Electoral College vs. Popular Vote

[MonstaThrilla]

If the Electoral College was replaced by a Popular Vote to elect the President, what would happen?

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

The more important question, though, is why isn't there a large movement to end the Electoral College, which elected a President not representative of the will of the people in 2000? Is it still necessary in today's age of 24 hour news networks and Internet?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
If the Electoral College was replaced by a Popular Vote to elect the President, what would happen?

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

The more important question, though, is why isn't there a large movement to end the Electoral College, which elected a President not representative of the will of the people in 2000? Is it still necessary in today's age of 24 hour news networks and Internet?

States would lose more rights if the electorial college goes away.

Without the electorial college a few large cities would dominate elections.

 

[Red Dawn]

Republicans would still win. In fact they might have one more handily in 2000 because in states like CA and NY were it was obvious that Gore was going to get the Electoral votes many Republicans didn't turn out because they knew that their votes would be a waste of time!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
If the Electoral College was replaced by a Popular Vote to elect the President, what would happen?

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

The more important question, though, is why isn't there a large movement to end the Electoral College, which elected a President not representative of the will of the people in 2000? Is it still necessary in today's age of 24 hour news networks and Internet?

States would lose more rights if the electorial college goes away.

Without the electorial college a few large cities would dominate elections.

Small insignificant states wouldn't have a disproportional say in the National Election

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
If the Electoral College was replaced by a Popular Vote to elect the President, what would happen?

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

The more important question, though, is why isn't there a large movement to end the Electoral College, which elected a President not representative of the will of the people in 2000? Is it still necessary in today's age of 24 hour news networks and Internet?

It has happened before and with a much larger percentage.(around 16% I believe)

 

[Spencer278]

I think it should be the Electoral college but weighted for what precent of people in a state voted for a given canadate. So if only 51 % of the people in a state vote for who ever they only get 51 % of the electoral college votes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
If the Electoral College was replaced by a Popular Vote to elect the President, what would happen?

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

The more important question, though, is why isn't there a large movement to end the Electoral College, which elected a President not representative of the will of the people in 2000? Is it still necessary in today's age of 24 hour news networks and Internet?

States would lose more rights if the electorial college goes away.

Without the electorial college a few large cities would dominate elections.

Small insignificant states wouldn't have a disproportional say in the National Election

Should the cities of new york and LA control evey election, leaving the rest of the country without a say?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I think it should be the Electoral college but weighted for what precent of people in a state voted for a given canadate. So if only 51 % of the people in a state vote for who ever they only get 51 % of the electoral college votes.

The states can currenty do that if they wish.

 

[MovingTarget]

I would rather stick to an electoral college system. It not only prevents a tyranny of the urbanized areas (New York/LA/etc continually dominating elections leaving rural and smaller areas with virtually no say), but it also serves to compartmentalize elections should problems in the counting arise. Think of it this way. It was bad enough we had the recount fiasco in Florida, just think how bad it would be on a national level if another close election came along. It would be a mess and a nightmare. Our system isn't perfect by a long shot and I'm no fan of GWB, but getting rid of the electoral college system because of 2000 would be a really bad idea.
And another thing. If we were just to go by popular vote for everything, then why have the senate as opposed to a unicameral legislature based solely on population? Sometimes you have to give areas some extra power to less populated areas to counterbalance the urban majority. As I recall, even the EU has been having a similar problem of small vs. large populated countries in their representation. It just seems to me a compartmentalized winner take all system serves to level the playing field of urban v rural and minimalizes confusion. It has worked for the US (bicameral legislature and electoral college) for over 200 years. It may be old, but that doesn't mean you should change something that has worked so well for us all over time.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

WTF is up with this comment? Not only is it completely unfounded, but it's completely moronic. You speak of democracy, yet you want to rob people of the very ideas that it encapsulates. A moron indeed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
If the Electoral College was replaced by a Popular Vote to elect the President, what would happen?

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

The more important question, though, is why isn't there a large movement to end the Electoral College, which elected a President not representative of the will of the people in 2000? Is it still necessary in today's age of 24 hour news networks and Internet?

States would lose more rights if the electorial college goes away.

Without the electorial college a few large cities would dominate elections.

