Electoral College or Popular Vote?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 02:21:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Electoral College or Popular Vote?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Poll
Question: Whould you support Popular Vote elections for the US President?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Undecided
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 194

Author Topic: Electoral College or Popular Vote?  (Read 42030 times)
Vlad the Imperial
kittytitlick123
Rookie
**
Posts: 27
Afghanistan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: May 06, 2013, 07:03:43 PM »

   the only thing in the way of abolishing electorals is the senate, with senators looking to keep states with more cows than people (Montana) have as much political pull as Texas or New York!
   The other argument for electoral college is With popular vote, election season would focus on the coasts, and would hurt the economy of the middle america since no one is paying to advertise there! (imo however i don't give a crap about middle america in the first place)
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,279
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: May 28, 2013, 08:19:36 PM »

There are any number of ways to apportion power in an election.  For example:  Each state gets one electoral vote. 

Would the electoral college defenders support that apportionment of power?  If not, why not? 

Or, what if a state elected their governor based on a county based electoral college?  Would that be a good idea because it preserved the power of small counties?

Obviously, those ideas are ridiculous for the same reason that the electoral college is ridiculous. 
The President is today truly the leader of the entire country.  There is no principled reason to give Delaware and Wyoming greater power in deciding their President.  The only reason is a desire to protect your narrow political interest or a belief in tradition for tradition's sake. 

State lines often have some historical and cultural significance. County lines are much more artificial, usually aligning with parallels of latitude or meridians of longitude. 

Most of the Western states were arbitrary creations designed to give the party that was in power an advantage in the electoral vote.
The electoral college system is so ridiculous that I honestly think anyone who supports it is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

The line between Colorado and the pair of Nebraska and Kansas was put there for a pretty good reason involving cultural differences. On one side you had the nice farmers that had gotten there thanks to the Homestead Act and were of a pretty moralistic Protestant background. In what became Colorado, on the other hand, you had society's underbelly in a sense: wild miners that founded the towns you see in cowboy movies, blah blah blah, and that line officially separated the two.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: May 28, 2013, 09:04:33 PM »

The line between Colorado and the pair of Nebraska and Kansas was put there for a pretty good reason involving cultural differences. On one side you had the nice farmers that had gotten there thanks to the Homestead Act and were of a pretty moralistic Protestant background. In what became Colorado, on the other hand, you had society's underbelly in a sense: wild miners that founded the towns you see in cowboy movies, blah blah blah, and that line officially separated the two.

Yes and no.  First off that line was established before the Homestead Act.  Second, the line was chosen as a northward extension of the eastern border of New Mexico Territory.  However, it did indeed have the effect of separating the miners of Pike's Peak from the Jayhawkers of Kansas.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: June 28, 2013, 12:33:18 AM »

Majority rules is true democracy and it's one of Plato's perverted forms of government. When majority rules, it becomes a mob. One day the people can decide to ban drugs and the next day legalize them again. There is no stability in such a see-saw society. Democracy has no stability. If we were to elect a president on the popular vote like Al Gore supporters wanted to, then we would not have stability, kind of like how Al Gore has no stability since losing the election. We are a representative republic and elect representatives to make decisions for us. If you aren't happy with the decisions your representative makes, then you can vote against them, call for someone else to replace them, or run against them yourself. The beauty of an electoral college or representative republic is that everyone has a chance, not just whoever the majority supports.
Logged
Sec. of State Superique
Superique
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,305
Brazil


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: August 08, 2013, 12:42:25 PM »

PR would give Jon Hustman and other Moderate Republicans a bump on primaries. It would be easier for them winning an election after all.

Electability would be a stronger issue in primaries because of PR.

PR = proportional representation (in primaries)?

What does that have to do with electing the President by the national popular vote? Tongue

Sorry, change PR to PV. Parties would never pick a candidate too Radical because they would have to win 50%+1 to elect a President. Guys like Huntsman makes this path easier for example.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: August 25, 2013, 05:10:42 PM »

Popular Vote would be better. Although the electoral college makes presidential elections fun. Still PV.
Logged
wyspartan4411
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: November 29, 2013, 04:27:07 PM »

I haven't gotten the chance to read every post, but there seems to be some disagreement about a proportional Electoral College.

First, I would totally and 100% support a direct popular vote for the president. For many, many reasons why, I would fully support this measure. Curious why? There is a video on YouTube by CGP Grey. Check it out, it makes perfect sense.

Second, if the electoral college was going to remain, then I agree making things proportional would be best. It seems with this system, the value of each vote is worth different in different places. I think a proportional system would be most fair.

However, it seems that not all states can be so evenly divided---BUT they are divided by congressional districts, partially the basis for how many electoral votes that state receives.

Perhaps, each state has 2 at-large EVs (for its two senators) and then the other EVs are awarded to the winners of congressional districts. For example. The state of Oregon has 7 electoral votes. Obama wins the popular vote in Oregon therefore he gets 2 votes. But Romney wins district 3,4,5 and Obama takes districts 1 & 2. End result, Obama gets 4 EVs and Romney 3 EVs. This works well considering that one candidate takes the state at just around 51 percent and the other at 47.

Logged
Earthling
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,128
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: November 30, 2013, 10:10:27 AM »

With the gerrymandering of districts it would be very unfair to use that system. Just get rid of the electoral college. That said, it makes elections more interesting.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,585
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: December 01, 2013, 11:57:09 AM »

All of the defenders of the EC seem to rely mostly on arguing, "Well if we go PV, we need to standardize voting laws across the nation", which I whole-heartedly support.

"But state check on executive branch!" - I don't understand this argument at all. A state's EVs are allocated by popular vote, not by the original "statehouse chooses electors" method which died in the 1810s or something.


And for the "candidates focus only on big cities" argument, let's look at 2012 exit polling:

Big Cities(500K+): 11% of vote
Mid-sized Cities(50K-500K): 21% of vote
Suburbs: 47% of vote
Towns(10K-50K): 8% of vote
Rural: 14% of vote


I don't see the problem with campaigning and focusing on places where people actually live. Candiate with most votes wins.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: December 01, 2013, 07:07:11 PM »

I think directly electing the President with a Popular Vote and Instant Run-off Voting system would be better than the Electoral College. The main problem that the Electoral College was meant to address is now less of a problem and small states still have clout with the Senate. A Popular Vote would also mean that red state Democrats and blue state Republicans can have their vote actually count.

Majority rules is true democracy and it's one of Plato's perverted forms of government. When majority rules, it becomes a mob. One day the people can decide to ban drugs and the next day legalize them again. There is no stability in such a see-saw society.
You seem to have forgotten about the Senate.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: December 01, 2013, 10:15:29 PM »

I think directly electing the President with a Popular Vote and Instant Run-off Voting system would be better than the Electoral College. The main problem that the Electoral College was meant to address is now less of a problem and small states still have clout with the Senate.

You really think that things would be better if Congress itself elected the President rather than have the shadow Congress known as the Electoral College do it?
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,220
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: January 20, 2014, 08:20:48 PM »

Get rid of the Electoral College. Under the current system, your vote only counts if you live in a swing state like Ohio or Florida.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: January 21, 2014, 10:54:32 AM »

Popular Vote would be better. Although the electoral college makes presidential elections fun. Still PV.
Logged
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,896
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: January 21, 2014, 09:43:00 PM »

The only reason why the electoral college even exists is because it is the status quo. If America had gained independence today, or in the last hundred years for that matter, we probably would have gone with the popular vote.

The electoral college does make elections more fun, but it ultimately serves no distinct purpose anymore (if it ever even did)
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: February 04, 2014, 10:07:44 PM »

The only reason why the electoral college even exists is because it is the status quo. If America had gained independence today, or in the last hundred years for that matter, we probably would have gone with the popular vote.

More likely, if you gained independence in the last hundred years, you would have ended up like other first-world former British colonies that gained independence since US independence: Canada, Australia, New Zealand. You'd probably use a Westminster system with an executive in the legislature and a weak presidential figurehead (that's assuming you still become a republic - merely obtaining independence, you could still end up like those countries with a Governor General, and the Queen as your Head of State).
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: February 05, 2014, 08:06:45 AM »

The only reason why the electoral college even exists is because it is the status quo. If America had gained independence today, or in the last hundred years for that matter, we probably would have gone with the popular vote.

The electoral college does make elections more fun, but it ultimately serves no distinct purpose anymore (if it ever even did)

In part the original concerns that created the EC still exist today. It reflects the nature of the country as a union of sovereign states. It provides representation in the vote for the executive in proportion to the representation in Congress. It protects against a hugely popular candidate from a single large state or region winning over a candidate with broad appeal. In both its representation and protections it functions as a parliament would in a Westminster system while creating an executive who is independent from the legislature.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: February 09, 2014, 06:46:31 PM »
« Edited: February 09, 2014, 06:57:15 PM by Nichlemn »

The only reason why the electoral college even exists is because it is the status quo. If America had gained independence today, or in the last hundred years for that matter, we probably would have gone with the popular vote.

The electoral college does make elections more fun, but it ultimately serves no distinct purpose anymore (if it ever even did)

In part the original concerns that created the EC still exist today. It reflects the nature of the country as a union of sovereign states.

It may symbolically "reflect" it, but how is it actually relevant to federalism? I see no reason why popular vote would be any more or less likely to undermine state authority.

 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why this is a plus when the "proportionality" in question is introducing some of the extreme disproportionality of the Senate into the equation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Has there ever been a Presidential candidate, nominated or not, who was in such a situation? In any case this seems more like a bug than a feature. You could frame the exact same issue differently: "the popular vote prevents someone deeply unpopular in certain regions from winning with narrow support across the rest of the country". That's what Lincoln did, and while we tend to approve of the result in hindsight because we agree with Lincoln's cause, one could easily imagine a candidate winning Lincoln-style on a cause we disapproved of, while still resulting in similar frictions.

In any case it only matters when voters are highly parochial. If people's identities are not overwhelmingly tied to their region, then there is no particular reason we should worry about a candidate winning with a certain geographic coalition than say, a particular economic or particular racial coalition. Is it a problem that Obama won despite losing whites, the majority racial group, by winning minorities by huge margins? I don't see what would make that so much better than Obama losing most states by small margins and winning a few by huge margins.

And in any case, why should this logic be limited solely to the Presidential level? Surely it scales down. Should Illinois have an "Electoral College" that would prevent Cook County from "overwhelming" the rest of the state?
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The House of Representatives is by far the closest element to a Westminster Parliament.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: February 10, 2014, 12:21:57 AM »

The only reason why the electoral college even exists is because it is the status quo. If America had gained independence today, or in the last hundred years for that matter, we probably would have gone with the popular vote.

The electoral college does make elections more fun, but it ultimately serves no distinct purpose anymore (if it ever even did)

In part the original concerns that created the EC still exist today. It reflects the nature of the country as a union of sovereign states. It provides representation in the vote for the executive in proportion to the representation in Congress. It protects against a hugely popular candidate from a single large state or region winning over a candidate with broad appeal.

That's only true if you have a two candidate race.  I dare say that in 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a candidate with only regional appeal, won the Presidency only because of the Electoral College.  Had we had the popular vote with a runoff, Stephen Douglas and not Lincoln would have been our 16th President.  We still would have had a Johnson as our 17th President, but it would have been Herschel instead of Andrew.
Logged

excelsus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 692
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: February 10, 2014, 04:14:28 AM »

Perhaps, each state has 2 at-large EVs (for its two senators) and then the other EVs are awarded to the winners of congressional districts. For example. The state of Oregon has 7 electoral votes. Obama wins the popular vote in Oregon therefore he gets 2 votes. But Romney wins district 3,4,5 and Obama takes districts 1 & 2. End result, Obama gets 4 EVs and Romney 3 EVs. This works well considering that one candidate takes the state at just around 51 percent and the other at 47.

