Eliminate the Electoral College

reply to post by antonia


The courts decided in 2000 not the electoral college.

reply to post by hawkiye


And let me bring up the others: 1824, Andrew jackson wins popular vote, loses election, 1877 Samuel Tilden wins popular vote by 3%, loses election, 1888 Grover Cleveland wins popular vote (albeit be less than 1%), loses election.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by hawkiye

 

And let me bring up the others: 1824, Andrew jackson wins popular vote, loses election, 1877 Samuel Tilden wins popular vote by 3%, loses election, 1888 Grover Cleveland wins popular vote (albeit be less than 1%), loses election.

edit on 2-10-2012 by antonia because: opps

You don't understand its the popular votes in each state not over all. This is what gives the smaller states a say in national election otherwise if we went to a direct popular vote California and NY would always get to decide who is president.

Originally posted by hawkiye

You don't understand its the popular votes in each state not over all. This is what gives the smaller states a say in national election otherwise if we went to a direct popular vote California and NY would always get to decide who is president.

No, they wouldn't. What do you think every person in California and New york votes the same? As I've already shown, the population in these states makes up about 50 million people. All of of these people aren't registered voters. Only 160 million people voted in 2008, that's about half the u.s population. Now, let's go further. How many registered voters are in these two states?

Cali-According to the secretary of state- 17,259,680
New York-8 million.

Believe it or not Texas actually has more registered voters than New York state. Now, if all of these people voted we are talking about 20 million out of 160 million people or......12% Try again. you can't win with 12% and even then, that assumes ever registered person in that state votes for the same person. Very unlikely.

reply to post by antonia


Just taking those two states is one third of the vote. That's if you get a 100% voter turnout. Which is incredibly unlikely. Given that only about 60% or less turn out to vote nationally those two states could easily take an entire election.

That is what is wrong with the popular vote.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by antonia

 

Just taking those two states is one third of the vote. That's if you get a 100% voter turnout. Which is incredibly unlikely. Given that only about 60% or less turn out to vote nationally those two states could easily take an entire election.

That is what is wrong with the popular vote.

No it isn't, it's 12%, read above and try again.

reply to post by antonia


I would like to see the loser of the race get the VP slot. It was once done this way I believe for a short time.

It may even things out in this divisive enviroment. Or things would continue and not much would get done.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by hawkiye

 

And let me bring up the others: 1824, Andrew jackson wins popular vote, loses election, 1877 Samuel Tilden wins popular vote by 3%, loses election, 1888 Grover Cleveland wins popular vote (albeit be less than 1%), loses election.

edit on 2-10-2012 by antonia because: opps

You don't understand its the popular votes in each state not over all. This is what gives the smaller states a say in national election otherwise if we went to a direct popular vote California and NY would always get to decide who is president.

Interesting....yet even with the electoral college in place the states still count the popular votes right? If one candidate wins more popular votes than the other one then they win that state.....how is this not still mob rules? lol

It is still a popularity contest no matter how you slice it, and by dividing the votes up doesn't make it any less of one, nor does it give the individual vote any more say at the end of the day, but it disenfranchises the people and still makes some states seem more important than others.

reply to post by antonia


From what I can recall of my old high school government class ( It has been a while though, so my recollection may be off...But the point remains the same ),the Electoral College was put into place originally, because at the time, the majority of United States citizens were not all that educated. It was designed to help insure the best and proper person get the job.

Well, I think as a whole we are more than educated enough to decide who we want to run this country, with out the help of the Electoral College...

I am very much in favor of replacing the Electoral college with the popular vote. I would say it is much simpler and perhaps even more fair of a system now days.

While we are at it... Can we ban lobbyists?

reply to post by antonia


It doesn't matter what percentage of registered voters. The highest populations generally have thee highest amount of registered voters and they would decide the elections to the determent of the smaller states...

Bottom line is doing away with the electoral college would do nothing! If anything it would make it easier for them to steal elections as they would only need to do it in one or two states. The whole argument is nothing more then a distraction from the real problems which is unverifiable elections and corruption...

The biggest problem with the electoral college nowadays is that it makes people who live in certain states votes worth more than other people's votes who don't live in certain states. All our votes should count the same.

...and yes let's ban lobbyists too!

reply to post by DirtyLiberalHippie

the Electoral College was put into place originally, because at the time, the majority of United States citizens were not all that educated. It was designed to help insure the best and proper person get the job.

Public schools... Sigh! No it wasn't it was designed to give smaller population states an equal voice in federal elections. Doing away with if for a straight popular vote would not make it fair it would make smaller population states irrelevant.

The other point is the federal government was never delegated all the power it has taken unto itself in the states and our individual lives, it was limited to its 17 enumerated powers in the constitution and largely had nothing to do with the states or individuals, it only dealt with mutual defense and protecting free trade mainly. If it was not acting outside it scope as it it does today meddling into our affairs and enslaving us and stuck to its actual constitutional duties no one would care about a popular vote for president.

The point of the Electoral College was to prevent a popular, yet unqualified, individual from holding the office of the presidency. The idea of a winner takes all is about the only thing that has not been co-opted in the political process.

The voting process was never intended to have political parties running primaries to bring about two (sometimes three if they are independent) candidates. Again there is a second problem in that the political party that wins the state provides their own electors to the Electoral College. For example is Romney wins Ohio, then the Republicans provide the electors for Ohio. While they are not legally bound to vote for Romney (they actually could vote for Ron Paul or Jeb Bush or even Obama for that matter) they typically vote the party ticket.

