Why not let the popular vote decide the election? Do we have ANY say in our government?

EDIT: After posting I realized that this is probably the wrong forum. Mods, please move wherever this belongs.


I understand that the main arguement against this is that big states would have the most say. Big deal, is my response. If the majority of the country wants one person to be President then so be it. America is by the people, for the people is it not?

The majority of the population wanted Al Gore yet guess who became president? Unless popular vote directly elects a president, I feel that voting is just an illusion of choice. The people really have no say in who becomes their leader. The electoral college is based on an outdated truth that the majority of the population is uneducated. That is not the case nowadays.

I think it is time to give america back to the people. If the majority of the population vote for 1 guy and he stinks it up, oh well, the majority wanted him.

Elections are too easily tampered with and corrupted with the current system.

If you think about it, how much say do the people really have in anything that goes on in their government?

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by Cutwolf]

big deal you say? what if those states with the majority of the population voted for people you didnt like? you'd be complaining about that.

but as it stands you're complaining about a system that at least attempts to bring a balance in the voting process for those who live in smaller states.

there's a reason why the system is set up the way it is...mob rule. this was foreseen and thats why the system is set up the way it is.

BTW the presidential election is the only election thats like this. the majority still decides who their congressmen are, their senators, etc.

this whining and complaining about the system doesnt work. wanting it reworked to fit you POV isnt gonna cut it either. again THIS is why the system is et up the way it is. this mob rule mentality is absolutely dangerous.

big deal you say? what if those states with the majority of the population voted for people you didnt like? you'd be complaining about that.

Oh well! I voted for who I wanted so I could say "i told you so" if he stunk it up. You claim it would be mob rule, yet isn't this country "by the people, for the people."

And wow, our senators are elected by us. Too bad the senators are VERYeasily misled by the commander in chief (see: Iraq War)

As much as I dont want bush and hope he is not the president, The electoral was made for a reason, not to be unfair but FAIR, We may have to revise this since times have changed along with Populations, but it was a fair way to do it.

It sucks it worked out the way it did, but it does seem that if it worked the other way people would complain then to.

JUST make sure you vote

Where are you getting your info about why the electorial college was put in place ?

My understanding is that during that time there was no way to communicate votes to the capitol without a person traveling there.

The rep counted the votes in his district and then traveled to washington to vote for what the majority wanted within each district. one vote per district was my understanding

Now the federal government has allowed states to change that. In some states the person who gets the majority votes now can be given all the votes for the whole state which is not a true representation of the vote.

I agree the electorial college is antique and needs to be done away with. I think they keep it for the sake of posterity. The goal was for the person who received the majority votes to have the presidency... but as you have all witnessed that is not the case any longer.

Chevy, you are correct, as well is the Prankster. As with most decision, there was more than one with that one.

The election was not stolen, not by the electorial college or by Bush. I can point at atempts by the other side that are conclusive, to include media collusion, but it is neither here or there. What I do think, though, is that the media is very much biased and works very heavily in one direction. Now if you are a democrat, you may think that is no big deal, but I do. Furthermore, if they were to be biased toward Bush, or any other republican candidate, I'd be very fearful as well.

Media tinkering is dangerous, no matter what side they are pulling for as we should be able to count on them to be non-biased and give us all the facts so that we can make our own determination of who is the best candidate.
After that, of course, we'll have to find a candidate that will actually do what he says he'll do. I think there's a better chance of having a non-biased media than to have a straight-up president!

Since when is the media biased in favor of Democrats??? Is that a joke??? Have you never seen Fox News??? I'm not saying it's biased one way or another, but rather both ways.... they need to have two sides to the same coin to argue against each other (usually on pointless or insignificant issues) to keep people occupied and play them off each other. We all know it's human nature to want to be on a "side," and every side thinks they are the righteous one. But none are.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
big deal you say? what if those states with the majority of the population voted for people you didnt like? you'd be complaining about that.

but as it stands you're complaining about a system that at least attempts to bring a balance in the voting process for those who live in smaller states.

there's a reason why the system is set up the way it is...mob rule. this was foreseen and thats why the system is set up the way it is.

BTW the presidential election is the only election thats like this. the majority still decides who their congressmen are, their senators, etc.

this whining and complaining about the system doesnt work. wanting it reworked to fit you POV isnt gonna cut it either. again THIS is why the system is et up the way it is. this mob rule mentality is absolutely dangerous.

