Why not award the presidency to the popular vote winner?

[Brainonska511]

Because we are a united states. We are not a just a single nation but a collection of states making up a nation. A purely popular vote isn't going to be 100% fair either, somebody is going to be left out no matter how you set it up.

What's more fair than 1 person, 1 vote? Who gets left out there?

 

[buckshot24]

What's more fair than 1 person, 1 vote? Who gets left out there?

People not living in big population centers.

 

[MrSquished]

People not living in big population centers.

Considering Clinton won by just over 200K votes, your argument doesn't hold water. It would have still be a close election.

 

[buckshot24]

Considering Clinton won by just over 200K votes, your argument doesn't hold water. It would have still be a close election.

We weren't in a popular vote kind of situation in this election. Hillary would have been milking California for every vote she could get if we were.

Can you explain how this undermines my point?

 

[buckshot24]

As it stands now, people who live in uncontested states get no attention from the candidates. There isn't a perfectly fair system. We are a collection of sovereign states, this is why the EC is still in existence.

 

[Brainonska511]

We weren't in a popular vote kind of situation in this election. Hillary would have been milking California for every vote she could get if we were.

Can you explain how this undermines my point?

And perhaps Trump would as well. Those states certainly lean Democratic, but there are also plenty of Republican voters who are effectively silenced by the electoral college in those big states. What about the Democrats in Texas and the Republicans in NY and CA?

 

[MrSquished]

We weren't in a popular vote kind of situation in this election. Hillary would have been milking California for every vote she could get if we were.

Can you explain how this undermines my point?

you have no data. you have nothing but an idea.

the fact is of the two elections in ALL OF modern history where the candidate lost the electoral but won the popular were in 2000 by Gore and 2016 by Hillary. Gore won by 500K votes and Hillary by 200K votes. those are the only two times the electoral college would have been usurped. and it was close. every other time the president won both the electoral and popular vote - Democrat or Republican.

that makes your argument that all of a sudden less populated areas would be left in the dust as bullshit. you have no data. just guessing.

 

[buckshot24]

you have no data. you have nothing but an idea.

the fact is of the two elections in ALL OF modern history where the candidate lost the electoral but won the popular were in 2000 by Gore and 2016 by Hillary. Gore won by 500K votes and Hillary by 200K votes. those are the only two times the electoral college would have been usurped. and it was close. every other time the president won both the electoral and popular vote - Democrat or Republican.

that makes your argument that all of a sudden less populated areas would be left in the dust as bullshit. you have no data. just guessing.

Maybe I have no data but I still don't see how Hillary getting 200k more votes undermines my point.

Those two elections you mention happened with both candidates knowing that EC votes were what counted. If both candidates knows you have to get as many nationwide votes as possible, this obviously is going to change how they campaign. How would you think it would change it? I think candidates would go to their strong areas and maximize their voters and ignore the other people. Eventually candidates would tailor their message to get big city voters at the expense of rural voters.

 

[buckshot24]

And perhaps Trump would as well. Those states certainly lean Democratic, but there are also plenty of Republican voters who are effectively silenced by the electoral college in those big states. What about the Democrats in Texas and the Republicans in NY and CA?

I agree, no system is going to be perfectly fair.

 

[MrSquished]

Maybe I have no data but I still don't see how Hillary getting 200k more votes undermines my point.

Those two elections you mention happened with both candidates knowing that EC votes were what counted. If both candidates knows you have to get as many nationwide votes as possible, this obviously is going to change how they campaign. How would you think it would change it? I think candidates would go to their strong areas and maximize their voters and ignore the other people. Eventually candidates would tailor their message to get big city voters at the expense of rural voters.

Hillary getting 200k votes more than Trump out of 120 million shows how close it still is. That means there is no dismissal of lower population votes, it's still a very very close race.

And sure campaigning might change, but you have nothing but theorizing on whether Clinton campaigning in California would really increase her votes by X. And not to mention, the other candidate's campaigning in more rural red states would also have an effect. Nobody knows by how much or how little. So your conclusion that all candidates would tailor their message to court urban voters vs rural voters is nothing more than an idea.

Not to mention the EC makes it so that most states have no value as their outcome is all but predictable, leaving the focus on a relative few states for campaigning.

I can't say which system is better. I can just say that the popular vote would marginalize rural voters is nothing but hearsay. The data so far shows a close race when the EC and popular vote do not agree.

 

[buckshot24]

Hillary getting 200k votes more than Trump out of 120 million shows how close it still is. That means there is no dismissal of lower population votes, it's still a very very close race.

And sure campaigning might change, but you have nothing but theorizing on whether Clinton campaigning in California would really increase her votes by X. And not to mention, the other candidate's campaigning in more rural red states would also have an effect. Nobody knows by how much or how little. So your conclusion that all candidates would tailor their message to court urban voters vs rural voters is nothing more than an idea.

Not to mention the EC makes it so that most states have no value as their outcome is all but predictable, leaving the focus on a relative few states for campaigning.

I can't say which system is better. I can just say that the popular vote would marginalize rural voters is nothing but hearsay. The data so far shows a close race when the EC and popular vote do not agree.

I think the rural voters would be marginalized, not dismissed. More effort would be made, eventually, to the big city voters. It would also be easier for the dems to get out their vote since it is more centralized than the gop vote.

You're right, I don't know anything for certain, just having a talk on a forum on what I think.

I think you're under the assumption that I pointed out the rural voters being left behind as a reason FOR the EC, I was asked a question.

I'm also saying Hillary being up 200k is a meaningless metric since nobody tried to run that number up. The contested voters, Trump won enough of to win.

 

[buckshot24]

To be clear, the EC does marginalize some voters too.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I already did. Look again. I clearly said that people not wanting to do the job are just as, if not more likely to be corrupted. The temptation for nice things is not mitigated by not wanting the job. How can you be so dumb. You want to put people into a job that they did not want, and then you think they wont take the benefits that corruption has. Wow.

Fresh new bodies who havent yet become corrupted vs people who are already corrupted.

 

[momeNt]

To be clear, the EC does marginalize some voters too.

on a pure numbers basis, Californians and Texas vote is worth 3.5 times less than somebody from Wyoming / DC / Vermont.

The main reason that is there is to actually protect the minority, and slow down what could be an energetic and disastrous government.

Bear in mind that the framers were all just finished with overthrowing a government that was passing too many laws and taxes and had basically no representation because they were an extreme minority in the eyes of England.

 

[realibrad]

Fresh new bodies who havent yet become corrupted vs people who are already corrupted.

So, you think corruption is like a physical infection. Don't think about corruption in metaphors and you will realize you are wrong. Metaphors are good to help guide you, but they always have flaws.

Again, the reason people are corrupt is because they want things and are willing to use their position to get those things. Having a person who did not run will not solve this issue in any way. The average person would be willing to sell out to get benefits. You are pulling ideas out of your ass which is fine to do, but it also means you are grabbing shit. You are thinking its the system that corrupts the people, but its the fact that people are corrupt that is the issue. The average person is just as easily corrupted as a politician. The only difference is that politicians have power to leverage for things, and the average person does not.

 

[BurnItDwn]

So, you think corruption is like a physical infection. Don't think about corruption in metaphors and you will realize you are wrong. Metaphors are good to help guide you, but they always have flaws.

Again, the reason people are corrupt is because they want things and are willing to use their position to get those things. Having a person who did not run will not solve this issue in any way. The average person would be willing to sell out to get benefits. You are pulling ideas out of your ass which is fine to do, but it also means you are grabbing shit. You are thinking its the system that corrupts the people, but its the fact that people are corrupt that is the issue. The average person is just as easily corrupted as a politician. The only difference is that politicians have power to leverage for things, and the average person does not.

I think people who are immoral are easily corruptable.
I think that once people steal 1 cookie from the cookie jar and don't get caught, they will try to steal 30000 more cookies until the jar is empty.
I agree that most average people are willing to sell out ot get benefits.
I think everybody in office is already corrupt to some level.
I think most people "selected at random" will quickly give in to pressure and do what benefits them personally.

But, I think we will get 0 "uncorrupt" people using the existing processess, it may be possible that some day we might manage to get somebody who does not give in to temptation should we opt instead a different mechanism for elections.

What I am saying is that, in order to find the exceptionally rare "moral" person, the only way to get them into office, would be to pull them at random, because they won't have the mindset that influences them to run for office.

People who run for office do it because 1.) they want fame, 2.) they want power, 3.) they think they know better than everybody else ...

I might decide to run one day, because I am greedy and a know it all, but, because I am greedy and a know it all, I would be terribad at the job.




Otherwise, maybe we should just elect people directly from jail.
For president, you need to have 10 conviction on record, for givernor, 5 convictions, for senate, 3 convictions, 2 convictions for congress, and at least 1 conviction for becoming a mayor or something.

 

[realibrad]

I think people who are immoral are easily corruptable.
I think that once people steal 1 cookie from the cookie jar and don't get caught, they will try to steal 30000 more cookies until the jar is empty.
I agree that most average people are willing to sell out ot get benefits.
I think everybody in office is already corrupt to some level.
I think most people "selected at random" will quickly give in to pressure and do what benefits them personally.

But, I think we will get 0 "uncorrupt" people using the existing processess, it may be possible that some day we might manage to get somebody who does not give in to temptation should we opt instead a different mechanism for elections.

What I am saying is that, in order to find the exceptionally rare "moral" person, the only way to get them into office, would be to pull them at random, because they won't have the mindset that influences them to run for office.

People who run for office do it because 1.) they want fame, 2.) they want power, 3.) they think they know better than everybody else ...

I might decide to run one day, because I am greedy and a know it all, but, because I am greedy and a know it all, I would be terribad at the job.




Otherwise, maybe we should just elect people directly from jail.
For president, you need to have 10 conviction on record, for givernor, 5 convictions, for senate, 3 convictions, 2 convictions for congress, and at least 1 conviction for becoming a mayor or something.

So your idea is to get random people in, but limit their terms. That way, if you do get somebody good in, they wont last. You already admitted that people are easy to corrupt, so all you are going to do is see if a different way works.

This is why people like you should never be in power. You dont just do shit and see what happens. With that logic, people should be jamming forks into electrical outlets to see if their day will improve because yesterday they did not do that.

 

[Atreus21]

I think people who are immoral are easily corruptible.

That's every last one of us.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Sortition has been used in Democracies since at least ancient Athens. It is not a novel or new idea that I pulled out of my ass. However, I admit freely that it may result in similar levels of corruption if my assertion that "people are generally moral" is wrong. If people are generally immoral, than we are fucked and there is no solution short of the extinction of humans.

 

[lopri]

I actually think Electoral College benefits the Dems. Think about the so-called "Blue Wall," which makes up 262 votes in the EC. Trump won several of those, yes, but they were all fairly close. With more likable candidates they are likely to go back to being blue in the future. The progressive party winning big chunk of EC in blue states by winning them 55-45 is a fairly familiar sight by now. In contrast, the conservative party does not get any larger share of EC because it raised the winning margin in a red state to 80-20 or 90-10.

There are good arguments to be made in favor of popular vote on the principle of equal participation in democracy as well as the Electoral College's unseemly past. I think it is worth exploring them with open mind. But if the liberal outrage is based on their short-term losses they had better calm down and remember that everyone participated in the election knowing the rule, and that an imaginary fix may not necessary be to their benefit.