Electoral college poll by party

[nclib]

I vote 'yes'.

I know we've had similar polls to this, but I don't think we've had one asking your party.

[bullmoose88]

No.

Though I don't necessarily support the EC.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

(D) Yes.

I know what the system was intended to do and why it's there, but somehow a vote in D.C. being worth three times one in Texas makes little sense to me.

[Joe Republic]

Yes. (I)

I'm yet to see a single convincing argument in defense of allowing a guy with less votes than the other guy to win an election.

[WMS]

No.

Though I don't necessarily support the EC.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Although I would consider other reforms. Trust me, the registration and voting system currently in place would handle a direct popular vote even worse than they handle the EC...

[dazzleman]

No, I don't favor replacement of the electoral college.

It forces candidates to appeal across a broader spectrum geographically and among interest groups than would be the case with a nationwide popular vote.

Realistically, the only time the popular vote winner won't also win the electoral vote is in a very tight election, essentially a tie.  In this case, the electoral college is meant to favor the candidate with broader geographical appeal, and it worked that way in 2000.

The electoral college does give more power in general to small rural states, but the idea of states as co-equal individual units, regardless of size, is enshrined in the constitution through the concept of the Senate as well as the requirement that 3/4 of individual states ratify constitutional amendments, a requirement that does not take into account the population of the states that have or have not ratified an amendment.

[Joe Republic]

Yes. (I)

I'm yet to see a single convincing argument in defense of allowing a guy with less votes than the other guy to win an election.

Except that you ignore the original ideas of the founders you would be correct. States elect the president not the people. The "people" were supposed to elect the House directly and now they elect both houses of Congress.

Well that's just not democracy if you ask me.  It may have worked fine in the late eighteenth century with only a few states and only a couple thousand voters.  But things change, and the need for more democratic election procedures for our head of state is sorely needed.

[dazzleman]

Yes. (I)

I'm yet to see a single convincing argument in defense of allowing a guy with less votes than the other guy to win an election.

Except that you ignore the original ideas of the founders you would be correct. States elect the president not the people. The "people" were supposed to elect the House directly and now they elect both houses of Congress.

Well that's just not democracy if you ask me.  It may have worked fine in the late eighteenth century with only a few states and only a couple thousand voters.  But things change, and the need for more democratic election procedures for our head of state is sorely needed.

Technically, we don't have a democracy.  We have a republic.  True democracy would mean majority rule on everything, with no protection of minority rights.  The electoral college is a form of protection for minority - in this case, small states - rights.  Minority doesn't almost mean somebody with darker than average skin; it has a broader definition, and the constitution is set up with checks and balances to prevent the will of the majority from overrunning certain guaranteed minority rights.  I wouldn't mess with it at this point.

[Hitchabrut]

No, I don't favor replacement of the electoral college.

It forces candidates to appeal across a broader spectrum geographically and among interest groups than would be the case with a nationwide popular vote.

Realistically, the only time the popular vote winner won't also win the electoral vote is in a very tight election, essentially a tie.  In this case, the electoral college is meant to favor the candidate with broader geographical appeal, and it worked that way in 2000.

The electoral college does give more power in general to small rural states, but the idea of states as co-equal individual units, regardless of size, is enshrined in the constitution through the concept of the Senate as well as the requirement that 3/4 of individual states ratify constitutional amendments, a requirement that does not take into account the population of the states that have or have not ratified an amendment.

[Joe Republic]

Technically, we don't have a democracy.  We have a republic.  True democracy would mean majority rule on everything, with no protection of minority rights.  The electoral college is a form of protection for minority - in this case, small states - rights.  Minority doesn't almost mean somebody with darker than average skin; it has a broader definition, and the constitution is set up with checks and balances to prevent the will of the majority from overrunning certain guaranteed minority rights.  I wouldn't mess with it at this point.

I didn't say we'd be better off with direct elections either, because I agree with your points.  But the EC needs to be reformed.  I don't really have a solution to this (my compromise idea was largely shot down), all I can really do right now is bitch about it and nothing else.

[TexasPatriot2024]

Yes, it was put into place at the start of our nation when the majority of the public was not educated enough to read or let alone vote. Today we can have confidence in the American public to vote on their own in good faith in the system.

[Akno21]

I support reforming it to remove "electors". If you win the state, you should get the EV's. Electors at this point can do no good, but could ruin a whole election process. They have no useful purpose.

[Jake]

We could remove the EC, but if we go to a popular vote, I want extremely strict voting rules. A nation wide voter list, everything computerized with a paper backup, independent firms counting the votes, some way of marking whether you voted (indelible ink, etc).   

[PBrunsel]

Repealing the popular vote will hurt third parties horribly. They will lose all recognition and that slight importance they have. Let alone that we will leave the right to elect a President in the hands of Houston, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

[Ebowed]

These poll results are disappointing, though not really surprising.  I voted (D) Yes, of course.

[dazzleman]

We could remove the EC, but if we go to a popular vote, I want extremely strict voting rules. A nation wide voter list, everything computerized with a paper backup, independent firms counting the votes, some way of marking whether you voted (indelible ink, etc).   

The Democrats would never allow that.  That would "intimidate" their voters and be racist, and we could never have that.  Better to allow dead people to vote 5 x each.

[Akno21]

We could remove the EC, but if we go to a popular vote, I want extremely strict voting rules. A nation wide voter list, everything computerized with a paper backup, independent firms counting the votes, some way of marking whether you voted (indelible ink, etc).   

The Democrats would never allow that.  That would "intimidate" their voters and be racist, and we could never have that.  Better to allow dead people to vote 5 x each.

I'd allow it. I'm not sure about the "independent firms" though, that's corruptable, but everything else he said is fine by me.

[Blerpiez]

No.  I would support only giving electors based on representatives, not senators.

[A18]

No. I kind of like Akno's idea, though -- go ahead and kill off the electors and just let the state legislature cast the electoral votes.

[HockeyDude]

no, the interests of large cities would become the only focal point of the elections and less populated areas would recieve no representation.  Plus, it mantains a two party system that is necessary for this country to keep working.  If we split into little factions, nothing will get done.  Most liberals hate the two party system, I love it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

These poll results are disappointing, though not really surprising.  I voted (D) Yes, of course.

Actually, I found the results of the polling so far to be very heartening (in the aggregate).

I wish that the big states would follow the example of Maine and Nebraska.

[phk]

I believe the proper reform would be 'curving' the eV to fit the population of a given state.

The main problem I have with the current EC, is that a lot of 3 eV states have inflated eV to vote ratios to states with greater populations.

My idea would be to divide US Pop/538 and that would be the number the population allocated to every eV in every state.

[South Park Republican]

I support the electoral college only because without it the big population centers would dominate the presidential election process.  The people of my state would be screwed, we and any other state KY size 

At anyrate I consider it more "democratic" than a European parliamentary system where no one but maybe the people in the district/riding/precinct of the prime minister/chancellor etc actually get to vote their chief executive.

[Thanks for all the fish!]

I would prefer the EC stay. I think it's much more interesting to follow 51 sets of polls than just one. Also makes sure the candidates have a wide geographic appeal.

[Hitchabrut]

I would prefer the EC stay. I think it's much more interesting to follow 51 sets of polls than just one. Also makes sure the candidates have a wide geographic appeal.

It sounds selfish, but I agree, it is much more fun to watch 51 polls.