BULLPLOP!!!

Its not fair that a larger group of people should have a bigger say in things? Who came up with that twisted logic? If we had the popular vote determine the president, I sure wouldn't complain.

"mob rule" should be rephrased "rule by the people, for the people"

The current system is not balanced, in fact its broken. Our leaders have destroyed us.... We are constantly mired in fruitless wars, our neighbor countries hate us, the gap between the rich and poor is growing larger, their incompetence is even now driving us to an economic collapse.

When is enough, enough?

reply to post by Cutwolf


So those in the country have a reason to vote. If there was no electoral the cities (crime infested IMO) would control our entire country. With the electoral those in N.D. have a say too. After all there americans with often different concerns then those in the cities and thus have a right to be heard.

The electoral votes are also crime infested. Our congressman have their hands in dozen's of corporations pockets, they get paid off for voting for who the rich want in office.

This is the third time I've posted this, but I want people to see it:
www.infoplease.com...

Al Gore got most of the popular vote in 2000, and should have been our president - the people voted for him! However the house of representatives voted for George Bush, king oil mogul. You're telling me not one of our congressman was bribed?

Yes, if we had a popular vote, smaller states would have a smaller say - because they have fewer people! Thats perfectly logical. Also, in a age of electronic voting, im sure we could find ways to make the voting process more secure, make sure each social security number casts only one vote, make sure each vote has an attached social security number? Stuffing the ballot box would be a thing of the past.

The only people who get hurt in a popular vote system are the extremely rich. They don't get to choose who gets in office anymore, all the sudden laws aren't biased for big corporations. No more tax exemptions for the rich, "little people" aren't evicted from their land to put up a new strip mall, etc.

Even better - no more crap wars. Isn't it a coincidence that we are at war with one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, at the same time an oil mogul is in office? I don't think so...

The endless possibilities of the popular vote!

reply to post by Cutwolf


.....to wander back on topic... I think this is an excellent question, and it has merit.

I would even go so far as to wish for a Commander-In-Chief election wherin the consitutuents voted for ONE president. Second place becomes the VP, regardless of their party.

BTW, OP, I think this is the PERfect forum for this thread. It's a fit.

So, here's what I think. I think we should devise a system, take it all apart, turn it upside-down and see if it works. We need a system by which popular vote can be ASSURED to be accurate. See, seems to me that "same as it ever was" and "we've always done it this way" needs to be reworked. People won't accept it and approve unless it is TIGHT.

Cutwolf, not trying to derail your thread, just saying...... maybe this is the place it happens. Why not?

Imagine, we the people, deciding upon something so important, influencing our politicians, and actually getting something done.


Too much rum? Naaah

reply to post by peskyhumans


Completely agree, even though I'm not Mr. Gore's biggest fan. Well said. It's a matter of fairness, isn't it? If 51% of the people want everyone to wear a fuschia t-shirt on Tuesdays, it should be so.

That sounded a bit..... Eglatarian, didn't it?

Back during the day of revolution and constitution, states were actually more important than the federal government. We were supposedly a loose confederation rather than a unified empire. States rights reigned supreme, and the feds were just a referee. In a perfect world, the way it should be.

This is the reason behind the electoral college and the republic, rather than a democracy.

A democracy equals mob rules. When you break down a repulic, each state has a say and why the electoral college was and is still needed.

My opinion.

Originally posted by peskyhumans

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
big deal you say? what if those states with the majority of the population voted for people you didnt like? you'd be complaining about that.

but as it stands you're complaining about a system that at least attempts to bring a balance in the voting process for those who live in smaller states.

there's a reason why the system is set up the way it is...mob rule. this was foreseen and thats why the system is set up the way it is.

BTW the presidential election is the only election thats like this. the majority still decides who their congressmen are, their senators, etc.

this whining and complaining about the system doesnt work. wanting it reworked to fit you POV isnt gonna cut it either. again THIS is why the system is et up the way it is. this mob rule mentality is absolutely dangerous.

BULLPLOP!!!

Its not fair that a larger group of people should have a bigger say in things? Who came up with that twisted logic? If we had the popular vote determine the president, I sure wouldn't complain.