Small insignificant states wouldn't have a disproportional say in the National Election

Should the cities of new york and LA control evey election, leaving the rest of the country without a say?

You are talking about 5 millions votes at the most and I can assure you that not every voter would vote for the same guy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

WTF is up with this comment? Not only is it completely unfounded, but it's completely moronic. You speak of democracy, yet you want to rob people of the very ideas that it encapsulates. A moron indeed.

No, you are the moron. Without the electorial college, populations centers would control the elections. What is important to the city dweller may not be important to those living in rural areas. And vice versa. The electorial college goes toward fixing this.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

WTF is up with this comment? Not only is it completely unfounded, but it's completely moronic. You speak of democracy, yet you want to rob people of the very ideas that it encapsulates. A moron indeed.

No, you are the moron. Without the electorial college, populations centers would control the elections. What is important to the city dweller may not be important to those living in rural areas. And vice versa. The electorial college goes toward fixing this.

They don't already? Sure, it would be much worse if it was a purely popular vote, but there is definate concentration on the big states.

I mean really, do you think Montana, North and South Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming combined will receive anywhere near the attention California will receive?

Either way, the electoral system should stay in place because, while there already is favoritism, it would be worse without it. However, states need to stop with the idea of whoever wins the state receives all of the electoral votes.(I think only 2 states have it broken down to districts, which isn't as bad, but still could use some work)

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

WTF is up with this comment? Not only is it completely unfounded, but it's completely moronic. You speak of democracy, yet you want to rob people of the very ideas that it encapsulates. A moron indeed.

No, you are the moron. Without the electorial college, populations centers would control the elections. What is important to the city dweller may not be important to those living in rural areas. And vice versa. The electorial college goes toward fixing this.

No, I actually agree with you. What is moronic/unfounded is his perception of what would happen to democrats and republicans, and his obvious bias towards his political affiliations. He speaks of the goods that can be brought to democray by eliminating the electoral college, but fails to realize that democracy would be profoundly hurt with the college gone.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

WTF is up with this comment? Not only is it completely unfounded, but it's completely moronic. You speak of democracy, yet you want to rob people of the very ideas that it encapsulates. A moron indeed.

No, you are the moron. Without the electorial college, populations centers would control the elections. What is important to the city dweller may not be important to those living in rural areas. And vice versa. The electorial college goes toward fixing this.

No, I actually agree with you. What is moronic/unfounded is his perception of what would happen to democrats and republicans, and his obvious bias towards his political affiliations. He speaks of the goods that can be brought to democray by eliminating the electoral college, but fails to realize that democracy would be profoundly hurt with the college gone.

What? Where did I say it was a good thing that rural voters would probably be left out? I'm not going to call you infantile names, but I'd have to question the intelligence of someone who quotes my comment of what would be wrong with a Popular Vote system but then turns around and says I don't realize what's wrong with a Popular Vote when I just stated it.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

WTF is up with this comment? Not only is it completely unfounded, but it's completely moronic. You speak of democracy, yet you want to rob people of the very ideas that it encapsulates. A moron indeed.

No, you are the moron. Without the electorial college, populations centers would control the elections. What is important to the city dweller may not be important to those living in rural areas. And vice versa. The electorial college goes toward fixing this.

No, I actually agree with you. What is moronic/unfounded is his perception of what would happen to democrats and republicans, and his obvious bias towards his political affiliations. He speaks of the goods that can be brought to democray by eliminating the electoral college, but fails to realize that democracy would be profoundly hurt with the college gone.

What? Where did I say it was a good thing that rural voters would probably be left out? I'm not going to call you infantile names, but I'd have to question the intelligence of someone who quotes my comment of what would be wrong with a Popular Vote system but then turns around and says I don't realize what's wrong with a Popular Vote when I just stated it.

AH, but you never stated that it was a bad thing, which is obvious and nullifies any reason for this thread to exist. You created it, making it sound as if you supported popular vote over Electoral.

 

[Dragnov]

Sorry, electoral college is here to stay. People are familiar with it, and theres no public outcry because no one really cares. People only bring it up w/ Bush v. Gore.. but then I guess people don't mention that our greatest President Abraham Lincoln woudln't have been elected either.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

WTF is up with this comment? Not only is it completely unfounded, but it's completely moronic. You speak of democracy, yet you want to rob people of the very ideas that it encapsulates. A moron indeed.

