Why don't we have a popular vote for President?

[McPhreak]

I was talking to my friend last night about this, and we couldn't come up with a good reason as to why the current system of voting via electoral system is any better than a popular vote. As it stands now, since I live in California, my "vote" will always ultimately be cast in favor of the Democratic candidate, regardless of whether I actually vote for the Democratic, Republican, or Independent candidate. So now I'm just wondering why we bother to use this system and not use a popular vote method instead? Shouldn't the most popular candidate be elected President?

edit: no, I'm not mad that Bush won either. I think Bush is a better president than Gore could have been although I don't think too highly of either of them.

 

[Red Dawn]

The reason they have the Electoral College is so smaller less populated states will have more than their appropriate say in deciding who the President is. I truly believe that if the popular vote was the deciding factor more Republicans in states like California and the North East would have voted and Bush would have won. Because of the Electoral College many didn't bother in those areas because they knew that their votes wouldn't count because the majority in the areas were voting for Gore thus all the Electoral Votes in those areas would go to Gore and none to Bush.

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The reason they have the Electoral College is so smaller less populated states will have more than their appropriate say in deciding who the President is.

Isn't the electoral college votes per state based on the size of the state though?

 

[Analog]

cause that's what's in the constitution.

 

[ScrapSilicon]

Originally posted by: McPhreak
I was talking to my friend last night about this, and we couldn't come up with a good reason as to why the current system of voting via electoral system is any better than a popular vote. As it stands now, since I live in California, my "vote" will always ultimately be cast in favor of the Democratic candidate, regardless of whether I actually vote for the Democratic, Republican, or Independent candidate. So now I'm just wondering why we bother to use this system and not use a popular vote method instead? Shouldn't the most popular candidate be elected President?

edit: no, I'm not mad that Bush won either. I think Bush is a better president than Gore could have been although I don't think too highly of either of them.

youare now on the list

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The reason they have the Electoral College is so smaller less populated states will have more than their appropriate say in deciding who the President is.

Isn't the electoral college votes per state based on the size of the state though?

Not allocated evenly based on registered voters though.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The reason they have the Electoral College is so smaller less populated states will have more than their appropriate say in deciding who the President is.

Isn't the electoral college votes per state based on the size of the state though?

Yes but the majority of the Electoral Popular vote doesn't lie in Florida, California, Newyork and Texas as with the popular vote. The electoral college is still around so that Pennsylvania, Michigan and others still get attention.

 

[Deeko]

To understand why we have the electoral college, you need to go back to when the United States was formed. There are 2 primary reasons:
1) Back then, there was no TV/radio, so in order for candidates to actually pay attention to smaller states was to make their vote count, and if it went by popular vote only, they wouldn't have enough representation.
2) In the earlier days, we were more the United States and less America. For instance, people more considered themselves a "Virginian" than an American. So you voted within your state, and then your state sent its vote, and in essence it was the states voting, not the entire country.

 

[nord1899]

There are various issues as to why we have the current system. A google search on "electoral college versus popular vote" turns up a few good hits.

Here, here, and here.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: McPhreak
Shouldn't the most popular candidate be elected President?

no way

that would signal the end of the United States that was formed in 1787

democracy == mob rule

if you are part of the 49% that the 51% vote to eat for dinner, you might change your mind

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The reason they have the Electoral College is so smaller less populated states will have more than their appropriate say in deciding who the President is.

Isn't the electoral college votes per state based on the size of the state though?

Yes, but with a state such as Montana, you can have 1 citizen, who is a Rep, 2 Senetors, and gets 3 electoral votes, minimum.

No matter how small a state is, they always get 3. Those states have a larger proportion of electoral votes to citizens and therefore more more represented.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The reason they have the Electoral College is so smaller less populated states will have more than their appropriate say in deciding who the President is. I truly believe that if the popular vote was the deciding factor more Republicans in states like California and the North East would have voted and Bush would have won. Because of the Electoral College many didn't bother in those areas because they knew that their votes wouldn't count because the majority in the areas were voting for Gore thus all the Electoral Votes in those areas would go to Gore and none to Bush.

