Electoral or Popular Vote

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm amazed how many people that proclaim "individual rights" don't think individuals are smart enough to choose their leaders.

I'm always amazed how leftists incessantly fail to follow the self-evident line of reasoning taken for granted by classical liberals: among other things, the reason for limited government goes to the observation that human nature is essentially corrupt and therefore vulnerable to stupidity. Hence, one should want to safeguard individual prerogative against the irresponsibility and tyranny of the collective—the latter ever-dragging down the whole.

The Constitution is a body of one check after another intended to thwart the stupidity of the mob, and individual liberty is the greatest check of them all. It tends to compel humans to embrace their better angels and swim, rather than succumb to sloth and sink.

The contradiction exists nowhere but in the minds of the stunted, black-and-white thought processes of the leftist, who cannot follow the premise-to-conclusion (allegedly black-and-white) thought processes of the conservative.

Your mistake is due to the same sort of intellectual immaturity that confounds the necessity of defending the sanctity of human life relative to a genuine and enduring liberty with a supposed heavy-handed intrusion in the lives of women on the behalf of the unborn.

So how does the Constitution currently protect us from the tyranny of the Democratic and Republican parties? Right now it is the powers of those parties that are protected by a combination of the Electoral College, along with lack of restrictions on campaign financing.

Why should there be restrictions on campaign financing and what is this tyranny regarding the two parties?

You're perfectly free to start your own party; it's just that the support of most Americans coalesces around the two parties. As I said, eliminating the Electoral College wouldn't change that anyway. That dynamic is mostly driven by other things.

Of course there are certain restrictions on campaign financing in place now, imposed by the government, and these restrictions are arbitrary. Hmm.

Precisely what arbitrary, governmentally imposed rules do you recommend to compel persons to support other political parties? Hmm.

 

[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.

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.

Reread my post carefully. You missed the point entirely.

I didn't say Bush won the popular vote. That the election came down to who got the electoral votes of Florida despite the national popular vote is a rather famous historical incident. What do you mean, check my facts? LOL!

I said, using your terms, that Bush had "enough overall popularity nationwide". That's the point of using the Bush-Gore election as an example.

You said the winner should have both, i.e., wide regional and popular support. Typically, the only time the Electoral College would trump the popular vote would be in a close popular election. The Electoral College ensures that the winner also has wide regional support.

Hello.

Bush won the Electoral College with a wide regional appeal, and the popular vote was very close. 200, 000 is a drop in the bucket in an election of over 100, 000, 000 voters.

 

[Greenbeard]

Bush won the Electoral College with a wide regional appeal, and the popular vote was very close. 200, 000 is a drop in the bucket in an election of over 100, 000, 000 voters.

And what's 537 out of 6 million?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

This requires special treatment. This is emotional, inflammatory rhetoric. Meaningless really. You're simply suggesting that the government should arbitrarily infringe on the political liberties of American entities that you don't like.

Mob rule overthrowing fundamental liberties for some though they be guaranteed in the Bill of Rights for all, as if corporations don't represent the interests of people, sometimes thousands of people. Why stop with corporations? Let's strip everyone we don't like of their political rights.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Bush won the Electoral College with a wide regional appeal, and the popular vote was very close. 200, 000 is a drop in the bucket in an election of over 100, 000, 000 voters.

And what's 537 out of 6 million?

Your point?

 

[Greenbeard]

Bush won the Electoral College with a wide regional appeal, and the popular vote was very close. 200, 000 is a drop in the bucket in an election of over 100, 000, 000 voters.

And what's 537 out of 6 million?

Your point?

The answer is "wide regional support," obviously.

Or rather, the difference between wide regional support and limited regional support.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's the 6 million that threw me, and there are 538 electors representing the various states/regions. Your point still remains a bit myterious to me. Sorry.

 

[Greenbeard]

It's the 6 million that threw me, and there are 538 electors representing the various states/regions. Your point still remains a bit myterious to me. Sorry.

George W. Bush's 2000 victory in Florida in 2000 was certified as being by 537 votes out of around 6 million cast in the state.

That margin gave him the "wide regional support" needed to claim victory in the electoral college. A change of heart by 269 Florida voters and now the other guy can claim the wide regional support needed for victory.

The point being that most of the arguments being presented here are bad or are absurd when compared with actual practice or history.

 

[Meister]

electoral vote....no doubt about that. Alaska, Wyoming and the rest of the less populated states have representation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I'm sorry that you do not understand how the election of the President works - but the fact remiains -the people do not elect the President.

