Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Pogo]

If you want mob rule, tyranny of the majority, then yes. There would be no check or balance against the majority. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. But, of course, liberals don't care what the founding fathers said or believed, and they're just fine with majority rule because they believe they're in the majority. Actually, though, as I've documented previously, if you add up all the votes in the 2016 election for the GOP, the Dems, and the three third-party candidates, the center-right vote was about 2 million more than the center-left vote.

"Majority rule" is the entire POINT behind voting for anything.

DUH.

What is it in the water that gives you parrots the idea that anyone for one instant takes this kind of doubletalk seriously?

 

[Pogo]

This discussion only seems to come up when one sides candidate of choice wins the popular vote by overperforming in a state or states they were never going to lose like Hillary did in Califorina but lose the electoral vote. In 2016 as recall Trump lead in the popular vote till Califorina came in. If Califorina was a rock solid red state the left would not want the popular vote deciding the Presidency anymore than the right does now if it was a swing state both sides might support going to the popular vote to decide the Presidential election but I doubt it outside of these rare sour grapes moments the electoral system has worked very well for a long time and I sure don't trust the partisan hacks of today could work out a system that would be better.

Bullshit.

This discussion has been a constant for two hundred years. The fact that you choose to notice it only when it serves your fantasy to do so is irrelevant to pretty much anything. It generally comes up every four years, because ------- that's when it's in play. DUH.

 

[candycorn]

I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well.

This part is unworkable. All states are nowhere near created equal, which they would have to be for this exercise to be valid.

Why is that?

Trump won 30
Obama won 26 and 28
Bush II won 30 and 31
Clinton won 31 and 32

It would assure at least some nationwide diversity of the vote tallies. The hedge (in my scenario where you have to win the EC, PV, and 26 states to become the President Elect) is against a candidate from California piling up a massive vote total there, having a House that is sympathetic and trying to engineer a non-decisive election.

 

[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.

Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?

Where is any of it inaccurate?

WillHaftawaite theHawk

 

[candycorn]

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.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

Things can change. In my lifetime, CA was Reagan territory for two cycles. I think Bush won it as well in 88. Ford and Nixon both won it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Every time the left LOSES a popular vote on some issue they run to the courts to overturn the will of the people so the left can just STFU about the EC.

 

[Oddball]

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

no

 

[Pogo]

Every time the left LOSES a popular vote on some issue they run to the courts to overturn the will of the people so the left can just STFU about the EC.

Here's a post that comes in after its own answer in post 62. I must be prescient.

 

[blackhawk]

This discussion only seems to come up when one sides candidate of choice wins the popular vote by overperforming in a state or states they were never going to lose like Hillary did in Califorina but lose the electoral vote. In 2016 as recall Trump lead in the popular vote till Califorina came in. If Califorina was a rock solid red state the left would not want the popular vote deciding the Presidency anymore than the right does now if it was a swing state both sides might support going to the popular vote to decide the Presidential election but I doubt it outside of these rare sour grapes moments the electoral system has worked very well for a long time and I sure don't trust the partisan hacks of today could work out a system that would be better.

Bullshit.

This discussion has been a constant for two hundred years. The fact that you choose to notice it only when it serves your fantasy to do so is irrelevant to pretty much anything. It generally comes up every four years, because ------- that's when it's in play. DUH.

Bullshit back at you the popular vote total in the presidential election has gotten major press atttention twice in my lifetime 2000 and 2016 that's not fantasy that's reality deal with it or piss off.

 

[Pogo]

This discussion only seems to come up when one sides candidate of choice wins the popular vote by overperforming in a state or states they were never going to lose like Hillary did in Califorina but lose the electoral vote. In 2016 as recall Trump lead in the popular vote till Califorina came in. If Califorina was a rock solid red state the left would not want the popular vote deciding the Presidency anymore than the right does now if it was a swing state both sides might support going to the popular vote to decide the Presidential election but I doubt it outside of these rare sour grapes moments the electoral system has worked very well for a long time and I sure don't trust the partisan hacks of today could work out a system that would be better.

Bullshit.

This discussion has been a constant for two hundred years. The fact that you choose to notice it only when it serves your fantasy to do so is irrelevant to pretty much anything. It generally comes up every four years, because ------- that's when it's in play. DUH.