Well said. Also, rural states profit from the electoral college, if it were a straight popular vote only the cities and population centers would get attention and the rural areas would have little to no say.

ZV

 

[Bignate603]

Some of it also is so that the "educated" could control who came into office if they felt it was necessary. I'm being completely serious. To this day there are few states that have any punishment more then a slap on the hand for the person that is sent to the electoral college to vote if they don't actually vote like they are supposed to. This was written in so that in a state of emergency the people who controlled the money and power could stick in someone they thought was necessary to do the job and do it all legally.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The reason they have the Electoral College is so smaller less populated states will have more than their appropriate say in deciding who the President is.

Isn't the electoral college votes per state based on the size of the state though?

Yes, but with a state such as Montana, you can have 1 citizen, who is a Rep, 2 Senetors, and gets 3 electoral votes, minimum.

No matter how small a state is, they always get 3. Those states have a larger proportion of electoral votes to citizens and therefore more more represented.

A Registerd Voter in Montana's vote is worth more than that of aa Registered Voter in a place like Texas though

 

[Armitage]

yes, but in most states, the winner of the popular vote takes that states entire electoral college. ie, even if the dems win a state with a vote of 51/49 and they have 10 electoral votes, they get all 10 votes.

There are some valid reasons to maintain the electoral college, but I'd prefer to see electoral college votes divided along the lines of the popular vote.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Why don't we have a popular vote for President?

Because I've never run for president before.

 

[McPhreak]

I guess it's nice that the rural folk are heard, but as it stands, my voice isn't heard (this may be a good thing for some people I guess... ) if I don't agree with the the majority in my state.

 

[ISAslot]

Because if they did, the same people that made Britney Spears the #1 artist would also elect the president of the US.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The reason they have the Electoral College is so smaller less populated states will have more than their appropriate say in deciding who the President is.

Isn't the electoral college votes per state based on the size of the state though?

Yes, but with a state such as Montana, you can have 1 citizen, who is a Rep, 2 Senetors, and gets 3 electoral votes, minimum.

No matter how small a state is, they always get 3. Those states have a larger proportion of electoral votes to citizens and therefore more more represented.

A Registerd Voter in Montana's vote is worth more than that of aa Registered Voter in a place like Texas though

Yep, and I don't like it. I see the reason for it, but I don't think one person's vote should be worth more than anothers.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
There are some valid reasons to maintain the electoral college, but I'd prefer to see electoral college votes divided along the lines of the popular vote.

I think that would be a good idea.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: ISAslot
Because if they did, the same people that made Britney Spears the #1 artist would also elect the president of the US.

They did, even with the electoral college.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Yep, and I don't like it. I see the reason for it, but I don't think one person's vote should be worth more than anothers.

I think this is the biggest complaint I have for the electoral college...

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Some of it also is so that the "educated" could control who came into office if they felt it was necessary. I'm being completely serious. To this day there are few states that have any punishment more then a slap on the hand for the person that is sent to the electoral college to vote if they don't actually vote like they are supposed to. This was written in so that in a state of emergency the people who controlled the money and power could stick in someone they thought was necessary to do the job and do it all legally.

do you have some documentation to support that?

did you find that in the federalist papers somewhere?

 

[JellyBaby]

It's not going to change either. There's absolutely no way the current group of crooks should be allowed to tamper with the election process in this country. These same pillars of public service passed a constitutional amendment to prevent them from receiving the pay raises they constantly give themselves until next term. Today I wonder if they have the "decentcy" to make such an amendment?

 

[FoBoT]

here is an interesting page

"Faithless Electors" are members of the Electoral College who, for whatever reason, do not vote for their party's designated candidate.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors.



71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes.



Three of the votes were not cast at all. These three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate.



The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector. Sometimes Electors changed their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia Electors acted together in 1836. Many times, these Electors stood alone in their decision.



As of the 2000 election, no Elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against their party?s designated candidate.

Despite these 156 faithless votes, and a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214), 26 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party's designated candidate.




The 24 states that do have requirements issue a variety of punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and possible criminal charges.



The names, dates, and stories of these 156 votes are listed below:

check the link for the stories behind the electors that changed their votes