Electoral or Popular Vote

[Seawytch]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

Sorry, But if that Happens Republicans will accept it like Men and move on, they wont cry about an Unfair System, because the System is not Unfair, it works.

ROFLMAO. Oh, you're funny.

 

[Seawytch]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

No you won't.
When Republicans lose, they don't cry about the system being "unfair".

Right...

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

 

[Seawytch]

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

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

electoral vote by district ... not a winner take all.

You can do it that way right now if your state legislature approves it. Maine and Nebraska already do.

Of course, that system will only result in even more gerrymandering of Congressional districts than we have now.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Judging by a lot of the posters on here, they aren't.

 

[1ManRev]

What's so great about the popular vote?

It lacks two huge flaws that our current system has:

1) Overemphasis on swing states: if you're in a solid red or blue state, why bother voting?
2) Preventing third party/independent challengers. Ross Perot got 20% of the popular vote in 92, but 0 electoral votes. That kind of result discourages people from voting against the two-party monopoly. Why is this bad? It's a lot easier for corporations to buy political influence when there's only two parties to bribe.

I am an advocate of popular vote for the presidential office, as well as the senate. The house would be better off with proportional representation like most European countries use; it would allow independents, libertarians, and greens to get in on the fun.

 

[Politico]

Certainly shouldn't be popular vote. I don't want this modern mob of wingnuts set loose.

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.

Seriousy, pick up a book man.

 

[8537]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

No you won't.
When Republicans lose, they don't cry about the system being "unfair".

Ha! That's funny.

You were makin' a joke, right? amiright?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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 Electoral College was established because it took days and sometimes weeks to travel from where you lived to a population center. The Electoral College allowed the local electorate to cast their vote, which would then be further relayed at the meeting of those representatives. Normally, the vote would be cast the way that they majority in the local district voted. For many years, even after technology made transmission of information more efficient, the electoral representative cast their vote the same way their constituency had. It was possible for the Electoral votes from each state to be split according to the popular candidate in that district. Somewhere along the line, no doubt to accommodate some political expedient, it became common custom for the Electoral votes of an entire state to be cast as the majority of the state had voted. Hence we have candidates sucking ass in populated states like NY, CA, FL, etc, while totally ignoring the greatest majority of every other state with only few electoral votes. Since the electoral votes trump all, a candidate can (and has) win the popular vote and still lose the election.
Considering that regardless of how individual districts may vote, the electoral votes of an entire state fall to the candidate garnering the majority vote. This often results in the disenfranchisement of suburban and rural constituencies by allowing urban constituencies to trump everyone else's desires. If we are to be burdened with the Electoral system, here's my suggestion: each state and DC have ONE vote. That vote will be cast for whichever candidate wins the simple majority of votes. That gives us 50 states and one tiebreaker. So, which ever candidate garners 51 votes from the Electoral college wins. Absolutely fair, but a real game changer. Candidates would have to appeal to ALL Americans, not just those big-city dwellers, many of whom subsist on the public dime.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

That is true only if the electoral votes were cast proportionate to the districts that vote for the electors. As it stands now, and entire state's electoral votes are cast according to how the majority (usually urban) votes.

 

[Ernie S.]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

That's very unlikely considering that California and New York will be so overwhelmingly Democratic. They could go 20,000,000 more votes in the popular vote and the other 55 states go Republican by slim margins and Romney would win with maybe 45% of the popular vote.
I don't know about you, but I don't want 2 states to decide who runs the rest.

 

[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 supposedly heavy-handed intrusion in the lives of women on the behalf of the unborn.

 

[candycorn]

Which do you think it should be?

Both.

 

[1ManRev]

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.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What's so great about the popular vote?

It lacks two huge flaws that our current system has:

1) Overemphasis on swing states: if you're in a solid red or blue state, why bother voting?
2) Preventing third party/independent challengers. Ross Perot got 20% of the popular vote in 92, but 0 electoral votes. That kind of result discourages people from voting against the two-party monopoly. Why is this bad? It's a lot easier for corporations to buy political influence when there's only two parties to bribe.

I am an advocate of popular vote for the presidential office, as well as the senate. The house would be better off with proportional representation like most European countries use; it would allow independents, libertarians, and greens to get in on the fun.

Our two-party system is much more stable and liberty-preserving than the multi-party systems of parliamentary government, and eliminating the Electoral College would have no appreciable effect on our system as it's mostly driven by other things.

Corporations don't bribe; they're part of the same free society, entitled to a voice like any other entity.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which do you think it should be?

It should remain as it is and will do so until someone creates and passes an amendment. Wishful thinking won't change it.

You realize an amendment has to pass both Houses to be submitted to the people and then it has to be approved by 37 States. I doubt the small States will approve cutting their own throats.

 

[candycorn]

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.

 

[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?

 

[M14 Shooter]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

No you won't.
When Republicans lose, they don't cry about the system being "unfair".

Ha! That's funny.
You were makin' a joke, right? amiright?

Feel free to cite examples.