Bullshit back at you the popular vote total in the presidential election has gotten major press atttention twice in my lifetime 2000 and 2016 that's not fantasy that's reality deal with it or piss off.

Once AGAIN you're admitting to the only times you bothered to pay attention. I just said that.

Also just posted a counterexample, to which you choose to go

AGAIN, this question is a constant, and always will be until it's resolved. PERIOD. It's nobody else's problem that you chose to bury your head in the sand until now.

 

[Crixus]

This discussion only seems to come up when one sides candidate of choice wins the popular vote by overperforming in a state or states they were never going to lose like Hillary did in Califorina but lose the electoral vote. In 2016 as recall Trump lead in the popular vote till Califorina came in. If Califorina was a rock solid red state the left would not want the popular vote deciding the Presidency anymore than the right does now if it was a swing state both sides might support going to the popular vote to decide the Presidential election but I doubt it outside of these rare sour grapes moments the electoral system has worked very well for a long time and I sure don't trust the partisan hacks of today could work out a system that would be better.

Bullshit.

This discussion has been a constant for two hundred years. The fact that you choose to notice it only when it serves your fantasy to do so is irrelevant to pretty much anything. It generally comes up every four years, because ------- that's when it's in play. DUH.

Bullshit back at you the popular vote total in the presidential election has gotten major press atttention twice in my lifetime 2000 and 2016 that's not fantasy that's reality deal with it or piss off.

Once AGAIN you're admitting to the only times you bothered to pay attention. I just said that.

Also just posted a counterexample, to which you choose to go

AGAIN, this question is a constant, and always will be until it's resolved. PERIOD.

no it's not. It's only a question when democrats lose elections.

 

[Pogo]

This discussion only seems to come up when one sides candidate of choice wins the popular vote by overperforming in a state or states they were never going to lose like Hillary did in Califorina but lose the electoral vote. In 2016 as recall Trump lead in the popular vote till Califorina came in. If Califorina was a rock solid red state the left would not want the popular vote deciding the Presidency anymore than the right does now if it was a swing state both sides might support going to the popular vote to decide the Presidential election but I doubt it outside of these rare sour grapes moments the electoral system has worked very well for a long time and I sure don't trust the partisan hacks of today could work out a system that would be better.

Bullshit.

This discussion has been a constant for two hundred years. The fact that you choose to notice it only when it serves your fantasy to do so is irrelevant to pretty much anything. It generally comes up every four years, because ------- that's when it's in play. DUH.

Bullshit back at you the popular vote total in the presidential election has gotten major press atttention twice in my lifetime 2000 and 2016 that's not fantasy that's reality deal with it or piss off.

Once AGAIN you're admitting to the only times you bothered to pay attention. I just said that.

Also just posted a counterexample, to which you choose to go

AGAIN, this question is a constant, and always will be until it's resolved. PERIOD.

no it's not. It's only a question when democrats lose elections.

Care to explain those tweets above then?

No, didn't think so.

 

[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.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

We cant have the East and West Coast telling flyover what to do, especially when it comes to socialist entitlement programs like Obamacare.
Like I said the electoral college is genius, without it Rural America might as well will not even vote in presidential elections… Because with a pure popular vote they would have zero say in the direction of the country and running of their own states.

But doesn't EC actually do exactly what you are saying? In my example, you can have 1 state, with 51% of the population beat out the other 49% of the population, as well as 6 other states entire population. This means that California alone will have more say than 6 entire central US states.

If it went by popular vote, it may not be that way. Am I misunderstanding?

 

[Crixus]

This discussion only seems to come up when one sides candidate of choice wins the popular vote by overperforming in a state or states they were never going to lose like Hillary did in Califorina but lose the electoral vote. In 2016 as recall Trump lead in the popular vote till Califorina came in. If Califorina was a rock solid red state the left would not want the popular vote deciding the Presidency anymore than the right does now if it was a swing state both sides might support going to the popular vote to decide the Presidential election but I doubt it outside of these rare sour grapes moments the electoral system has worked very well for a long time and I sure don't trust the partisan hacks of today could work out a system that would be better.

Bullshit.

This discussion has been a constant for two hundred years. The fact that you choose to notice it only when it serves your fantasy to do so is irrelevant to pretty much anything. It generally comes up every four years, because ------- that's when it's in play. DUH.