The only reform that is truly needed is for the electors to be determined by the state in process similar to jury duty selection. The electors would be kept secret until the Electoral College meets to vote. This would eliminate direct political party influences from the process and give each state the power that they deserve in the presidential election and force the candidates to campaign to issues and platforms rather than party lines and 10 second soundbites. Then again, honesty from the media on editorial bias would also go a long way towards making elections fair...but good luck with that as that would fall under Freedom of the Press. And editorial agendas have always been a part of politics.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by hawkiye

 

And let me bring up the others: 1824, Andrew jackson wins popular vote, loses election, 1877 Samuel Tilden wins popular vote by 3%, loses election, 1888 Grover Cleveland wins popular vote (albeit be less than 1%), loses election.

edit on 2-10-2012 by antonia because: opps

You don't understand its the popular votes in each state not over all. This is what gives the smaller states a say in national election otherwise if we went to a direct popular vote California and NY would always get to decide who is president.

erm no,states don`t vote people vote, the majority of the people would decide who is president and isn`t the way it should be?
if 49 of the states only had 1 resident in each one and all the other people lived in the 50th state, should those other 49 people (states) have equal voting power as the one state with 300 million people in it? of course not!

It should have nothing to do with the name of the state people live in it should only be about what the majority of the people in the country vote for.
The president represents all the people no matter what state they live in.

reply to post by Tardacus


We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic. This country was not based on Mob Rule, it was based on Representation. You vote for a representative who may not always agree with you or your group. In Presidential elections, you are voting for Electors who were chosen by the candidate...basically the representatives of that candidate. For more information on how they are chosen in your state, you need to check your state's laws.

The Electoral Process is supposed to ensure that unqualified candidates are not elected, that mob mentality doesn't overcome rational thought. How many times have you heard someone say, "I'd vote for him because he's someone I could sit down and have a beer with." That is the reason for the Electoral College.

Again, this country is not based on mob rule, which is one reason why the USA has had a stable government over the past 236 years.

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Again, this country is not based on mob rule, which is one reason why the USA has had a stable government over the past 236 years.

Oh BS, did you forget the civil war? This country hasn't been "stable". There have been plenty of riots, fights and general unrest. But, to the point isn't it already mob rule? The electors are bound by law to vote for whoever wins the popular vote in most states. So what is the point of it? You already have mob rule. If the point is to keep unqualified candidates it failed several times didn't it?

Originally posted by Ahabstar
The only reform that is truly needed is for the electors to be determined by the state in process similar to jury duty selection. The electors would be kept secret until the Electoral College meets to vote. This would eliminate direct political party influences from the process and give each state the power that they deserve in the presidential election and force the candidates to campaign to issues and platforms rather than party lines and 10 second soundbites.

But how does that make it fair for say people voting for Romney in California? Their vote doesn't count and we all know it. I don't even bother because I live in a red state. Why would I bother voting? My vote doesn't for anything because of the winner take all system.

I will simply say this:

The United States of America is constitutional republic. NOT A DEMOCRACY. Some of you need to read, then re-read the Constitution.

Sure let's leave mob rule in charge of electing the most powerful man in the world.

What was it Franklin said?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for dinner.

Republic is an armed sheep having an equal say in the election.....something to that effect.

reply to post by antonia


Riots and general unrest have not destroyed this country, nor did the civil war. In fact, the only thing the civil war did was strengthen the central government and solidify this nation. When I say "stable" I mean we have had the same form of government for over 200 years. How long did the Soviet Union last? How many other countries have had the same form of government for the past 236 years? Kings and dictators have come and gone but this Republic has outlasted them.

Come on, that was a rather weak argument against government stability.

As for those unqualified presidents, which are you talking about? Is it someone you didn't vote for but won and now you feel slighted so you call them "unqualified?"

Originally posted by AutOmatIc

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

election of the single most powerful man in the nation by popular vote is literally mob rule.

Exactly.

Restructure and reform it? YES! But doing away with the electoral college is a BIG mistake. This country is NOT a democracy. And the day you turn it into one, it will take its last breath.

Waiddaminute! Isn't that what it's supposed to be? BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE?! Essentially "mob" rule? I say hell yes do away with this antiquated unfair system and let the people actually choose who they want by popular demand....that is the entire reason we vote for crying out loud....to choose the candidate WE want not the candidate with the most "electoral" votes...it's a sham.

The electoral college is NOT for the people at all.

You obviously do not understand the difference between a Constitutional Republic (i.e The equal and fair Rule of Law) and a Democracy in which the Mob Rules and minorities are crushed and their rights and voices stripped away. In a true democracy (at the time of the issues) women would not have gotten the right to vote as more men did not want it than actually wanted it. We would not have civil rights for the same reason.

It MUST be a Republic...where the voice of the few...or the One...is still heard and considered.

But that being said, you can still have a Republic and a voting system where each voice is heard...wait...I think I just said that...

It USED to be that the President was the guy that got the most votes and the Vice President is whoever came in second place...I think this is better than the current system. In the current system, it is possible to get a President that no one elected...i.e. the VP steps up for one reason or another. At least in the Old system, that didn't happen...and...a system like the old system, somewhat assured Bi-partisan cooperation.