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

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: 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.

And again, what the hell does that have to do with the election of one man or woman to the highest position in the land? Since when is the President the end-all to any one persons need for representation?

The president does not need to represent these rural areas... that is what their Senators and Reps are for.


Damn.

And I'll go one further, do you think this president or any other president in recent history really gives a rats ass about the plight of the rural dweller? They give a sh!t about money and power. The rural voter is an ends to that means.

 

[Genx87]

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?

Exactly how are they "ignoring" the cities? It is baseless sensationalism that makes liberals like you sound ignorant.

Have you noticed the electoral makup of the country? The larger states population wise get more electoral votes. But they dont completely destory the smaller states say in the election process.

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.

Probably the 700,000 or so registered voters in South Dakota? I dont know, how are their needs any less than the needs of the people in California?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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?

Exactly how are they "ignoring" the cities? It is baseless sensationalism that makes liberals like you sound ignorant.

Have you noticed the electoral makup of the country? The larger states population wise get more electoral votes. But they dont completely destory the smaller states say in the election process.

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.

Probably the 700,000 or so registered voters in South Dakota? I dont know, how are their needs any less than the needs of the people in California?

And how is their voice any more or less represented by the person elected to be president? Quit talking about states as a whole, we are talking about people and one elected offical. Again, that is why states elect senators and reps to go to Washington and represent. The president represents no one.

The most important thing I see in making sure EVERYONE is represented fairly is to never allow all 3 branches to be held by the same party. Republican or Democrat. Nothing good can come from that. Case and point.

 

[Spamela]

popular - 1 person, 1 vote.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't see how it is illogical.

Right now, since I live in Utah, it doesn't matter if I vote or not as there is an astounding majority that will vote republican no matter the issue. Because of this, all 5 of Utah's electors will undoubtedly vote for Bush. So, my vote is worth about as much as the last turd I flushed down the toilet.

However, if every vote was counted as much as another (state votes didn't exist, all votes counted), them my vote would be worth as much as the next mans'.

As far as rallying for support in towns and states across the US, well, because of the EC, that only happens in swing states, since my state case is all to common across th US, so I really don't see a big disadvantage of it.

The EC was put into place not because it enabled states to have a voice in the vote, but more for the reason that the founding fathers were afraid of ignorant voters. They were afraid that uneducated voters would vote for the candidate that could yell the loudest and pollute with political garbage. That may have been the case 100 years ago when information was slow to spread, but this IS the information age. More people are more informed on key issues than ever before, yet the EC still hinders everyman's vote from counting as much as it should.

 

[xbassman]

I think you guys are missing probably the biggest issue that we would face if the electorial college were abolished. You remember Florida 2000 right? Imagine nation-wide recounts! It would be utter chaos!

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: xbassman
I think you guys are missing probably the biggest issue that we would face if the electorial college were abolished. You remember Florida 2000 right? Imagine nation-wide recounts! It would be utter chaos!

Every vote is counted anyway. The electoral college is just another step after a popular vote is already tallied.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but at the time of the framing of the constitution, wasn't the bigger reason for the EC the slowness of communication, as opposed to a urban/rural balancing?

If so, then then the reason for the rule has since changed, so, shouldn't the rule change?

And, notwithstanding the difficulty of amending the constitution, wouldn't there be a way to update the system to reflect instantaneous global communication technologies and their effects while still maintaining the balancing effects of the current scheme?

 

[conjur]

Wow...I'm truly saddened that Popular is ahead.

Wow.


<shaking head in disbelief>

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: daveshel
If so, then then the reason for the rule has since changed, so, shouldn't the rule change?

It could. The document that outlines the rule even outlines what is required to change it.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Beau
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.

As opposed to living in a majority republican/democrat country...where people nationwide would be hesitant to vote because it wouldn't make a difference...

Originally posted by: 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.

In a popular election, wouldn't it be possible for 49.99% of the country to be disenfranchised?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: daveshel
If so, then then the reason for the rule has since changed, so, shouldn't the rule change?

It could. The document that outlines the rule even outlines what is required to change it.

Not without amending this:

Section. 1.

Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Amendment XII)

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, (See Note 9) the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

 

[Hugenstein]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Beau
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.

As opposed to living in a majority republican/democrat country...where people nationwide would be hesitant to vote because it wouldn't make a difference...

Originally posted by: 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.

In a popular election, wouldn't it be possible for 49.99% of the country to be disenfranchised?

No. In a popular vote, every vote would = 1 vote. The person you voted for may lose, but your vote still counted when they tried to figure out the winner. With the electoral college(Winner take all system) your losing vote is tossed in the trash, when the winning candidate gets 100% support from your state. If 50.01% vote for and 49.99% vote against, I don't think giving the guy 100% of a state's electoral votes matches the intent of that state's voters.

 

[b0mbrman]

If 50.01% vote for and 49.99% vote against, I don't think giving the guy 100% of a state's electoral votes matches the intent of that state's voters.

And in a popular election, if nationwide, 50.01% vote for and 49.99% against, then you give 100% of the elected office to that guy...

You've still got the chance that 49.99% of people nationwide will be unhappy...that's just how things go when you can only have one winner.

 

[Konigin]

Electoral.

 

[marcello]

I started reading this post thinking that the popular vote was the way to go. But after reading it all, there are some good points for the electoral college. Still, I believe that the popular vote is better. The reasons I have, have mostly all been posted, but I think they are important.

Either way, politicians are going to campaign in certain areas mostly, and ignore other parts of the country so that kind of sucks no matter what. However, many people seem to think that if we used a popular vote California's voters would decide the election. This is not true. While California is majority democrat, there are still many, many republicans in California. It's not like the state is 90% democrat, so there would still be lots of votes for republicans from California. Plus there is Texas, which is similar to the opposite of California to balance that out.

So many people are disenfranchised right now because it is useless to vote in states such as California, Texas, and New York (others too, but my point is in the big states a huge population's votes are useless, which leads to a massive amout of people not voting). Some people have said if the vote is 50.1% to 49.9%, in a popular election, almost half the population is disenfranchised. However, if the vote is that close, the winner should be who gets the majority of the votes, not who gets the majority of the adjusted votes. That's just possibly changing who won.

 

[marcello]

BTW, Vic your sig is hilarious, frightening, and true at the same time

 

[TheMagnificentCheese]

Electoral by a landslide.