No, you are the moron. Without the electorial college, populations centers would control the elections. What is important to the city dweller may not be important to those living in rural areas. And vice versa. The electorial college goes toward fixing this.

No, I actually agree with you. What is moronic/unfounded is his perception of what would happen to democrats and republicans, and his obvious bias towards his political affiliations. He speaks of the goods that can be brought to democray by eliminating the electoral college, but fails to realize that democracy would be profoundly hurt with the college gone.

What? Where did I say it was a good thing that rural voters would probably be left out? I'm not going to call you infantile names, but I'd have to question the intelligence of someone who quotes my comment of what would be wrong with a Popular Vote system but then turns around and says I don't realize what's wrong with a Popular Vote when I just stated it.

AH, but you never stated that it was a bad thing, which is obvious and nullifies any reason for this thread to exist. You created it, making it sound as if you supported popular vote over Electoral.

"First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal."

See the "But" beginning the second sentence? That means an opposing thought follows.

I was trying to start a debate over the merits of the Electoral College over a Popular Vote. I don't know which is better, but I wonder why the Popular Vote hasn't been given a try. It can be considered a "truer" form of democracy. Not everything on this forum needs to be an intensely partisan debate. I don't even belong to a political party...

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Sorry, electoral college is here to stay. People are familiar with it, and theres no public outcry because no one really cares. People only bring it up w/ Bush v. Gore.. but then I guess people don't mention that our greatest President Abraham Lincoln woudln't have been elected either.

But who knows how those elections would have gone if a Popular Vote was in place rather than an Electoral College? It may have changed the dynamic of the particular race.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
If the Electoral College was replaced by a Popular Vote to elect the President, what would happen?

First and foremost, I think voter turnout would increase, which is obviously a good thing for democracy. But I think a conservative Republican as we know them today would never be elected again. The vast rural areas would have no real voting power at all, while the highly concentrated areas where most of the population is centered would vote overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal.

The more important question, though, is why isn't there a large movement to end the Electoral College, which elected a President not representative of the will of the people in 2000? Is it still necessary in today's age of 24 hour news networks and Internet?

States would lose more rights if the electorial college goes away.

Without the electorial college a few large cities would dominate elections.

Small insignificant states wouldn't have a disproportional say in the National Election

Should the cities of new york and LA control evey election, leaving the rest of the country without a say?

I think it is very outdated and has long since outlived its pupose. If the above is correct, then States should have Electoral Colleges for Governor. In Michigan, Detroiters, when they actaully get out and vote, have the numbers to completly negate the votes from the Upper Peninsula. Doesn't that, too, fall under the theory of what is good for the city dwellers might not be good for people who live in the country and vise versa? Why should Detroiters be able to decide the Governor and the entire UP have no say? Makes you think...

 

[jeremy806]

US is a republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is tyranny by the majority.

Electoral college is the way that it was meant to be.

Jeremy806

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: jeremy806
US is a republic, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is tyranny by the majority.

Electoral college is the way that it was meant to be.

Jeremy806

This isn't a debate on the merits of pure democracy. Pure democracy would mean every citizen vote on every bill. The US is a republic because the lawmaking branch of the federal government (Congress) consists of directly elected representatives. Why shouldn't the President, head of the executive branch, not be directly elected as well? And "the US is a republic" is not a sufficient answer.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

I forgot to mention that the Constitution originally had Senators elected not by direct will of their constituents, but by their state legislatures. The Constitution was amended to change it to a popular vote (17th Amendment passed in 1913). It seems to me like that turned out rather well.

 

[Teclis2323]

"Electoral college is the way that it was meant to be"

Without the Electoral College, each vote would be equal, which is the way it was meant to be. Unless, of course, you're purporting that people who happen to live in some states ARE in fact, more important than others.

 

[SuperTool]

I don't like the electoral college. It makes a vote of someone living in a small state worth more than that of someone living in a large state. But hat's the deal the states signed up for, so I'll live with it. I don't think USSC had any business getting involved in FL, since it's up to the states to pick electors