Poll: If it was up to you, would you stick with the elecotral vote or popular vote system?

[Beau]

If it was up to you, would you stick with the elecotral vote or popular vote system?

Me? I'd go for popular vote. Then my vote would actually matter. Since I live in a majorly republican state, I've very hessitant to vote in general because no matter what it wouldn't make any difference.

Also, if there was enough popular support for this kind of a change, who would one have to contact to get a rally going for it?

 

[DAGTA]

Popular

 

[ianbergman]

Popular. The technical and social reasons for the electoral college are long gone; it's high time to get rid of it.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Beau
If it was up to you, would you stick with the elecotral vote or popular vote system?

Me? I'd go for popular vote. Then my vote would actually matter. Since I live in a majorly republican state, I've very hessitant to vote in general because no matter what it wouldn't make any difference.

Also, if there was enough popular support for this kind of a change, who would one have to contact to get a rally going for it?

Alexander Hamilton, writing in support of the Electoral College in The Federalist No. 68, argued that "It is equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation .... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation."

Link

The Electoral College was established by Article Two, Section One of the U.S. Constitution,

Link

The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Link

In a word, no, it's not gonna happen.

 

[Perknose]

Popular. The President is president of ALL Americans, not just some Americans whose vote inexplicitly counts for more.

I predict a slightly less than two to one margin pro popular vote in this poll. You can all guess why.

Interestingly though, if we broke that vote down by state and awarded "electoral votes", the winner of this poll might well be different.

 

[Hugenstein]

Modified electoral. All the states need to pass laws to distribute their electoral votes based on winner of each Congressional District, +2 for the overall state winner. Either that or a straight percentage split based on votes received. The current system disenfranchises half the country.

Living in Texas, it is pointless for me to vote for John Kerry, as my vote and the votes of the 35-40% of Texans who don't vote for Bush are completely tossed out, when Bush receives all the electoral votes for Texas.

 

[Ryan]

Electoral - popular would force the majority of the states to bow to the will of a handful of three or four.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Electoral - popular would force the majority of the states to bow to the will of a handful of three or four.

Ya, where the people are, bummer.

I don't like a handfull of small hick states picking the president despite the choice of the people.

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Electoral - popular would force the majority of the states to bow to the will of a handful of three or four.

Why should "states" count more than individual votes? I thought we were all Americans???

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Popular. The President is president of ALL Americans, not just some Americans whose vote inexplicitly counts for more.

I predict a slightly less than two to one margin pro popular vote in this poll. You can all guess why.

Interestingly though, if we broke that vote down by state and awarded "electoral votes", the winner of this poll might well be different.

by awarded electoral votes, do you mean that a state can split it's votes based on it's populations votes? Like if 33% voted for Bush, and 66% voted for Kerry, and the state had 3 electoral votes, then bush would get one vote and Kerry woudl be awarded 2, rather than all three going to Kerry?

I could deal with that.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Electoral - popular would force the majority of the states to bow to the will of a handful of three or four.

No, a true polular vote would elect the president that the most americans would vote for, which is the logical way.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Beau
If it was up to you, would you stick with the elecotral vote or popular vote system?

Me? I'd go for popular vote. Then my vote would actually matter. Since I live in a majorly republican state, I've very hessitant to vote in general because no matter what it wouldn't make any difference.

Also, if there was enough popular support for this kind of a change, who would one have to contact to get a rally going for it?

Alexander Hamilton, writing in support of the Electoral College in The Federalist No. 68, argued that "It is equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation .... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation."

Link

The Electoral College was established by Article Two, Section One of the U.S. Constitution,

Link

The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Link

In a word, no, it's not gonna happen.

Anything's possible with enough popular support.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Beau
If it was up to you, would you stick with the elecotral vote or popular vote system?

Me? I'd go for popular vote. Then my vote would actually matter. Since I live in a majorly republican state, I've very hessitant to vote in general because no matter what it wouldn't make any difference.

Also, if there was enough popular support for this kind of a change, who would one have to contact to get a rally going for it?

By that logic, your vote wouldn't count if you went to a majority Democrat state, either. It would only count for anything if you were in a swing state.

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Electoral - popular would force the majority of the states to bow to the will of a handful of three or four.

Ya, where the people are, bummer.

I don't like a handfull of small hick states picking the president despite the choice of the people.

No one wants you to pick a president for them, either. Unfortunately, in a Republic, that's how it goes.

The EC probably isn't the perfect way to decide. I like Hugenstein's idea (modified electoral), and it would be interesting to see how it would change the results. Anyone have a site with past election results?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Beau

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Electoral - popular would force the majority of the states to bow to the will of a handful of three or four.

No, a true polular vote would elect the president that the most americans would vote for, which is the logical way.

You'd also completely alienate a lot of states in the process, since there would be no motivation to give them anything (funding or otherwise). Whether we like it or not, every state does contribute things to the whole (except maybe Montana... I dunno what they have to offer really ).

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Beau
No, a true polular vote would elect the president that the most americans would vote for, which is the logical way.

If you have little understanding of US history, I suppose this would seem logical.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Electoral - popular would force the majority of the states to bow to the will of a handful of three or four.

I have heard this argument over and over and it is always the Republicans thinking that California will decide every election. You know what I say, tough sh!t.

