you make it well. However, I continue to think that there is nothing wrong with the Electoral College EXCEPT that it doesn't insure the person who gets the most popular votes becomes President. It's like having a great car that does everything except move forward. The most important function of an election, President, Senator, Dog Catcher, etc... is that the will of the people be expressed in the outcome. When you have such a large number of persons in such a large geographic body, that lends itself to the population centers determining the victor. The Electoral College does as good a job as any system in mitigating that but why not just add in the one stipulation that ensures the will of the electorate is carried through?

Because I do not see any evidence that politicians would concentrate on population centers. As I asked earlier: do they currently do that in states? No. Why would that scale differently on the national stage?

The other problem that I have is that using 2 metrics as you have suggested creates a GRATER possibility that someone that DOES NOT have the public behind them to gain the office through the congress. I have no desire for that to EVER HAPPEN. If the system worked as you suggest, such would have been the case recently. I think that would be even worse for the country in general.

Further, the ONE case for keeping the EC is that the individual states currently make election law. As shooter points out (while ignoring all the counter points ) the states can set up any election laws they please. Requiring a popular vote negates that capability and makes the EC absolutely meaningless. Doing what you suggest accomplishes this:
1 - Removes state power over the election process
2 - Ensures that the system stays exactly as it is now with candidates campaigning in a very short list of specific states.
3 - Changes nothing in the campaign process as the likelihood of Bush happening again is extremely remote.
4 - Creates a greater possibility that Congress will select the president without the will of the people.

I would ask again, what do you think you would gain with 2 metrics in selecting the president? You said that the president should have the popular vote. IF you implemented a dual system as you suggest and one gets the EC and the other gets the popular vote what have you gained? The congress would now select a president that quite possibly WOULD NOT HAVE THE POPULAR VOTE. Where has anything been gained? In essence, I prefer the EC to decide the election in the EXTREMELY rare cases where the popular vote is upheld rather than allow Congress to take over that selection. Imagine the fallout if that happens anyway. At least, when the election goes against the popular vote, the people can accept it as a matter of established rules and law even if they don’t like said laws. If congress makes the call, there will be uproars with everyone pointing fingers at why they made the corrupt/wrong/whatever decision. On the same note, I like separation of powers and I do not like the idea that Congress is going to pick ‘their’ guy for the office.

As you pointed out that the possibility already exists BUT I would point out that such a case is damn near impossible as evidenced by the number of times that it has actually happened.