Electoral or Popular Vote

[candycorn]

Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency.

Given that the people do not elect the President - how so?

I hope you amuse yourself as much as you amuse others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

No you won't.
When Republicans lose, they don't cry about the system being "unfair".

Right...

I invite you to cite examples as well.

 

[gallantwarrior]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

That's very unlikely considering that California and New York will be so overwhelmingly Democratic. They could go 20,000,000 more votes in the popular vote and the other 55 states go Republican by slim margins and Romney would win with maybe 45% of the popular vote.
I don't know about you, but I don't want 2 states to decide who runs the rest.

Particularly not CA or NY.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency. We should make it to where you must win both to become President. You must have appeal in several different regions and you must have enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office.

No.

The failure to win both could lead to a constitutional crises. It has to be one or the other.

Think about it.

In any event, the presence of the Electoral College already drives both. It is in only very close elections that the Electoral College could possibly override the popular vote anyway. Hence, for example, Bush had "appeal" in most regions of the country and had "enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office".

There is nothing insane about it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Electoral college.

The US is a republic of 50 states.
The President is the head of state of that republic of 50 states.
The states, therefore, should have the say in who is the head of state.
Thus, the electoral college.

That's a very good point. The more power the government has to control government, the more freedom we have from big government.

 

[candycorn]

Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency. We should make it to where you must win both to become President. You must have appeal in several different regions and you must have enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office.

No.

The failure to win both could lead to a constitutional crises. It has to be one or the other.

Think about it.

In any event, the presence of the Electoral College already drives both. It is in only very close elections that the Electoral College could possibly override the popular vote anyway. Hence, for example, Bush had "appeal" in most regions of the country and had "enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office".

There is nothing insane about it.

The Constitution has a provision for that; the HOR will decide who is President and the Senate the VP if I recall. Just add in the stipulation that not only must she or he win the electoral college, but ALSO the popular vote as well.

To recommend otherwise is to recommend that the plurality of voter's wishes should not be considered.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Popular vote. The electoral college is stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Winner of a congressional district gets the vote, winner of the state's popular vote gets both senatorial votes.

Thus, Utah which has four congressional seats and two senatorial seats would probably get five Republican electoral votes (three congressional districts plus the state vote for two senatorial seats) and one Democratic electoral vote (the fourth congressional district).

Which do you think it should be?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is not the EC, the problem is the aberration of he Imperial Presidency.

When the EC is perceived as intended by the Framers, with a relatively neutral and weak CE functioning in an administrative capacity only, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Greenbeard]

Which do you think it should be?

I think it should be exactly as it is, and has been for 200 Plus Years.

The way it works today is not how it was envisioned as working 200+ years ago. Indeed, it some ways it works in exactly the opposite way.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college but it's does keep states with smaller populations from being totally ignored by Presidential candidates if we went by just the popular vote where would candidates focus most of their attention? NewYork, California, Texas and a few others.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college but it's does keep states with smaller populations from being totally ignored by Presidential candidates if we went by just the popular vote where would candidates focus most of their attention? NewYork, California, Texas and a few others.

Doesn't it seem a little perverse that those very large population states are not visited by candidates for President (other than to occasionally fundraise) because the winner of their electoral votes is already known?

Besides, it's not as if candidates are going out of their way to campaign in Wyoming due to the electoral college.

 

[Ernie S.]

Which do you think it should be?

I think it should be exactly as it is, and has been for 200 Plus Years.

The way it works today is not how it was envisioned as working 200+ years ago. Indeed, it some ways it works in exactly the opposite way.

No, the EC works exactly as intended by taking in part, ultimate control from the most populous states. It's a brilliant solution

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college but it's does keep states with smaller populations from being totally ignored by Presidential candidates if we went by just the popular vote where would candidates focus most of their attention? NewYork, California, Texas and a few others.

Ahem! I live in Alaska. Although we are geographically equivalent to 1/5th of the US, we are a "small" state population-wise. We are ignored beyond belief. Hell, they declare the winner of any national election before our polls close. Same with Hawaii. The only major political candidate to visit this state was Ron Paul. All the others act like we were somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Mexico. The candidates do indeed focus their attention on those states with the most electoral votes and fuck the rest of the country.

 

[Charles_Main]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

Sorry, But if that Happens Republicans will accept it like Men and move on, they wont cry about an Unfair System, because the System is not Unfair, it works.

ROFLMAO. Oh, you're funny.

I know I wont Complain. Unlike Most People I understand the Function, and need for the EC.

 

[Greenbeard]

I think it should be exactly as it is, and has been for 200 Plus Years.

The way it works today is not how it was envisioned as working 200+ years ago. Indeed, it some ways it works in exactly the opposite way.

No, the EC works exactly as intended by taking in part, ultimate control from the most populous states. It's a brilliant solution

That is not its purpose as described in The Federalist Papers. The way it operates today stands in stark contrast (indeed, opposition) to its intentions as described in those documents.

 

[candycorn]

Popular vote. The electoral college is stupid.

I disagree. It works but it needs to be strengthened to make certain the President-Elect is also the winner of the popular vote.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college but it's does keep states with smaller populations from being totally ignored by Presidential candidates if we went by just the popular vote where would candidates focus most of their attention? NewYork, California, Texas and a few others.

Doesn't it seem a little perverse that those very large population states are not visited by candidates for President (other than to occasionally fundraise) because the winner of their electoral votes is already known?

Besides, it's not as if candidates are going out of their way to campaign in Wyoming due to the electoral college.

I don;t know that it would be any different without the electoral College you already know New York, and California will go Democrat and Texas Republican the truth is popular vote or electoral college most states are already locked in one way or the other.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Its positively insane that you can not win the popular vote and still win the Presidency. We should make it to where you must win both to become President. You must have appeal in several different regions and you must have enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office.

No.

The failure to win both could lead to a constitutional crises. It has to be one or the other.

Think about it.

In any event, the presence of the Electoral College already drives both. It is in only very close elections that the Electoral College could possibly override the popular vote anyway. Hence, for example, Bush had "appeal" in most regions of the country and had "enough overall popularity nationwide to win the office".

There is nothing insane about it.

The Constitution has a provision for that; the HOR will decide who is President and the Senate the VP if I recall. Just add in the stipulation that not only must she or he win the electoral college, but ALSO the popular vote as well.

To recommend otherwise is to recommend that the plurality of voter's wishes should not be considered.

So go ahead get a Constitutional Amendment created and passed through the Congress then get 37 States to agree.

 

[Wolfmann]

Remember on at least two separate occasions the EC has "elected" someone other than who the majority had voted for. It needs to be put to rest.

You do know that you have no right to vote for President - right?

OK Well I guess when I voted in 1972 - 2008 for who I wanted to be President I was dreaming? But i distinctly remember one of them being in the White House for 8 years. How could that be?

Seriously - If I as an American citizen does not have that right, who does?

Wolfman 24