Bullshit back at you the popular vote total in the presidential election has gotten major press atttention twice in my lifetime 2000 and 2016 that's not fantasy that's reality deal with it or piss off.

Once AGAIN you're admitting to the only times you bothered to pay attention. I just said that.

Also just posted a counterexample, to which you choose to go

AGAIN, this question is a constant, and always will be until it's resolved. PERIOD.

no it's not. It's only a question when democrats lose elections.

Care to explain those tweets above then?

No, didn't think so.

Your right I do t give two fucks what trump, Hillary Michelle or you think about the EC. It's how it's done now, it's how it's always been done and that's it will be done. Every election that libtards lose they piss and moan over the EC, but not a peep when token negro won and lost his party the congress.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?

Where is any of it inaccurate?

WillHaftawaite theHawk

It's simplistic.


When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose

the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.

Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.

'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.

The point is moot anyway.


'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC

 

[Pogo]

When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose

Non sequitur. Explain how "the states lose".

the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.

Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.

Not the way it works either. This just in --- the POTUS is elected by electors, not voters. HOW those voters would vote in a PV election is something no one knows, because millions don't even bother, knowing their votes aren't going to count whether they bother to go stand in line to vote or not. That means everybody who lives in a locked-red or locked-blue state. That means Hillary voters in Utah and Rump voters in New York. None of them have any influence at all. They can vote for their own choice, vote against their own choice, vote for a third party, or stay home and learn Macedonian, and all four scenaria produce exactly the same result. It's pre-ordained.

THAT is what's "not very democratic". It's a major reason our turnout rate is among the most embarrassing in the world.

'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.

Nobody suggests they don't.

The point is moot anyway.


'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC

Again --- it's not up to "flyover country" (which is yet another divisive bullshit concept the WTA EC creates) ---- the Constitution says it's up to states ratifying an Amendment.

 

[Auld Phart]

--- the POTUS is elected by electors, not voters.

and if the Electoral College is gone, the electors are gone.

no need for electors, under the popular vote.

Again --- it's not up to "flyover country" (which is yet another bullshit concept the WTA EC creates) ---- the Constitution says it's up to states ratifying an Amendment.

there's the rub...

without the 'flyover' states, (about 30) no ratification.

and they aren't going to vote to hang themselves

 

[Rustic]

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.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

We cant have the East and West Coast telling flyover what to do, especially when it comes to socialist entitlement programs like Obamacare.
Like I said the electoral college is genius, without it Rural America might as well will not even vote in presidential elections… Because with a pure popular vote they would have zero say in the direction of the country and running of their own states.

But doesn't EC actually do exactly what you are saying? In my example, you can have 1 state, with 51% of the population beat out the other 49% of the population, as well as 6 other states entire population. This means that California alone will have more say than 6 entire central US states.

If it went by popular vote, it may not be that way. Am I misunderstanding?

Crazy Cali has more city’s each with a greater population than the northern plains states. A pure popular vote would make their votes meaningless, to the point whereas they would be better off not even participating in presidential elections... Obviously that’s why the progressives want a pure popular vote.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?

Where is any of it inaccurate?

WillHaftawaite theHawk

It's simplistic.


When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose

the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.

Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.

'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.

The point is moot anyway.


'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC

Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.

 

[Rustic]

When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose

Non sequitur. Explain how "the states lose".

the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.

Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.

Not the way it works either. This just in --- the POTUS is elected by electors, not voters. HOW those voters would vote in a PV election is something no one knows, because millions don't even bother, knowing their votes aren't going to count whether they bother to go stand in line to vote or not. That means everybody who lives in a locked-red or locked-blue state. That means Hillary voters in Utah and Rump voters in New York. None of them have any influence at all. They can vote for their own choice, vote against their own choice, vote for a third party, or stay home and learn Macedonian, and all four scenaria produce exactly the same result. It's pre-ordained.

THAT is what's "not very democratic". It's a major reason our turnout rate is among the most embarrassing in the world.

'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.

Nobody suggests they don't.

The point is moot anyway.


'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC

Again --- it's not up to "flyover country" (which is yet another divisive bullshit concept the WTA EC creates) ---- the Constitution says it's up to states ratifying an Amendment.

Wrong

Move to a state that suits you...

Without the EC they have zero say

This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy...