Why not award the presidency to the popular vote winner?

[wingman04]

because we are a nation of states. think of them as 50 different countries who joined the Union making it the union. states decide who is president not the people.

if popular vote ruled then the cities of NY, Miami, Houston, Dallas, LA would decided who was president. that would really suck.

This is the best point I have seen out of all the posts.

 

[351Cleveland]

Because it preserves the voice of smaller states. States determine how electoral votes are apportioned. Most have winner take all. I think I'd rather see a winner takes 2 (senate seats) and the balance get divided up based on popular vote (house seats). Some states already do this. I have no idea what that would do to prior elections had it been done that way.

 

[realibrad]

It would removed the institutionalized aspect of the corruption, and instead, the corruption would be only at the individual level. People would look after their own interests as they do now, but, people from all walks of life would wind up in the meat grinder, not only the people with silver and golden spoons shoved up their ass.

Lol, all corruption is about individuals. Institutions are not corrupt, people are corrupt. Unless you are one of those idiots that believes institutions are people, then you have no idea what you are talking about. Your idea, as much as a joke as it is, does nothing to address corruption at all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In a pure Democracy, the majority rules. That means majority interests will always win. The electoral college was meant to take some of the voting power away from the majority and give some of it to the minority. Our current system is just one way of reducing the effects of mob rule, for better or worse.

We were never a pure democracy, in fact we're not really represented well as citizens because we cannot afford to compete with wealthy and/or powerful forces.

While a popular vote has merit I would like to see the possibility of European style "no confidence" early elections and proportional representation rather than the spoils system of winner take all. That means that nearly half of the people have their voices silenced for the term of the victor. I'm not a fan.

 

[BurnItDwn]

delete campaigning
have a single term limit.

People will still become corrupt, but, there will always be new blood, and hopefully, a reduction in corruption.
If you have a toilet that gets clogged too much, flushing it more often might help to keep things moving.

 

[realibrad]

delete campaigning
have a single term limit.

People will still become corrupt, but, there will always be new blood, and hopefully, a reduction in corruption.
If you have a toilet that gets clogged too much, flushing it more often might help to keep things moving.

There is no reason to believe you would have a net reduction of corruption. Instead of money going to elections, it would go to other things. Instead of paying offer someone for 20 years, you pay different people off for 4 years. Literally nothing changes other than the cost of having to get a new person in over and over. The lag in production each time someone changes is drastically higher.

Your suggestion is utterly useless.

 

[BurnItDwn]

There is no reason to believe you would have a net reduction of corruption. Instead of money going to elections, it would go to other things. Instead of paying offer someone for 20 years, you pay different people off for 4 years. Literally nothing changes other than the cost of having to get a new person in over and over. The lag in production each time someone changes is drastically higher.

Your suggestion is utterly useless.

People who do not seek power, but who may happen to be thrust into a position of power are less likely to be corrupt than people who seek power.

 

[MrSquished]

because we are a nation of states. think of them as 50 different countries who joined the Union making it the union. states decide who is president not the people.

if popular vote ruled then the cities of NY, Miami, Houston, Dallas, LA would decided who was president. that would really suck.

the reason the electoral college exists is because the founders wanted to avoid the supposed possible 'tyranny of the masses' and sometimes ignorance of the general populace. They didn't trust the population 100% so they wanted put some barrier up. They considered having Congress pick the prezzie, then maybe the state legislatures, and then created the Electoral college. It had nothing to do with big cities. Some analysts state they believe the electoral college did end up benefiting rural areas a bit, though that is debatable, and it wasn't a primary concern of the creators.

But regardless why, what you claim just hasn't played out in the actual elections - the vast majority of presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have won the electoral AND popular vote. Only 5 times in all of US history has it happened that the president won while still losing the popular vote - Trump now, Bush in 2000 and then three times in the 1800's. In your world it would be happening all the time.

If your theory was right then those 5+ large major democratic cities would have given the popular vote in a whole bunch of elections to the Democrat over the last 200+ years. That simply hasn't happened. Again in the last 120 years or so it's happened TWICE. And think about how close those elections were - Hillary won by just 200,000 votes out of nearly 120 MILLION counted. Using your logic, she should have dominated the popular vote with those liberal cities having so much influence. Gore would have won by just 500,000 votes out of just over 100 million counted. Again, zero popular vote domination by the cities you claim. Them shits was still close.

Claim rated: FALSE

 

[realibrad]

People who do not seek power, but who may happen to be thrust into a position of power are less likely to be corrupt than people who seek power.

Just about every person on the planet likes what power brings. People like having nice things and taking trips. Just because someone seeks power does not mean they are any more likely to like those things vs someone who does not. You put people into positions where they can gain nice things and you are likely to find that they accept those things.

Again, you have not thought out your idea at all. I thought you were joking at first, but you seem serious. You seem like the type of person who likes to BS with friends but never actually thinks though what you are saying.

People, not politicians, want things. So long as politicians are people, you will have corruption. Look at any organization that has had power for any reasonable amount of time, and you will find corruption.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Just about every person on the planet likes what power brings. People like having nice things and taking trips. Just because someone seeks power does not mean they are any more likely to like those things vs someone who does not. You put people into positions where they can gain nice things and you are likely to find that they accept those things.

Again, you have not thought out your idea at all. I thought you were joking at first, but you seem serious. You seem like the type of person who likes to BS with friends but never actually thinks though what you are saying.

People, not politicians, want things. So long as politicians are people, you will have corruption. Look at any organization that has had power for any reasonable amount of time, and you will find corruption.

I think we have 100% corruption.
I think we can maybe reduce it, get it down to 90% corruption.

 

[realibrad]

I think we have 100% corruption.
I think we can maybe reduce it, get it down to 90% corruption.

Pulling numbers out of your ass does not give your any credibility. You have no reason to think that corruption would be any less. You are suggesting we change things but you have no thought behind it.

 

[Fern]

Rural areas have disproportionate representation in the house, senate, and electoral college.

Do you doubt this?

Yes, I doubt it.

The House and EC are proportional. (Numbers based on population, not acreage)

The Senate has nothing to do with rural or urban. (Senators are elected by the popular vote of a state's citizens. So it is also proportional etc.)

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I doubt it.

The House and EC are proportional. (Numbers based on population, not acreage)

The Senate has nothing to do with rural or urban. (Senators are elected by the popular vote of a state's citizens. So it is also proportional etc.)

Fern

The house and EC are absolutely not proportional. Where did you get this idea? It's incredibly wrong. You should look up how many citizens per representative in Wyoming vs. California.

Rural states get the same senate representation as urban states.

This is basic civics shit, man.

 

[buckshot24]

Nationwide recounts for the win.

I'm not sure that popular vote is the answer but I do think there are things very wrong with our current EC system. In our current system the candidates focus almost all of their attention on a select few states and worse is that there are a ton of voters in states who know well beforehand that their votes simply won't count. If you live in a solid blue state and want to vote for a republican president it's basically a waste of time and vice versa in solid red states and your vote for president won't be relevant for the foreseeable future. There is something just inherently wrong with that.

I do like the idea of ending the winner take all and splitting a states electoral votes by percentage of votes received by the candidates. That would truly make every vote count and should force the candidates to campaign in more than just a few states.

How is that different than a popular vote?

 

[flexy]

the cities of NY, Miami, Houston, Dallas, LA would decided who was president

I don't see anything wrong with recognizing the views of the majority of the people. I don't.

 

[MrSquished]

Yes, I doubt it.

The House and EC are proportional. (Numbers based on population, not acreage)

The Senate has nothing to do with rural or urban. (Senators are elected by the popular vote of a state's citizens. So it is also proportional etc.)

Fern

two senators per state, regardless of population. it's not proportional. the House is by population.

 

[OutHouse]

the reason the electoral college exists is because the founders wanted to avoid the supposed possible 'tyranny of the masses' and sometimes ignorance of the general populace. They didn't trust the population 100% so they wanted put some barrier up. They considered having Congress pick the prezzie, then maybe the state legislatures, and then created the Electoral college. It had nothing to do with big cities. Some analysts state they believe the electoral college did end up benefiting rural areas a bit, though that is debatable, and it wasn't a primary concern of the creators.

But regardless why, what you claim just hasn't played out in the actual elections - the vast majority of presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have won the electoral AND popular vote. Only 5 times in all of US history has it happened that the president won while still losing the popular vote - Trump now, Bush in 2000 and then three times in the 1800's. In your world it would be happening all the time.

If your theory was right then those 5+ large major democratic cities would have given the popular vote in a whole bunch of elections to the Democrat over the last 200+ years. That simply hasn't happened. Again in the last 120 years or so it's happened TWICE. And think about how close those elections were - Hillary won by just 200,000 votes out of nearly 120 MILLION counted. Using your logic, she should have dominated the popular vote with those liberal cities having so much influence. Gore would have won by just 500,000 votes out of just over 100 million counted. Again, zero popular vote domination by the cities you claim. Them shits was still close.

Claim rated: FALSE

here ill make it easy for you.
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

you can lead a horse to water, but its up to the horse to decide if he drinks.

or you can read the Federalist papers, its up to you.

 

[fskimospy]

here ill make it easy for you.
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html


you can lead a horse to water, but its up to the horse to decide if he drinks.

or you can read the Federalist papers, its up to you.

Can you explain how that is valuable now?

 

[OutHouse]

I don't see anything wrong with recognizing the views of the majority of the people. I don't.

true if we were one solid country with no states. but we are not. State elections are by popular vote but Federal is not. every state gets a voice, but under a popular vote that does not happen. Idaho would be like WTF man.

 

[OutHouse]

Can you explain how that is valuable now?

I think that states having a voice on who is president is pretty valuable.

 

[fskimospy]

I think that states having a voice on who is president is pretty valuable.

Can you explain why that is more valuable than the general population having a voice?

 

[Atreus21]

I woke up this morning with this idea. Seems to me it would help clean up the rancorous POTUS election process. It would make a lot of people feel relevant again. It would help eliminate a lot of the nutty maneuvering that goes on.

I Googled and found a very interesting idea:

There's been a movement for around 10 years to do an end run around a constitutional ammendment to make this happen by getting 270 electoral votes worth of states to sign onto the idea that they'd award all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner of presidential candidates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...5/the-national-popular-vote-effort-explained/

I like it.

I can't help but notice something.

Multiple states pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Via popular vote. Liberals go to the courts to overturn them.

Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college. Liberals call for end of electoral college in favor of popular vote.

Seems to me liberals are interested in whatever system gets them where they want to go.

 

[ViperXX]

How about you accept the idea that the old wise and beautiful woman bag lost and move on. I've had to put up with your Dems choice of POTUS for 8 years. Your turn.

 

[SP33Demon]

I can't help but notice something.

Multiple states pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Via popular vote. Liberals go to the courts to overturn them.

Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college. Liberals call for end of electoral college in favor of popular vote.

Seems to me liberals are interested in whatever system gets them where they want to go.

Hit the nail on the head. Liberals only want the rules to change when it benefits them. F off libs

 

[dawp]

I can't help but notice something.

Multiple states pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Via popular vote. Liberals go to the courts to overturn them.

Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college. Liberals call for end of electoral college in favor of popular vote.

Seems to me liberals are interested in whatever system gets them where they want to go.

State constitutions do not supersede the federal constitution, why do conservatives not understand this. it does not matter if it's a popular vote.