Electoral Voting

[TomatoSoup]

I, personally, am in favor of popular voting for two reasons:

1) I am liberal and, throughout history, democrats have won the popular vote, but not the electoral. The nation would be a better place if we had used popular vote all this time.

2) Doesn't popular voting make more sense. I know that the candidates would only campaign in densely populated areas, but doesn't most campaigning go on in newspapers and national television anyway?

[Akno21]

Whats the fun of election-night if its a popular vote?

[Matt]

Popular vote. It's simpler and it makes more sense. Plus there wouldn't be the forementioned problem of winning the popular vote but not the electoral vote.

[© tweed]

Popular

[© tweed]

I already made a poll for this back in November:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=252

[??????????]

Electoral. The large city-states would outvote rural America causing unbalance. Stick with what the founders wanted! They were right.

[opebo]

Electoral.  In fact I wish it were less democratic.  I'd love some pocket-boroughs.

[YRABNNRM]

I favor Electoral but I do believe that perhaps the winner of the Popular vote should recieve a few extra EV's.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Popular vote. It's simpler and it makes more sense. Plus there wouldn't be the forementioned problem of winning the popular vote but not the electoral vote.

Hello welcome...

[Fritz]

There are several reasons why the electoral voting system is preferable.  If we only had a popular vote, a candidate could theoretically concentrate all of their energy in a few major urban centers, like New York, LA, and Chicago.  This system ensures that the winner, in a close election like 2000, has enough widespread appeal to effectively govern the entire nation.  Electoral votes also promotes the two-party system (some may view this as a bad thing).  One last point, in a really close election, would we have to do a re-count of the entire country?

[??????????]

There are several reasons why the electoral voting system is preferable.  If we only had a popular vote, a candidate could theoretically concentrate all of their energy in a few major urban centers, like New York, LA, and Chicago.  This system ensures that the winner, in a close election like 2000, has enough widespread appeal to effectively govern the entire nation.  Electoral votes also promotes the two-party system (some may view this as a bad thing).  One last point, in a really close election, would we have to do a re-count of the entire country?

I agree with Fritz the Cat 100% on this.

[Nym90]

There are several reasons why the electoral voting system is preferable.  If we only had a popular vote, a candidate could theoretically concentrate all of their energy in a few major urban centers, like New York, LA, and Chicago.  This system ensures that the winner, in a close election like 2000, has enough widespread appeal to effectively govern the entire nation.  Electoral votes also promotes the two-party system (some may view this as a bad thing).  One last point, in a really close election, would we have to do a re-count of the entire country?

But with the Electoral Vote, a candidate can theoretically concentrate all their energy on a few states, ignoring the rest of the country. That's not at all a possible winning strategy in the popular vote, though. You have to have at least a reasonable amount of support everywhere to win the popular, but not for the electoral.

I fail to see what having won more votes in a larger geographical area of the country has to do with appeal. All votes should count equally, regardless of where they are cast from. Why should a rural vote count more than an urban vote?

Yes, in a very very close election a recount of the entire nation would be needed, but it would also be less likely that the entire eleciton nationwide would be that close. So you'd have more potential for a really big recount, but also less liklihood of any recount at all.

[12th Doctor]

There are several reasons why the electoral voting system is preferable.  If we only had a popular vote, a candidate could theoretically concentrate all of their energy in a few major urban centers, like New York, LA, and Chicago.  This system ensures that the winner, in a close election like 2000, has enough widespread appeal to effectively govern the entire nation.  Electoral votes also promotes the two-party system (some may view this as a bad thing).  One last point, in a really close election, would we have to do a re-count of the entire country?

But with the Electoral Vote, a candidate can theoretically concentrate all their energy on a few states, ignoring the rest of the country. That's not at all a possible winning strategy in the popular vote, though. You have to have at least a reasonable amount of support everywhere to win the popular, but not for the electoral.

I fail to see what having won more votes in a larger geographical area of the country has to do with appeal. All votes should count equally, regardless of where they are cast from. Why should a rural vote count more than an urban vote?

Yes, in a very very close election a recount of the entire nation would be needed, but it would also be less likely that the entire eleciton nationwide would be that close. So you'd have more potential for a really big recount, but also less liklihood of any recount at all.

Not at all, because winning the top states has always meant having to cater to significantly different voting groups.  One could win the Popular vote just by turning out the Urban vote and that is exactly what would happen because it is far more cost effective to campaign in areas with denser population distribution.

Anything else I have to say has been said.

Obviously I support the EC.

[Nym90]

My point still stands about why an urban vote should count less. Why should all urban voters be pigeonholed into having the same interests, and thus earning a high percentage of their votes discounted? This makes no more sense than assuming that black voters all have the same interests due to their race, or women according to their gender, or anything else.

Actually, one could also win the popular vote by running up huge margins in rural areas, and ignoring urban areas, also. You could do it either way.

I agree it's more cost-effective to campaign in urban areas, but I strongly disagree that urban voters have the same interests just because their urban. I don't think that it makes sense to attempt to mandate through a fairly arbitrary method that a candidate must win a certain percentage of the vote in a certain demographic in order to win the election.

If a candidate gets blown out in urban areas, and thus loses the popular vote but wins the electoral, how has he demonstrated greater appeal? He got blown out in big cities, where a large percentage of Americans live. He thus had very little appeal to a large percentage of the population. The candidate who won big in the cities, lost the rural areas, and thus ended up winning the popular and losing the electoral almost certainly had a higher percentage of the rural vote than the popular vote loser had of the urban vote in order for this split to happen. So I don't see how the popular vote loser demonstrated greater geographic appeal.