In fact, the people need not be consulted at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Currently. The states need not consult the people.

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.

The Constitition speciifies no such thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

There are numerous instances where the majority fails to achieve their goal.

The majority should decide who becomes President not a bunch of state appointed delegates (read the Constitution).

The Constitution specifies no such thing.

 

[candycorn]

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

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

I'm sorry that you do not understand how the election of the President works - but the fact remiains -the people do not elect the President.

In fact, the people need not be consulted at all.

You are amusing; that is for sure. We have this board with about 50,000 posts/replies talking about nothing I suppose.

Anyway, the discussion of this thread is what is better; the system we have now or the system where by popular vote would elect the president. While it is not necessary for you to read the title of a thread prior to commenting, you could look less like a dickhead by doing so.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's the 6 million that threw me, and there are 538 electors representing the various states/regions. Your point still remains a bit myterious to me. Sorry.

George W. Bush's 2000 victory in Florida in 2000 was certified as being by 537 votes out of around 6 million cast in the state.

That margin gave him the "wide regional support" needed to claim victory in the electoral college. A change of heart by 269 Florida voters and now the other guy can claim the wide regional support needed for victory.

The point being that most of the arguments being presented here are bad or are absurd when compared with actual practice or history.

Okay. We're talking about the state of Florida. Sorry, didn't make the connection.

Regionally, Bush had the greater support . . .

. . . with a national popular vote difference of only 200, 000.

The Electoral College assured that in 2000 the candidate who won the election and would be the president of the entire nation had the greater regional support, and the College is a function of the popular vote in the sense that the winner takes all in each state.

The point is that in close popular elections, the College is going to tend toward the more regionally popular candidate though it be every close.

This coming election looks like it will be another close one as indeed all of the elections have been since 2000.

 

[Greenbeard]

electoral vote....no doubt about that. Alaska, Wyoming and the rest of the less populated states have representation.

How do people in those states have more representation under the Electora College than they would under a popular vote?

 

[Meister]

electoral vote....no doubt about that. Alaska, Wyoming and the rest of the less populated states have representation.

How do people in those states have more representation under the Electora College than they would under a popular vote?

Politicians wouldn't have to represent them with the popular vote. Politicians would just need to work on the select populated states to win a majority with the votes.

 

[candycorn]

electoral vote....no doubt about that. Alaska, Wyoming and the rest of the less populated states have representation.

How do people in those states have more representation under the Electora College than they would under a popular vote?

Politicians wouldn't have to represent them with the popular vote. Politicians would just need to work on the select populated states to win a majority with the votes.

Which is why I am a strong proponent of having to win bot the popular vote as well as the Electoral College to assume the Presidency.

In this day and age it makes zero sense to not have a plurality of voters deciding the elections.

 

[Greenbeard]

Politicians wouldn't have to represent them with the popular vote. Politicians would just need to work on the select populated states to win a majority with the votes.

Maybe I'm not understanding how you're using the word "represent" here.

In 2012, virtually the only states that matter are Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and maybe even New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.

These are the states where campaign money will flow, candidates' time will be spent, and pet issues will be cared about (e.g. policy favoring wind power in CO and IA, coal in Ohio). A voter in Alaska and Wyoming, or New York or Massachusetts for that matter, might as well not exist when it comes to presidential politics this year.

In four years or eight or twelve the mix of relevant states may shift as demographics change and some states become competitive as others become safe for one side. But I really don't understand the source of this myth that somehow the Electoral College makes every state matter when every cycle we watch presidential elections play out in a handful of swing states.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How do people in those states have more representation under the Electora College than they would under a popular vote?

Politicians wouldn't have to represent them with the popular vote. Politicians would just need to work on the select populated states to win a majority with the votes.

Which is why I am a strong proponent of having to win bot the popular vote as well as the Electoral College to assume the Presidency.

In this day and age it makes zero sense to not have a plurality of voters deciding the elections.

Now this observation has some real weight. Just curious, candycorn, how would you structure such a system? Roughly.

 

[Wolfmann]

Hello

Gallant Warrior - I have had time to think about your 1 state one vote concept including DC. If the EC delegates were required by some legal means to have to vote for the winner of the Presidential election in their state then I say go for it.

To those who like the EC because it keeps the cities "honest" I can now see your point if we were talking about a state election. But we are talking about a populist national election and so although in some states (the minority to my mind) there may be a bias, when the national vote is counted that bias SHOULD be minimal.

Thanks

Wolfman 24