Electoral or Popular Vote

[Wolfmann]

Electoral College..

There is a reason that we have each branch chosen in a different manner... checks and balances....

Electoral college also gives the small states a voice... the states being important, since they are the entities that give the federal government its power thru the constitution

I can understand why you would say that but the if you read the Constitution you will see that the Electoral College has nothing to do with checks and balances of power. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial are the checks and balances on each other and the over use of power based on the constitiution. Nor does the Electoral College give the small states any less power than the popular vote. Small states have fewer numbers of delegates in the EC than the large. It is the Senate which has the same number of representatives per state no matter its size.

It is a relic of the past and although I know its in the Constitution I would be hurt if it went away via an Amendment.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

 

[1ManRev]

[

Our two-party system is much more stable and liberty-preserving than the multi-party systems of parliamentary government, and eliminating the Electoral College would have no appreciable effect on our system as it's mostly driven by other things.

Corporations don't bribe; they're part of the same free society, entitled to a voice like any other entity.

Liberty-preserving? You mean liberty to pick up a hooker on the street, liberty to smoke what I want in my own home, liberty to choose whether or not I'll buy health insurance, liberty to have my vote count even if it goes against the interests of the political establishment... those liberties that currently do not exist in this country? Or how about access to unbiased news media; a category where we get spanked by the other 1st-world nations (Press Freedom Index 2011-2012 - Reporters Without Borders)

As for that line on corporations... you truly do come across as a 1%-worshipping peasant. I'm a peasant too, but at least I'm able to tell that the aristocrats are actively trying to push the common man out of any form of political influence.

 

[Wolfmann]

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.

I don't understand this.

I agree with the first three statements absolutely. But the popular vote which is a direct vote by the citizenry and not by appointed delegates as the EC is is how the states get their say. it seems that alot of people disagreeing with me do not understand what the EC is or how it functions.

Read the Constitution. In essence it is a group of appointed delegates from each state that vote all or none on who will be President based on a percentage of votes for a candidate in that state. They are however NOT obligated to stick to that and if they choose to (and have on at least two occasions) they can vote for a person who did not win the majority of the popular vote. It is of course alittle more complicated than that and that is why sometimes the EC vote count does not reflect the popular vote.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

 

[Wolfmann]

Hello

The Electoral College was put into the Constitution because our founding fathers did not think the "common people" were smart enough to make such important decisions. In this day and age I do not necessarily think this is true. Therefore I have always been in favor of a Constitutional Amendment repealing the Electoral College and leaving up the people.

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.

Wolfman 24

The safeguard in having the electoral college override the majority of popular voters is a good thing. It keeps the large cities from shutting out the rural voters. It works quite well.

The founding fathers would be appalled to know that stupid people put a goddamned Marxist in the White House in 2008.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people.

I don't understand this at all. You are saying that it is OK to override what the majority of the American people want? Who decided this? and how is that a good thing? There is NOTHING in the Constitution to support this premise. The majority should decide who becomes President not a bunch of state appointed delegates (read the Constitution). And as far as your assertion regarding "shutting out rural voters" Please provide evidence to support this because this is not and never has been the function of the EC.

In fact if I read the Constitution correctly and i have read it many times, your premise is actually UN constitutional.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

 

[Wolfmann]

I've never understood why people think the Electoral College benefits rural areas over cities. The electoral college creates a situation where the only votes that matter are a few swing voters in a handful of states.

Ok This makes some sense. but I disagree in principle. In the election I think you are talking about this was absolutely true, but in the other 2? cases where the EC elected the wrong guy, it was a matter of political maneuvering and as a result the entire EC went rogue.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

 

[candycorn]

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.

Congress is dysfunctional and there will be no more amendments to the Constitution until it is repaired.

 

[Wolfmann]

Time to end the EC. A vote is a vote, it shouldn't count for more or less depending on what state you live in. The EC also gives too much
power to elect our president to the swing states.

Except for the swing state part I totally agree.

 

[Wolfmann]

Hello

The Electoral College was put into the Constitution because our founding fathers did not think the "common people" were smart enough to make such important decisions. In this day and age I do not necessarily think this is true. Therefore I have always been in favor of a Constitutional Amendment repealing the Electoral College and leaving up the people.

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.

Wolfman 24

It's more true now than it ever was. Obama's election is proof of that.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Obama won both the popular and EC. check your facts.

 

[Wolfmann]

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.

Contrary to your opinion Gore won the popular vote by over 200,000 nationally (check your facts) Also, in the 2 previous EC screw ups prior to 2000 the EC votes had nothing to do with a "close election". It was a matter of a loose cannon finally going off.

 

[Wolfmann]

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.

The Constitution has no such provision. What you are referring to is a parlimentary procedure whereby the Senate CONFIRMS the election of the President and the House the VP. We elect the President just like it says in the Constitution.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

 

[candycorn]

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.