"mob rule" should be rephrased "rule by the people, for the people"

The current system is not balanced, in fact its broken. Our leaders have destroyed us.... We are constantly mired in fruitless wars, our neighbor countries hate us, the gap between the rich and poor is growing larger, their incompetence is even now driving us to an economic collapse.

When is enough, enough?

since i just logged in after how many years of being away? at least 2? and having found a recent applause for the post you call bullplop...

i think what your problem is not with what i say but with our leaders, the people we elect. that means WE are the problem since we put them there. they dont get there by magic and someone that lives on the top of a mountain appoints them through some goofy ritual a la oracle.

the system works, it worked last night and has works since its inception. if you dont like what our leaders do, pick better leaders but stop blaming the system when it has nothing to do with it. the system works fine, its the people who need fixing.

popular vote = MOB RULE. That is not the answer. We are a republic - in that even small groups get a say, despite them being a minority.

of course, this is a touchy subject, because either way the power is removed from someone.

Keep in mind, the original Framers and Founders of our nation and Constitution did not trust Americans to actually choose the President.

"Joe the G-Damn Plumber" was NEVER supposed to pick the President. That's why they wanted the Electoral College.

"The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option. There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole."
usgovinfo.about.com...

Well for one the states with huge populations would only get the Presidential wannabes attention. That means no campaigning in states like Colorodo, Virginia and some other key battle ground states. Politicians would pander to all the states with 10 Million or above population, New York, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Michigan. Those 8 states represent almost half of our population 144,209,000(According to 2006 Population) source: www.factmonster.com...

California represented almost 10% of the vote alone last night.
President
McCain (R) 37% 3,755,298
Obama (D) 61% 6,195,725

Originally posted by tmbandt
Back during the day of revolution and constitution, states were actually more important than the federal government. We were supposedly a loose confederation rather than a unified empire. States rights reigned supreme, and the feds were just a referee. In a perfect world, the way it should be.

This is the reason behind the electoral college and the republic, rather than a democracy.

A democracy equals mob rules. When you break down a repulic, each state has a say and why the electoral college was and is still needed.

My opinion.

I agree with you.

However, I also agree with those who say that the system should be completely revamped. Here's why:

Under the electoral college system, each state is assigned a number of electoral votes based on its population. This is supposed to ensure that each state's power to elect a president is representative of its population. The votes are allocated to a state based on federal census figures.

Here is how the census is taken:Census Rules

What bothers me about this system is that electoral votes are allocated based on total state population and not total population of eligible voters. So a state like California, with a large population of migrant workers, ends up with electoral votes that just don't seem fair.

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad

Originally posted by tmbandt
Back during the day of revolution and constitution, states were actually more important than the federal government. We were supposedly a loose confederation rather than a unified empire. States rights reigned supreme, and the feds were just a referee. In a perfect world, the way it should be.

This is the reason behind the electoral college and the republic, rather than a democracy.

A democracy equals mob rules. When you break down a repulic, each state has a say and why the electoral college was and is still needed.

My opinion.

I agree with you.

However, I also agree with those who say that the system should be completely revamped. Here's why:

Under the electoral college system, each state is assigned a number of electoral votes based on its population. This is supposed to ensure that each state's power to elect a president is representative of its population. The votes are allocated to a state based on federal census figures.

Here is how the census is taken:Census Rules

What bothers me about this system is that electoral votes are allocated based on total state population and not total population of eligible voters. So a state like California, with a large population of migrant workers, ends up with electoral votes that just don't seem fair.

now this i can agree with, it keeps the system but updates the number of votes states get which IMO is not a bad idea, it would change how elections are held since candidates would probably have to visit different states they normally would ignore under the current number of votes each state gets.

then you'd have to redraw the number of votes needed to win if its similar to how its decided now i dont see a problem.

i like the system we use but maybe the numbers we use need updating.

Originally posted by peskyhumans
BULLPLOP!!!
Its not fair that a larger group of people should have a bigger say in things? Who came up with that twisted logic? If we had the popular vote determine the president, I sure wouldn't complain.

I don't think it's broken at all. In fact, I think it's unfair against the smaller states. Honestly, I can't see why most of the great plains states haven't seceded from the union. The states with 3 electors only sway the elector count by .5%. All of them put together don't equal a NY, PA, or OH. Basically they are already a victim of mob rule.