Electoral or Popular Vote

[Sallow]

Which do you think it should be?

Popular.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I agree; why not make it both the EV and the popular vote though?

Again... Mob rules does not elect our leaders. The Founders got this one correct. It is not the business of major population centers to decide for the rest of us who will control our Government.

They wouldn't in this scenario either since the electoral college as we know it would be in place as well.

 

[Pheonixops]

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?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since the people do not elect the Presdient - indeed, the people do not have a right to vote for Presdent in the first place- why should the popular vote matter at all?

 

[Greenbeard]

Since the people do not elect the Presdient - indeed, the people do not have a right to vote for Presdent in the first place- why should the popular vote matter at all?

Are you somehow unfamiliar with how things work right now? State-level popular votes are used to determine which of two partisan slates of electors is allowed to convene and unanimously ratify the popular choice, effectively making our elections a more-or-less population-weighted average of state-level popular votes.

As suffrage has expanded, so too has the reliance of the electoral college on traditions meant to reflect the popular vote. We bend over backwards to make the popular vote the final arbiter of presidential elections in every state, within the confines of the archaic system that's still in place. Sometimes, on rare occasions, that system fails in the aggregate to simply ratify the popular vote winner, which calls into question the rationale and philosophy of using a convoluted system that transmits on the popular vote at every stage yet still can (rarely) produce a faulty result. Hence the interest in the subject and threads like these.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, all small states ‘benefit’ in that they have an increased voice. The EC is based on BOTH house and senate seats. This means that a state that would normally have the population to cast a single vote (essentially, they have less than 1/535 of the population) now has three votes instead of one. In this manner, small states have a larger influence on the outcome of the election because of the EC. That does not mean anything as far as favors or campaigning but neither does a popular vote. No one is going to go to Rhode Island with or without the EC.

But again, as I mentioned somewhere above, it would be helpful if someone could clarify what "voice" means here.

To a first approximation, "voice" is effectively a dummy variable, in that a state either has it or it doesn't. "Swing states" have a voice; all others (including virtually every small state) do not. Now, once you identify the swing states you can drill down and figure out their voice relative to each other, e.g. Ohio has a louder voice than Iowa.

But the fact that by the numbers, population-wise, Wyoming should be responsible for about 0.1% of the vote whereas they have 0.5% of the electoral votes doesn't really matter in any meaningful way. As you seem to recognize, this doesn't actually lend them any additional voice or influence. Their issues get no additional consideration by the candidates, they get no attention from the campaigns, and they have virtually no chance of being a decisive state in the election (no safe state does).

They don't have a louder voice, they have the same voice every other non-swing state has: none.

I will have to say that because of this ^ as you rightly point out, I can support the idea of junking the EC. It is less about the ‘voice’ as you put it and more about the political catering to the few that matter for me though. Just another faucet of corruption.

 

[FA_Q2]

Which do you think it should be?

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since the people do not elect the Presdient - indeed, the people do not have a right to vote for Presdent in the first place- why should the popular vote matter at all?

Are you somehow unfamiliar with how things work right now?

No. I am not.

Electors from the states elect the President, same as they have since the corrent constitution was put in place - this is proven by the undeniable fact that you can carry the popular vote by tens of millions and still lose the election

The people do NOT elect the President, and only have some say in the process at all because the states allow that priviledge. something they need not do.

So, again, I ask:
Since the people do not elect the Presdient, why should the popular vote matter at all?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which do you think it should be?

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?

Only? No. Pretty much? Yes.

 

[Greenbeard]

Since the people do not elect the Presdient, why should the popular vote matter at all?

I'm not sure I can make this any clearer.

Every single state has endorsed the principle that the popular vote is what governs the presidential election in their state (two have gone even further and endorsed the principle that district-level popular votes are also important).

When you walk into your polling place, you're not voting for Bob, and Frank, and Jeff as electors because they're smart guys, up on the issues, and would make a fine decision for President on your behalf. You'll instead mark the box for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, not the electors who are ostensibly (but not actually) making the decision.

Now that vote sets in motion a slightly convoluted process by which you've "really" voted to endorse the convening of a slate of electors that will unanimously voice support for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. But the reality is that if Mitt Romney gets more popular votes in your state, the slate of partisan electors pledged to him will meet; if Barack Obama gets more popular votes, his electors will meet. Either way the results of the Presidential election in your state are determined entirely by the popular vote.

In practice, the people do elect the President, even if there's an additional layer of pageantry and ceremony after the fact. That's why some in this thread have described this process and this institution as archaic. It no longer fits the philosophy of our electoral system.

Certainly presidential elections could, constitutionally, happen in other ways. But they don't and they never will again. The story of the United States is one of steadily greater suffrage and ever-increasing reliance on citizen participation and decision-making when it comes to choosing leaders. The fact that voters "only have some say in the process at all because the states allow that privilege" is technically true but irrelevant in practical terms. No state will ever strip them of that "privilege" because doing so does not square with how modern Americans conceptualize their electoral system and the voting process.

So the question is whether, despite no longer working as originally envisioned, the Electoral College still has some purpose or function in the modern world. I don't have particularly strong feelings about it either way, I just haven't seen any good arguments for it in this thread yet.

 

[candycorn]

Which do you think it should be?

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?

 

[tjvh]

Which do you think it should be?

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.