The Constitution has no such provision. What you are referring to is a parlimentary procedure whereby the Senate CONFIRMS the election of the President and the House the VP. We elect the President just like it says in the Constitution.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

Not exactly. If the Electoral college cannot select a president, the House does it and the Senate selects the VP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yours is the stupidest statement in the thread.

put a goddamned Marxist in the White House in 2008

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Congress is dysfunctional and there will be no more amendments to the Constitution until it is repaired.

So quit asking for what will not happen. Or are you suggesting we should just ignore the Constitution cause you don't think Congress works?

 

[candycorn]

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

Congress is dysfunctional and there will be no more amendments to the Constitution until it is repaired.

So quit asking for what will not happen. Or are you suggesting we should just ignore the Constitution cause you don't think Congress works?

It's obvious that Congress doesn't work to anyone who is paying attention.

As for "asking for what will not happen", those who are hoping Romney will win are much more guilty of that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Congress is dysfunctional and there will be no more amendments to the Constitution until it is repaired.

So quit asking for what will not happen. Or are you suggesting we should just ignore the Constitution cause you don't think Congress works?

It's obvious that Congress doesn't work to anyone who is paying attention.

As for "asking for what will not happen", those who are hoping Romney will win are much more guilty of that.

I repeat, if Congress does not work why are you asking for what you claim can never happen? Or are you saying we should ignore the Constitution? And if so why do you get to pick what we ignore?

 

[candycorn]

So quit asking for what will not happen. Or are you suggesting we should just ignore the Constitution cause you don't think Congress works?

It's obvious that Congress doesn't work to anyone who is paying attention.

As for "asking for what will not happen", those who are hoping Romney will win are much more guilty of that.

I repeat, if Congress does not work why are you asking for what you claim can never happen? Or are you saying we should ignore the Constitution? And if so why do you get to pick what we ignore?

No we shouldn't ignore the constitution. It is what it is.

Why am I asking? It's a discussion board.

Why do you think that the President shouldn't have to get a plurality of the popular vote? Shouldn't the public's wishes carry through to selecting the woman or man who will occupy the nation's highest office?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's obvious that Congress doesn't work to anyone who is paying attention.

As for "asking for what will not happen", those who are hoping Romney will win are much more guilty of that.

I repeat, if Congress does not work why are you asking for what you claim can never happen? Or are you saying we should ignore the Constitution? And if so why do you get to pick what we ignore?

No we shouldn't ignore the constitution. It is what it is.

Why am I asking? It's a discussion board.

Why do you think that the President shouldn't have to get a plurality of the popular vote? Shouldn't the public's wishes carry through to selecting the woman or man who will occupy the nation's highest office?

The Popular vote has not mattered since the Constitution was passed. I don't see why it should matter now.

 

[candycorn]

I repeat, if Congress does not work why are you asking for what you claim can never happen? Or are you saying we should ignore the Constitution? And if so why do you get to pick what we ignore?

No we shouldn't ignore the constitution. It is what it is.

Why am I asking? It's a discussion board.

Why do you think that the President shouldn't have to get a plurality of the popular vote? Shouldn't the public's wishes carry through to selecting the woman or man who will occupy the nation's highest office?

The Popular vote has not mattered since the Constitution was passed. I don't see why it should matter now.

Sort of like saying, "we never had running water before, I don't see why we need it now"; or HDTV, or better gas mileage, etc...

You don't see why?

Because it would ensure that the person sitting in the Oval Office would have the most votes of all who ran for the office.

 

[Seawytch]

I repeat, if Congress does not work why are you asking for what you claim can never happen? Or are you saying we should ignore the Constitution? And if so why do you get to pick what we ignore?

No we shouldn't ignore the constitution. It is what it is.

Why am I asking? It's a discussion board.

Why do you think that the President shouldn't have to get a plurality of the popular vote? Shouldn't the public's wishes carry through to selecting the woman or man who will occupy the nation's highest office?

The Popular vote has not mattered since the Constitution was passed. I don't see why it should matter now.

When the Constitution was "passed", women's vote didn't matter. Blacks didn't even exist as full persons when the Constitution was "passed". It was made changeable for a reason. The "reason" for the EC no longer exists. It doesn't take weeks to get information to rural areas. They actually have internet and TVs now, you know.

The EC means that only a half dozen states matter in a Presidential Election. Sure, that's great if you happen to live in one of those states, but what if you don't? How do you feel you're being heard?

Take my little old state, CA...It's Electoral votes will go to the Democratic nominee...but look:

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy – although the notion of the EC being ‘unfair’ is understandable, caution should be taken with regard to replacing it with ‘direct democracy,’ as we may unwittingly alter the fundamental nature of our Nation.

This is not to say the voters are ‘stupid,’ ‘ignorant,’ or ‘irresponsible’ to the point where they shouldn’t have the ability to directly elect their president. Rather, a doctrine of checks and balances was instituted by the Framers, wisely and appropriately, as a safeguard of our civil liberties, in the context of the rule of law.

This continued ‘chipping away’ at the Republic could irrevocably damage the entire National edifice.