[12th Doctor]

My point still stands about why an urban vote should count less.

They don't, that's not the point.  The point is that the United States is not a Democracy, never was intended to be one and I sure as Hell never hope it becomes one.  The Founders set up the EC as is for a reason, to defend the rights of the minorities from the hoarding mobs that can at times constitute the masses.

The EC also serves a number of other important functions.  In the past three elections, the guy elected failed to recieve a majority.  Especially in the case of Clinton in 1992, the EC legitamizes the victory of a candidate.  It prevents extereist candidates from entering the race, because a candidate need broad appeal to win, not just 30% of the vote.  It prevents 4, 5, 6 or 7 major candidates from jumping in the race and causing havok for the country.  The EC acts to institutionally stabalize the country.  Getting rid of it would be the worst mistake in the history of the United States.

[Nym90]

My point still stands about why an urban vote should count less.

They don't, that's not the point.  The point is that the United States is not a Democracy, never was intended to be one and I sure as Hell never hope it becomes one.  The Founders set up the EC as is for a reason, to defend the rights of the minorities from the hoarding mobs that can at times constitute the masses.

The EC also serves a number of other important functions.  In the past three elections, the guy elected failed to recieve a majority.  Especially in the case of Clinton in 1992, the EC legitamizes the victory of a candidate.  It prevents extereist candidates from entering the race, because a candidate need broad appeal to win, not just 30% of the vote.  It prevents 4, 5, 6 or 7 major candidates from jumping in the race and causing havok for the country.  The EC acts to institutionally stabalize the country.  Getting rid of it would be the worst mistake in the history of the United States.

Ok, but why discriminate against urban areas? Why don't the urban areas deserve protection against the rural areas? Why does the fact that people are packed in more densely make them less worthy of equal protection?

I do believe strongly in one person, one vote. I think that's the ideal that our election system should be based on. I do want to protect minority rights, but when it comes to conducting the Presidential election, why not do it the way that EVERY other eleciton in the United States is decided? Why do we need this elaborate system only for the Presidential race, but straight popular vote (which has all of the same problems in races further down the ballot as it would have for the Presidential race) is perfectly fine for electing Governors, Senators, Representatives, etc.? If tyranny of the majority is such a problem, why aren't we seeing it in every other election conducted by popular vote?

I do agree with your point about popular vote destabillizing the country if someone could win with a small percentage...I would prefer a system where either the winner must receive 50% or else a runoff is held, or (even better, though perhaps more confusing) a preferential instant run off voting system (in which case everyone could vote their conscience, and not have to worry about wasting their vote on a third party).

As far as legitimizing the election of the winner, the role of the EC should not be to distort the results to make it look like the winner got more votes than he really did. Clinton got 43% of the vote however you want to slice it. I don't think it should be a primary funciton of our electoral system to distort the results in a more favorable light for the winning candidate.

[© tweed]

Why should a vote in Manhattan count less htan a vote in rural Wyoming?  It is still ONE PERSON, I don't care where they live!

[ATFFL]

Why should a vote in Manhattan count less htan a vote in rural Wyoming?  It is still ONE PERSON, I don't care where they live!

Lets assume that one vote tips the state.  In NY you are securing 33 EVs.  That vote in Wyoming gets only 3 EVs.

[Josh/Devilman88]

You have to win the top 11 states not 10

[© tweed]

Why should a vote in Manhattan count less htan a vote in rural Wyoming?  It is still ONE PERSON, I don't care where they live!

Lets assume that one vote tips the state.  In NY you are securing 33 EVs.  That vote in Wyoming gets only 3 EVs.

A vote in Wyoming counts 3 times as much as mine.

Plus, NY has 31 EV's

[ATFFL]

Why should a vote in Manhattan count less htan a vote in rural Wyoming?  It is still ONE PERSON, I don't care where they live!

Lets assume that one vote tips the state.  In NY you are securing 33 EVs.  That vote in Wyoming gets only 3 EVs.

A vote in Wyoming counts 3 times as much as mine.

Plus, NY has 31 EV's

What I get for working from memory.

How do you figure?  1 vote can change 31 EVs vs. changing 3.  

[TomatoSoup]

Why should a vote in Manhattan count less htan a vote in rural Wyoming?  It is still ONE PERSON, I don't care where they live!

Exactly! Thank you very much! Exactly my point. A person is a person, no matter where they live.

[© tweed]

How do you figure?  1 vote can change 31 EVs vs. changing 3.  

It is far more likely that 1 vote will be the margin in Wyoming than in New York.

But hold on--are you for or against the EC?

[ATFFL]

How do you figure?  1 vote can change 31 EVs vs. changing 3.  

It is far more likely that 1 vote will be the margin in Wyoming than in New York.

But hold on--are you for or against the EC?

For it, but I would prefer to do the congressional district breakdown.  

Popular vote allows for more extreme candidates to get in power.  It would also lead to an urbanization of politics, which would be bad.  We need those farms to grow food so we can eat, and disenfranchising farmers would be another reason to leave the farms and go to the cities.

Breaking it down by CD would give both give more power to the cities (since they have more districts) while also giving the farm states power since one district is 3 EVs.

[© tweed]

How would a PV urbanize politics?  I don't think more people live in urban areas than live in rural/suburban areas.