Electoral or Popular Vote

[candycorn]

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.

Exactly as it is now except you must also win the plurality of popular votes as well as the electoral college. If not, the House picks POTUS and the Senate picks VPOTUS; as identified by the amendment that sets up the system. At no point should we ever have a president that isn't elected by the will of the voters. Our Constitution is actually pretty astute on this matter. If the EC can't decide on the POTUS, the House does but it's members were elected by popular vote as well so the people are, in effect, still deciding.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Well, that's what becomes of winner take all. Originally, that wasn't the case.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Exactly as it is now except you must also win the plurality of popular votes as well as the electoral college. If not, the House picks POTUS and the Senate picks VPOTUS; as identified by the amendment that sets up the system. At no point should we ever have a president that isn't elected by the will of the voters. Our Constitution is actually pretty astute on this matter. If the EC can't decide on the POTUS, the House does but it's members were elected by popular vote as well so the people are, in effect, still deciding.

I'll have to reconsider things in light of some of the arguments presented here. Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Now you;re just in denial.

We have this board with about 50,000 posts/replies talking about nothing I suppose.

None of them, aside from you, believe that the people elect the President

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.

-I- gave my answer. Perhaps you were too busy being ignotant to notiice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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:

You have a recourse, get an amendment passed Congress and get 37 States to agree. Pretty simple concept.

 

[Greenbeard]

You have a recourse, get an amendment passed Congress and get 37 States to agree. Pretty simple concept.

There is an alternative.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have a recourse, get an amendment passed Congress and get 37 States to agree. Pretty simple concept.

There is an alternative.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitution is clear, there is no other LEGAL recourse.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Now you;re just in denial.

We have this board with about 50,000 posts/replies talking about nothing I suppose.

None of them, aside from you, believe that the people elect the President

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.

-I- gave my answer. Perhaps you were too busy being ignotant to notiice.

What does ignotant mean?

 

[Greenbeard]

You have a recourse, get an amendment passed Congress and get 37 States to agree. Pretty simple concept.

There is an alternative.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitution is clear, there is no other LEGAL recourse.

The Constitution is clear that states can figure how to appoint their own electors. If they wish to select electors based on the winner of the national popular vote, they may.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is an alternative.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitution is clear, there is no other LEGAL recourse.

The Constitution is clear that states can figure how to appoint their own electors. If they wish to select electors based on the winner of the national popular vote, they may.

If they wish to award their electors based on a hand of poker, they may.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are amusing; that is for sure.

Now you;re just in denial.


None of them, aside from you, believe that the people elect the President

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.

-I- gave my answer. Perhaps you were too busy being ignotant to notiice.

What does ignotant mean?

If you can't figure that out, its pretty clear you don't have the capacity to have this discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution is clear that states can figure how to appoint their own electors. If they wish to select electors based on the winner of the national popular vote, they may.

Why would any small state want to do that?

 

[Greenbeard]

The Constitution is clear that states can figure how to appoint their own electors. If they wish to select electors based on the winner of the national popular vote, they may.

Why would any small state want to do that?

New Hampshire and Iowa are the only "small states" I can think of that are benefiting from the current system.

 

[del]

Which do you think it should be?

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

I'm with you mostly, but I think they should return the Senatorial races to the House. There was a reason Senators were not elected by popular vote. Better the People's elected Representatives make that call.

senate races were never decided by the house

 

[del]

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

look who we've chosen

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution is clear that states can figure how to appoint their own electors. If they wish to select electors based on the winner of the national popular vote, they may.

Why would any small state want to do that?

New Hampshire and Iowa are the only "small states" I can think of that are benefiting from the current system.

They all benefit from it. Their voice in choosing the president is magnified.

 

[candycorn]

Now you;re just in denial.


None of them, aside from you, believe that the people elect the President



-I- gave my answer. Perhaps you were too busy being ignotant to notiice.

What does ignotant mean?

If you can't figure that out, its pretty clear you don't have the capacity to have this discussion.

It's not in the dictionary.

 

[KGB]

electoral college. It is one the items that make us a representative republic. To change it would be to change our basic identity. And for what purpose? There is nothing broken with the electoral college, so what does it need to be fixed?

 

[KGB]

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.

that person did get the most votes. They received enough electors to win the election. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic.

 

[candycorn]

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.

that person did get the most votes. They received enough electors to win the election. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic.

Yes I realize that.

If the Constitution said that we would decide the President based on a pie eating contest; would you think it should be changed based on this not being a democracy?

So your position is what; that the person getting the most votes of the registered voters shouldn't be the President? Sounds positively maniacal.

What is wrong with requiring both the electoral college and the popular vote be in concert?