Counterexample:
Obama did win Virginia 51:47; thus, he'd receive 2 electors at-large.
However: Obama only won 4 districts while Romney won 7.
Eventually, Romney would have received 7 electors and Obama 6, even though Obama won the popular vote in Virginia.
Would that be fair?
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,152


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: February 11, 2014, 05:50:23 PM »

Allocating electoral votes by congressional district would be disastrous.

Truly proportional allocation of electoral votes would I guess arguably be better than the current system.

But really, the idea of keeping the electoral college around is just plain silly at this point.

The idea of the electoral college originally made sense given what the founder's envisioned the role of the president to be. The thing is, we decided pretty early on that the President was going to be something much different. You have to remember that originally it wasn't even expected that the people would indirectly vote for the president by voting for electors. The President was basically a whole extra level removed from "the people." The people voted for state legislators who in turn voted for electors who in turn voted for the President.

But starting circa 1828 presidents began styling themselves as the representative of the people; the only person who can claim a nation-wide popular mandate.

Couple that idea with the modern disdain that we have for the idea of a "faithless elector." The idea of the electoral college functioning as a deliberative body has completely gone out the window.   

So Americans have by and large rejected the idea of using the EC to insulate the presidency from the will of the people, and we certainly don't recognize the importance of the EC as a deliberative body. That means the country has flatly rejected two of the original primary motivations behind the electoral college.

That basically just leaves the protection of the balance of power between states as the only remaining justification for the EC. Except of course that we know that the EC doesn't really perform that function as intended either. Sure, in theory Wyoming gets disproportionate influence on the vote total relative to its population, but does anyone really think that that means Wyoming's concerns or the concerns of any other small states are better served by the current system than they would be under a direct popular vote? Candidates by and large ignore the small states in favor of the big prizes. Which is not to say that the EC benefits large states either. When was the last time a Presidential candidate campaigned in Texas or California? No, the EC benefits swing states, hardly the original intention behind the process.

By the way, the question of electoral college vs. popular vote and the question of what voting system should replace the EC if abolished are two very distinct issues.
Logged
defe07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 961


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: March 12, 2014, 02:05:43 PM »

Sometimes I wonder, what if each state or region were to choose its own Presidential candidate? Surprise
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: March 12, 2014, 10:28:51 PM »

Sometimes I wonder, what if each state or region were to choose its own Presidential candidate? Surprise

The Whigs tried that in 1836 to disastrous effect.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,367
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: March 16, 2014, 04:48:10 PM »

Electoral College. Much easier and more fun to watch election returns that way.
Logged
Randy Bobandy
socialisthoosier
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: April 04, 2014, 09:29:37 AM »

Electoral College. Much easier and more fun to watch election returns that way.
Also less free.
Logged
Potus
Potus2036
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,841


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2014, 08:57:31 PM »

I hate to revive this thread, but I hate it much less than starting another "MUH POPULAR VOTE" thread.

My basic issue with a national popular vote to elect the President is that it fundamentally changes the question asked of presidential candidates. Right now, the balance of power is controlled by the center of the electorate in a couple of crucial battleground states such as Ohio or Wisconsin, or by the generally moderate electorate of states like New Hampshire. It forces candidates and campaigns to play to those voters. That's the mandate of the electoral college. Win people outside your base.

A national popular vote, however, changes the mandate. Instead of trying to win the moderate suburban family vote with moderate education and tax relief proposals, Republicans will spend their time throwing as much reasonably red meat as possible to make sure every white in the Deep South votes. Instead of governing to the economic center-right to right, Republicans would govern on base motivators that divide the country. Likewise, Democrats will move to a very turnout-based idea of elections. It'll be about getting as many of your folks to show up as possible. The electoral college forces candidates to moderate.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 12 queries.