Electoral College or Popular Vote?

[Sec. of State Superique]

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.

[Sec. of State Superique]

It would require an end to the bizarre hodgepodge of state regulations about ballot access, vote counting, etc - one of the few remaining provinces of meaningful state legislation.

Bizarre Regulations. So I think do you agree with the Popular Vote ideia...

[Sec. of State Superique]

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.

I know that but, usually, when a candidate win in the Popular Vote, he wins in the majority of states, or at least in a reasonable amount of states.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Popular vote rule is unfair to states like Vermont, who will then have virtually no say in the election, leaving places like Texas & California to decide for everyone else.

That is not true. Think like this, if you are a Democrat on Texas, your vote will not make difference because Texas is a Red State, the same thing applies for a Republican on California. And the same thing applies for all the third-party voters in every state.

Instead of thinking about the state as an individual, you should think the state just like the place were people are voting. National Elections are about giving people the power to choose a National Leader, so the state where you live shouldn't really matter at all.

The presidential candidate would have to find support everywhere he could, on the Red States, on the Blue States and on the Swing States. Every voter would matter for the presidential candidate.

With the Popular Vote, every vote counts.

Mc Cain won only 32,15% of the EVs but he won 45.7% of PVs, do you really think that this is a fairer system?

As Americans give so much value to the state level bureaucracy, I have another idea: just allocate the electors of each state proportionally.  It will be PV with a EV face.

[Sec. of State Superique]

But Americans do tend to answer your question with stuff like "imagine the chaos and controversies of a nationwide recount" which, really, presupposes that rules remain odd and at variance even under direct popular vote - most don't tend to imagine that that might be changed. As it would need to be. So it's sort of a major psychological barrier.
.

I see what you mean and it will be very difficult to change that philosophy. At least , in the end,  it will be very positive for the American people

Brazil hosts elections every 2 years and it uses a electronic ballot that is organized by an Independent Committee with some help of the Federal Government. We are a big country, we are poorer than the USA and we are counting and recounting our votes perfectly.

[Sec. of State Superique]

If EVs were divided proportionally, this is what the results would've been for 2008:

   O   M   N
   289   248   1
   53.7   46.1   0.2

Thank you for your contribution!

[Sec. of State Superique]

With the Popular Vote, every vote counts.

Every vote counts as it is. They just count a different way than they would in a popular vote.

So it's not counting...

Imagine this situation

"Hi! I'm Robert, I live in Houston, Texas, and I'm voting for Obama! I like the electoral college because my vote counts!"

"Wait! Haven't you noticed that you are voting for Republicans every presidential year? If you really want to vote and make difference, you should vote on Ohio or Florida, and your vote may not even count."

"But that is not fair, I want to vote for Obama!"

"I know Robert, I know... But this is the Electoral Collegge, this is reality. If Gore accpeted it, you must accept!"

LOL

[Sec. of State Superique]

I think the debate is breaking down over the semantics of what it means for a vote to count.

It is a fairly meaningless term. If you define it as "make an actual difference", obviously in a single-position election a vote does so only if the election is decided by a single vote, but in that case every vote for that candidate did (or, under the EC, if one state's election is decided by a single vote and that state happened to be decisive as well; and even then it's only the votes from that state that did.)

I think all of you misunderstood what I was trying to say. When I said that with PV every vote counts, I meant that your vote will not be filtered by a statewide poll, your vote will count nationally and that is much more fair!

I don't think that getting less vote than your rival could make you president. The Electoral Collegge is old and it was based in a system which is less democratic than the system we have today.


Senators were elected indirectly and they could vote on any Candidate they wanted...

[Sec. of State Superique]

In a close election, allocating the EVs proportionally by vote within each state actually tends to tilt things slightly towards the Republicans (relative to their showing in the popular vote), since they tend to do a bit better in smaller states, which have a bigger proportional bonus in the EC with the +2 EVs for senators.

For example, I think if you allocated the 2000 EVs by popular vote in each state, then Bush wins the electoral college more decisively (without the need for a recount), despite losing the popular vote nationwide.

Wrong. While you're right Bush would get more EVs, he only gets a plurality. By one. And it's thrown to the House:
   G   B   N
AL   4   5
AK   1   2
AZ   4   4
AR   3   3
CA   29   23   2   
CO   3   4   1
CT   5   3
DE   2   1
DC   3
FL   12   12   1   
GA   6   7
HI   2   2
ID   1   3
IL   12   9    1
IN   5   7
IA   4   3
KS   2   4
KY   3   5
LA   4   5
ME   2   2
MD   6   4
MA   7   4   1
MI   9   8   1
MN   5   5
MS   3   4
MO   5   6
MT   1   2
NE   2   3
NV   2   2
NH   2   2
NJ   8   6   1
NM   3   2
NY   20   12   1
NC   6   8
ND   1   2
OH   10   10   1
OK   3   5
OR   3   3   1
PA   12   11
RI   3   1
SC   3   5
SD   1   2
TN   5   6
TX   12   19   1
UT   1   4
VT   2   1
VA   6   7
WA   6   5
WV   2   3
WI   5   5   1
WY   1   2
   262   263   13
   48.7   48.9   2.4

Gore would loose anyway Imagine the congress appointing Bush, that would be so unfair! And the Republicans would be crashed in the next mid-term election

[Sec. of State Superique]

I was trying to say about Wasted Votes....

You should also notice that in the Popular Vote, the candidate who has more support from the electorate always win.

[Sec. of State Superique]

I'm ok with the wasting teory! That is what I was trying to say....

[Sec. of State Superique]

The idea that candidates would only campaign in big cities is dumb for two reasons:

1) Even if you took all the U.S. cities with over a million people, you wouldn't get a very high percentage of the U.S. population.

2) Candidates pretty much only campaign in swing states anyways.

Also: big cities tend to vote Democratic, so Republicans wouldn't care all that much about them.

I'd suggest watching this video.

That is true! In order to get 50%+1, candidates would have to go to every single place theycould in order to get votes. With a PV, every single state in America will be treated like a swing state. Obama would visit Texas in some regions and Mitt would do more campaigning on New York!

[Sec. of State Superique]

Why bother with this inneficient distribution of delegates state-by-state? Just go with the popular vote with no redistribution, the election goes nationwide!

[Sec. of State Superique]

Why bother with this inneficient distribution of delegates state-by-state? Just go with the popular vote with no redistribution, the election goes nationwide!

Because voter registration and thus voter registration requirements, are handled by the States.  That doesn't matter as much as it once did since the only significant differences these days are over the voting rights of felons and ex-felons, but there were considerably more differences back when the constitution was originally adopted.  Still, unless we went to a federal voter registration system, I think we would need to keep some form of the electoral college, tho not necessarily one tied to the number of Representatives and Senators.  (Indeed, as a first baby step of reform, I'd favor dropping the Electors tied to Senators.)

Yes, that is true and I agree with every single word of it. But federal registration is the right way, in Brazil we do that and elections laws are nationwide, so you don't have problems like the Florida recount, where the electoral law was a mess!

[Sec. of State Superique]

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

[Sec. of State Superique]

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

[Sec. of State Superique]

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?

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.