Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

 

[ThisIsMe]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

 

[Pogo]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

 

[Pogo]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Try it in Canada then eh.

Your reasoning makes no sense. The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Take the same concept and apply it to a state (or province). Does the "media concentration in Omaha" use control and high population to win Nebraska elections year after year? Please.

Yeah it was designed with "careful thought and consideration" for the slaveholders of the 1700s.

 

[william the wie]

Those larger populations are due to the old unlimited SALT acting as a subsidy.

 

[WillowTree]

No! California and democrats import illegals. California should lose their right to vote and so should Broward County Florida!

 

[shockedcanadian]

Those larger populations are due to the old unlimited SALT acting as a subsidy.

One of the key reasons these Hollywood dirtbags hate Trump. They mock the rest of the country and the Country Bumpkin as they exploit the nation to pay for their overpriced homes and taxes.

 

[theHawk]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

I think that it violates the original pact of states. If a small state say like Utah population wise was asked to join to a huge State like California population wise what incentive would they have knowing that the moment they joined they would no longer be represented?

Jo

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

 

[Pogo]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

Might want to go look up the definition of "mob".

 

[georgephillip]

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

The Founders never required a "winner take all" apportionment of EC votes, so an alternative method of selection like The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states plus DC

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the 'exclusive' and 'plenary' power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.

• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.

• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes."

 

[candycorn]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

The EC has saved us from socialism and eventual communism, it seems to be the one minority voice that the two main parties take opposite positions on[ i.e. normally the left demands minority opinion be given a stage while the right normally points out what is wrong with that approach]...losers always want to change the rules while the winners like to impose them...frankly I couldn't care any less, but I have watched the left defy the majority on many issues and now it is the right that looks like it is about to go down that road.

 

[theHawk]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

I think that it violates the original pact of states. If a small state say like Utah population wise was asked to join to a huge State like California population wise what incentive would they have knowing that the moment they joined they would no longer be represented?

Jo

What “pact”? Do you just make this shit up to justify your Marxist ideals?

 

[BlackFlag]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

Tyrannies by the minority never end well

 

[Issa]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

It's fake media/news, remember?
And how is it fair foe the minority to drag the majority ?

 

[John Shaw]

No.

 

[Issa]

No! California and democrats import illegals. California should lose their right to vote and so should Broward County Florida!

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.