Nonsense... I live in a Blue State and have seen plenty of Obama, and Romney ads. Romney was here a month ago, Obama... Well, he was probably golfing somewhere else. If elections were decided by popular votes, one need only campaign in select densely populated areas, and our leaders would only originate out of those said areas. Popular vote is unfair to the rest of America, and would negate their voice.

 

[SuMar]

Which do you think it should be?

Electoral College

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since the people do not elect the Presdient, why should the popular vote matter at all?

I'm not sure I can make this any clearer.

I'm not sure you have answered the question at all, given that you have yet to explain why the popular vote matters, given that the people do not elect the President

When you walk into your polling place, you're not voting for Bob, and Frank, and Jeff as electors because they're smart guys, up on the issues, and would make a fine decision for President on your behalf. You'll instead mark the box for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, not the electors who are ostensibly (but not actually) making the decision.

On the contrary - the electors DO make the decision.
THEY vote for President; YOU vote for them.
You vote for them because your state LETS you, and it need not do so.

In practice, the people do elect the President

They do not - in practice, they vote for electors.

And so, you have yet to explain how the popular vote matters - fact of the matter is, someone could be elected President without a SINGLE popular vote, against someone that had 200,000,000 popular votes.

If that does not illustrate the meaninglessness of the popular vote, nothing will.

...even if there's an additional layer of pageantry and ceremony after the fact. That's why some in this thread have described this process and this institution as archaic. It no longer fits the philosophy of our electoral system.

It very much does - it reflects the fact that the states that make up this republic determine the head of state of that republic, which is exactly the way things have always been done and exactly the way it shoud be done.

 

[Greenbeard]

On the contrary - the electors DO make the decision.

No, they don't. In fact, in about half the states autonomy on their part is punishable by law (via "faithless elector" laws).

Each party puts together a slate of party loyalists who get to go cast their votes if the party's candidate wins the popular vote in the state. These people are chosen precisely because their votes are not in doubt.

Do you know why election results are called on election night, instead of on the day in December when the electors meet? Because no one has any illusions about which way ever elector in every state is going to vote. The outcome is decided on election night via the popular vote in the elector's state.

They don't decide anything. The decision is made by the people of their state and they're tasked with going through the ceremonial motions of ratifying the popular choice to satisfy this particular institution.

And so, you have yet to explain how the popular vote matters - fact of the matter is, someone could be elected President without a SINGLE popular vote, against someone that had 200,000,000 popular votes.

This is why I used the word "pratical" so often in the preceding post. This is Constitutionally allowable. It is not even remotely feasible for this to happen in the United States in the modern era.

As I just mentioned, the Electoral College isn't even constructed to allow that to happen at present. Despite your weird supposition that today's incarnation of the Electoral College is "exactly the way things have always been done," the outcome you describe (which isn't a bad description of how the presidential election of 1788 went) would require states to change their current laws. That sort of explicit, deliberate repudiation of the state popular choice will never, ever happen.

If that does not illustrate the meaninglessness of the popular vote, nothing will.

Not at all. If anything it illustrates the meaningless of retaining an Electoral College that will never again function in any way that denies the popular choice at a state-level. If you want a system that's not based on popular votes, the current Electoral College system isn't for you.

The issue here is not whether state-level popular votes dictate the outcome of the Electoral College--they obviously do and will continue to. The issue is that in very rare circumstances the weighted aggregate of state-level popular votes (i.e. the Electoral College) may disagree with the national popular vote: which system is better for deciding the outcome in such a circumstance and why? Which measure of popular support is preferable?

 

[M14 Shooter]

On the contrary - the electors DO make the decision.

No, they don't.

They do. They, not you, cast the votes that elect the President,

In fact, in about half the states autonomy on their part is punishable by law (via "faithless elector" laws).

Right now. It hasnt always been that way and nothing says it needs to be that way.

They don't decide anything.

They decide everything. The fact that the states allow people to vote and take that vote into account when determing who the electors will vote for in no way changes that.

This is why I used the word "pratical" so often in the preceding post.

The fact that you have ot use the word "practical" concedes the point to me.

Fact is:
The people do not elect the Presdient, and so the number of people that vote for president is in no way meaningful when determining who is elected President.

 

[Greenbeard]

It hasnt always been that way and nothing says it needs to be that way.

But it is that way, which you seem to alternate between outright denying and shrugging off because in some fantasy world the final say on how the electors will vote could theoretically be stripped from the people.

It's nice that you can imagine a world in which the Electoral College isn't a regurgitation of state-level popular votes. But that doesn't change the fact that this is what it is and will be for the foreseeable future. Electors do what the voters tell them to do. Decision-making power and autonomy rests with the American voter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It hasnt always been that way and nothing says it needs to be that way.

But it is that way,

Now, which is meaningless - and still does not support your assertion.
Fact is, the popular vote within a state currenmtly decides the vote of the electors.
This is no way supports the idea that the popular vote across the conntry decides the President.
Election 2000 proves this.

 

[Greenbeard]

This is no way supports the idea that the popular vote across the conntry decides the President.
Election 2000 proves this.

No kidding. I'm not arguing that the Electoral College doesn't exist; I'm pointing out that it now functions as an alternate methodology for distilling popular vote totals. Thus the real question posed by the OP is which way of calculating the popular vote is more desirable. Are you even reading my posts?

The issue is that in very rare circumstances the weighted aggregate of state-level popular votes (i.e. the Electoral College) may disagree with the national popular vote: which system is better for deciding the outcome in such a circumstance and why? Which measure of popular support is preferable?

 

[kaz]

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