There is no county by county electoral college for the states so based on that logic, the UP of Michigan should just secede from the LP since the voters in the Detroit Metro area pretty much trump all the votes of the UP combined when voting for Governor.

Why should the rest of the country as a whole be any more important than the millions of votes coming out of the big states like California. 1 country, 1 vote, add em up, winner is the person with the most votes. Period.

 

[Genx87]

Framers of our country probably have a better idea on why they did it than most of us.

I tend to think the electoral college is a better way to go. It allows states with less political and population clout to help determine our next leader. And in a way the electoral college follows more population == more power. But the electoral college also allows a state like North Dakota to also have some say. If they got rid of the electoral college then I can tell you the leaders would only work on the coasts and forget the middle of the country except for maybe cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Dallas.

A city like Chicago would erase an entire state like North Dakota. And a state like California could erase the entire midwest.

I think the electoral college if the way to go and should not be changed. We have checks and balances for a reason. This is just another check and balance.

 

[Todd33]

I see, ignore the cites where the people live and pander to small towns in small states. That makes complete sense. What exactly is that checking and balancing?

 

[Siddhartha]

I trust the American voter to directly choose the president of the united states.

 

[umbrella39]

I see what you are trying to say Genx but I don't feel anymore or less important than someone living in Rhode Island right now. Since we are only talking about the Presidential election and not how the last 2 loaves of bread are going to be divvied out to the country, I see no logic in your support of the electoral college. Who the hell cares if the candidates don't pander to the needs of people in South Dakota? How are their needs any different than the needs of a Californian when simply choosing one man or woman to be the Lead Singer in Band? That's why there is a Congress and a Supreme Court.

It defies logic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I see, ignore the cites where the people live and pander to small towns in small states. That makes complete sense. What exactly is that checking and balancing?

It's "checking and balancing" urban interests against rural interests. Rural areas provide to and are a part of this country as well, and deserve fair representation despite their lower population.

Of great concern to the founding fathers was the threat of "Tyranny of the Majority" where any group presenting itself as representing the majority could oppress an opposing minority. There is no question that switching to popular elections for the President would cause such a problem. In fact, the electoral college was created to tackle this very issue, the circumstances at the time being an urban north and a rural south. In addition is the fact that our country is supposed to be a federated republic of semi-sovereign states, and the concept of states' rights was a big factor in the creation of the electoral system.

If you populists don't like the electoral system, you are welcome to try to amend the Constitution to change it. Otherwise, the whining is annoying, and yet typical of tyranny of the majority tactics...

 

[herkulease]

Its the double edge sword really.

If we eliminate the EC and went with popular vote only. there's a chance that candidates will pander for votes in the coast states/focus on areas dense population.

Keeping the EC it would be like it is now, there are states in which bush/kerry hardly bother visit since they either have it locked up or the other guy does.

We've had 54 presidential elections. Bush win EC and losing popular is only the 3rd occurance.

hayes in 1876, harrison in 1888, bush in 2000.

John Quincy Adams had the different case in whcih is lose both the EC and popular. If memory serves me correctly when no candiate as a majority in the electoral college the house cases votes.

but anyhow I don't believe the system is perfect. But I can't think of something that will make candidates care about everyone.

the "modified electoral" sounds good. but someone should check up on when there's no majority who decides.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I trust the American voter to directly choose the president of the united states.

As do I, in each individual state that voter resides in.

Your blantantly misleading statement is similar to an anti-war protester who wants to see the troops come home safe being accused of "not supporting our troops". :roll:

Another key factor of the electoral system is how it aids the smaller parties. In a popular vote system, no voter would dare vote outside the 2 main parties. In the electoral system, I can safely vote for the LP candidate now that I more or less know that the candidate that I want to see lose will lose in my state.

 

[Todd33]

So the tyranny of the minority is better? Maybe you want to go back to blacks getting 3/5 a vote? Times change, get over farm folk. For better of worse we are probably stuck with the a$$backwards EC and gays getting married in MA. We are a beacon of democracy, but we just can't practice democracy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Todd33
So the tyranny of the minority is better? Maybe you want to go back to blacks getting 3/5 a vote? Times change, get over farm folk. For better of worse we are probably stuck with the a$$backwards EC and gays getting married in MA. We are a beacon of democracy, but we just can't practice democracy.

The United States is not and never has been a democracy. And I hope we never will, true democracy being the most tyrannical form of government possible. The United States is a Representative Federal Republic. Simply because our representative system emulates some aspects of democracy does not make it a democracy.
And your spinning, particularly the comment about blacks and 3/5th is trolling to say the least, asshole. That issue was fixed 140 years ago and has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion.
The electoral system does not represent a "tyranny of the minority", much as you might like to spin it as such. As herkulease pointed out, only 3 times in US history has a President won the electoral while losing the popular. In all those cases, the margins were extemely close. In most elections however, the electoral vote has exaggerated the popular, when a 5% win in the popular translated to a landslide in the electoral.
If we get rid of the electoral college, we may as well get rid of the states too. Otherwise, the electoral college serves it purpose in making sure that the winning candidate has some degree of widespread support all the way across the country, and not just in one populous area. In other words, it strengthens the representation of the people throughout the entire country in our government. And you're opposed to that?
Like I said, you don't like it, then get the Constitution amended. You would think that, in your mind, that would seem like Democracy, to get the support of the people, but I doubt that's the type of "democracy" you have in mind...