Electoral College or Popular Vote? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 01:48:07 PM
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? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
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 42296 times)
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« on: April 21, 2012, 07:51:50 AM »

The United States government is based off of the concept of federalism--that is a sharing of powers between the national and more local forms of government.

The Electoral College is the only effective "check" that the states maintain on the federal executive branch.

All this talk of the Electoral College being a check for the states against the federal government really doesn't make sense to me. A check on what? Ensuring that the President must win a majority of the states in order to win the Presidency? What purpose would that serve? That doesn't even exist currently as the electoral vote is based on population (every state gets 2 EC votes for their 2 senators + 1 for each of their house seats (which of course are allocated based on population) and DC gets 3).

Should we give every state one electoral vote and have them award it via winner-take all plurality elections? Wouldn't that be fair to the states? Oh wait, that wouldn't be fair to the people. Nobody cares about giving the states this kind of disproportionate influence in the Presidential election. They already have the senate where they get two senators per state regardless of their population.

A national popular vote is much more fair to the people. The only reason Ohio and Florida get so much attention over other states in the election is because of the Electoral College. EC votes are awarded via winner-take-all so candidates campaign heavily in close states in hopes of getting their EC votes and awarding EC votes by gerrymandered congressional districts is bad as well. Proportional allocation of the EC votes (60% of the state vote = 60% of its EV votes) is better than by congressional district but even that has problems from the aforementioned 2 EC votes to every state regardless of their population.

The Electoral College is an archaic relic that serves no purpose today other than to undermine having the winner of the popular vote be the winner of the election. It should be abolished.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2013, 09:00:02 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
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.022 seconds with 15 queries.