Electoral College or Popular Vote?

[Franzl]

Why do americans prefer the electoral college?

I live in Brazil and, with all do respect, the popular vote it is more fair and democratic.

Because then the president would already be decided by the time it gets very far west, and also the Candidates would only campaign in the big cities in the east. Also, that would mean that country people and westerners would have no say. Also the Democrats would probably always win.

lol

[Franzl]

I don't mind the electoral college too much, but I think that all states should use the Maine / Nebraska method. As a matter of interest, has there been any serious attempt to introduce that anywhere else?

There have been a couple of "ideas" floating around. I've heard it discussed for North Carolina and California.

Bet you can guess which party thought it would be a good idea in each state.

[Franzl]

I'm certainly not a proponent of the Electoral College, but I do prefer it to a popular vote.

My biggest concern with a popular vote is that campaigns would spent their energy predominantly on urban areas. I'm probably one of the few on here who can state that I've lived in rural areas my entire life, and I hate that we would likely be ignored. Even medium-sized cities that might usually see some attention, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, won't have any attention.

My compromise is transferring every state to a Nebraska/Maine-type system.

Where does this common (idiotic) argument in the U.S. come from? Baffles me.

[Franzl]

On the surface, direct popular vote seems fairer, but if you don't live in a big state like California, Texas, New York, or Florida, then you would have virtually no say in that system.

Incorrect.

[Franzl]

Imagine the horror!

Look how much more powerful Houston is in deciding Texas gubernatorial elections than...say...King County. They deserve to have just as much say! The status quo is an outrage!

[Franzl]

On the surface, direct popular vote seems fairer, but if you don't live in a big state like California, Texas, New York, or Florida, then you would have virtually no say in that system.

Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

In a direct popular vote, one vote is one vote, regardless of whether you live in New York City or Hooterville. Let's compare the two systems. Let's say the Republican wins Wyoming by ten thousand votes and the Democrat wins California by ten thousand votes. With a direct popular vote, the election is tied at this point. But in the Electoral College, the Democrat leads 55-3. That means that the ten thousand voters who made the difference in California are over eighteen times as powerful as the ten thousand voters who made the difference in Wyoming. This does not resemble anything even remotely fair. And if you bothered to watch the video that FallenMorgan posted, you'd know that the 100 most populous cities in America amount to less than 20% of the population, proving the absurdity of the argument that big cities would dominate presidential elections in a popular vote system.

Not true.  Big states would be even more powerful than they are now under popular vote.  For example, a candidate could carry California, lose every other state, and still win the election because California has so many more people.

Where to begin with this? How about by stating the fact that in 2012 California accounted for only about 10% of the nationwide popular vote? That means that even if Obama won 100% of the two-party vote in California, he'd still need to break about 45% in the rest of the country in order to win the nationwide popular vote. So it is excessively unlikely that a candidate would win California, lose every other state, and still win the popular vote.

It's still possible.  Let me give you an example: California currently has 55 electoral votes.  Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin currently have a combined 55 electoral votes.  If California votes for Candidate X and Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin all vote for candidate Y, then under the electoral college, they would be tied.  Under a direct popular vote, Candidate X would be far ahead because California has so many people.
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College for a very specific reason: to serve as a means of checks and balances between states.  I'm not saying it's an entirely fair system, and bigger states do have more power, but under a national popular vote, it would be even more disproportionately favorable to those states.

On the surface, direct popular vote seems fairer, but if you don't live in a big state like California, Texas, New York, or Florida, then you would have virtually no say in that system.

Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

In a direct popular vote, one vote is one vote, regardless of whether you live in New York City or Hooterville. Let's compare the two systems. Let's say the Republican wins Wyoming by ten thousand votes and the Democrat wins California by ten thousand votes. With a direct popular vote, the election is tied at this point. But in the Electoral College, the Democrat leads 55-3. That means that the ten thousand voters who made the difference in California are over eighteen times as powerful as the ten thousand voters who made the difference in Wyoming. This does not resemble anything even remotely fair. And if you bothered to watch the video that FallenMorgan posted, you'd know that the 100 most populous cities in America amount to less than 20% of the population, proving the absurdity of the argument that big cities would dominate presidential elections in a popular vote system.

Not true.  Big states would be even more powerful than they are now under popular vote.  For example, a candidate could carry California, lose every other state, and still win the election because California has so many more people.

Where to begin with this? How about by stating the fact that in 2012 California accounted for only about 10% of the nationwide popular vote? That means that even if Obama won 100% of the two-party vote in California, he'd still need to break about 45% in the rest of the country in order to win the nationwide popular vote. So it is excessively unlikely that a candidate would win California, lose every other state, and still win the popular vote.

It's still possible.  Let me give you an example: California currently has 55 electoral votes.  Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin currently have a combined 55 electoral votes.  If California votes for Candidate X and Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin all vote for candidate Y, then under the electoral college, they would be tied.  Under a direct popular vote, Candidate X would be far ahead because California has so many people.
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College for a very specific reason: to serve as a means of checks and balances between states.  I'm not saying it's an entirely fair system, and bigger states do have more power, but under a national popular vote, it would be even more disproportionately favorable to those states.

On the surface, direct popular vote seems fairer, but if you don't live in a big state like California, Texas, New York, or Florida, then you would have virtually no say in that system.

Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

In a direct popular vote, one vote is one vote, regardless of whether you live in New York City or Hooterville. Let's compare the two systems. Let's say the Republican wins Wyoming by ten thousand votes and the Democrat wins California by ten thousand votes. With a direct popular vote, the election is tied at this point. But in the Electoral College, the Democrat leads 55-3. That means that the ten thousand voters who made the difference in California are over eighteen times as powerful as the ten thousand voters who made the difference in Wyoming. This does not resemble anything even remotely fair. And if you bothered to watch the video that FallenMorgan posted, you'd know that the 100 most populous cities in America amount to less than 20% of the population, proving the absurdity of the argument that big cities would dominate presidential elections in a popular vote system.

Not true.  Big states would be even more powerful than they are now under popular vote.  For example, a candidate could carry California, lose every other state, and still win the election because California has so many more people.

Where to begin with this? How about by stating the fact that in 2012 California accounted for only about 10% of the nationwide popular vote? That means that even if Obama won 100% of the two-party vote in California, he'd still need to break about 45% in the rest of the country in order to win the nationwide popular vote. So it is excessively unlikely that a candidate would win California, lose every other state, and still win the popular vote.

It's still possible.  Let me give you an example: California currently has 55 electoral votes.  Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin currently have a combined 55 electoral votes.  If California votes for Candidate X and Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin all vote for candidate Y, then under the electoral college, they would be tied.  Under a direct popular vote, Candidate X would be far ahead because California has so many people.
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College for a very specific reason: to serve as a means of checks and balances between states.  I'm not saying it's an entirely fair system, and bigger states do have more power, but under a national popular vote, it would be even more disproportionately favorable to those states.

Do you know what "proportional" means, Oldies?