Electoral or Popular Vote

[FA_Q2]

The Constitution has a provision for that; the HOR will decide who is President and the Senate the VP if I recall. Just add in the stipulation that not only must she or he win the electoral college, but ALSO the popular vote as well.

To recommend otherwise is to recommend that the plurality of voter's wishes should not be considered.

The Constitution has no such provision. What you are referring to is a parlimentary procedure whereby the Senate CONFIRMS the election of the President and the House the VP. We elect the President just like it says in the Constitution.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

Not exactly. If the Electoral college cannot select a president, the House does it and the Senate selects the VP.

This makes zero sense. In essence, you are saying that if a president cannot garner both the popular and electoral votes then a good solution would be to have congress elect people that might have neither. What in the heck does that solve? No, we need ONE metric to decide the presidency, EC or popular. Not multiples. I certainly would NOT want this congress to elect the president. Would you????

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

For my part, I would likely support getting rid of the EC simply because it serves no actual purpose. If someone can actually point the purpose out I would love to hear it. So far, everyone on this thread has said ‘checks and balances’ and other such nonsense without actually stating what it does to accomplish being a balance on power.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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:

And the current studies show that there would be little difference in a popular vote. The candidates would focus on different places but there would still be very few of them. You are still not going to see a republican in CA, it simply is not going to happen.

It would make a major difference on how National candidates would campaign. They'd be campaigning in all 50 states, and one federal district. Yes, a Republican in California would have exactly the same vote as a Democrat in New Hampshire.

 

[candycorn]

The Constitution has no such provision. What you are referring to is a parlimentary procedure whereby the Senate CONFIRMS the election of the President and the House the VP. We elect the President just like it says in the Constitution.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

Not exactly. If the Electoral college cannot select a president, the House does it and the Senate selects the VP.

This makes zero sense. In essence, you are saying that if a president cannot garner both the popular and electoral votes then a good solution would be to have congress elect people that might have neither. What in the heck does that solve? No, we need ONE metric to decide the presidency, EC or popular. Not multiples. I certainly would NOT want this congress to elect the president. Would you????

Your post is the one that doesn't make sense since it is, in fact, what we now have in place if the Electoral College cannot produce a winner. If there is a tie or a 3rd party preventing a 270 majority for one candidate; the House picks the President and the Senate picks the VP.

All I am saying is that the President should be the one who gets the plurality of popular votes in addition to winning the electoral vote majority. If I recall, when I looked up the stats for a paper I wrote once, it would have caused the House/Senate involvement four times in our history or one out of ten times.

 

[asaratis]

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

That's too close to majority of popular vote.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

 

[kaz]

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.

Wow, another kid who failed high school history...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College - The Hill's Video

I agree. We should get rid of the archaic system.

There's nothing archaic about letting the 50 states choose the head of state.

It's a legacy of slavery

Unsupportable.

and makes no sense in today's world.

The 50 states of a repiublic choose the head of state of that repuiblic makes all kinds of sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 first sentence is total bullshit, so your conclusion is meaningless.

True. Our founders put it in, so the 3/5th of slaves would count after the white citizens voted for president.

Again, unsupportable.

 

[grunt11b]

Which do you think it should be?

Gore is calling for a popular vote, which means the electoral college is killing democrats in his eyes. Let's keep the electoral.
The problem is not with which one is more fair, the problem is with which one the democrats can manipulate and or cheat better at.

 

[candycorn]

Which do you think it should be?

Gore is calling for a popular vote, which means the electoral college is killing democrats in his eyes. Let's keep the electoral.
The problem is not with which one is more fair, the problem is with which one the democrats can manipulate and or cheat better at.

McCain lost by 9 million votes. Romney will lose by about 4 million. Any cheating that goes on is a rounding error although I agree that we do need to make it one system for federal elections across the nation as to where you must provide proof-positive ID that you are who you say you are and you're voting in the right district.

A picture-based voter registration card would be the easiest way to do this.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College - The Hill's Video

I agree. We should get rid of the archaic system.

There's nothing archaic about letting the 50 states choose the head of state.

It's a legacy of slavery

Unsupportable.

and makes no sense in today's world.

The 50 states of a repiublic choose the head of state of that repuiblic makes all kinds of sense.

OK, I'll be laughing my ass off if our elected President, Obama, wins the election on electoral votes. The fact remains as to why we support a system of electing a President, based on the legacy of slavery, that makes no sense.

Yes, it is a legacy of slavery. Without the scumbag tradition of a slave being 3/5ths of a person, and with their legacy of a slave being zero of a human, the electorial college makes no sense.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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

1: Unnecessary redundancy that leads to unnecessary complication.
2: The people do not elect the President because they should not elect the President.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree. We should get rid of the archaic system.

There's nothing archaic about letting the 50 states choose the head of state.


Unsupportable.

and makes no sense in today's world.

The 50 states of a repiublic choose the head of state of that repuiblic makes all kinds of sense.

OK, I'll be laughing my ass off if our elected President, Obama, wins the election on electoral votes.

It will be good to end the whining about Gore losing in 2000.

The fact remains as to why we support a system of electing a President, based on the legacy of slavery, that makes no sense.

There is no such fact

Yes, it is a legacy of slavery. Without the scumbag tradition of a slave being 3/5ths of a person, and with their legacy of a slave being zero of a human, the electorial college makes no sense

For those of us who unerstand why we have the electoral college, it "makes sense" regardless of the 3/5th comprimise. Thus, your claim has no basis in fact.

 

[beretta304]

Sorry if someone posted this.
Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College - The Hill's Video

No time to cipher through 157 replies.

 

[kaz]

Sorry if someone posted this.
Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College - The Hill's Video

No time to cipher through 157 replies.

Remember how shocked Gore was to find out about the electoral college after he lost to W? That he's such a moron he ran for President and didn't even learn about the electoral college until after he'd lost an election because of it is a pretty good demonstration he's too stupid to be President.