View Poll Results: Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

Voters
107. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    46 42.99%
  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    49 45.79%
  • IDK/Other

    12 11.21%
Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 319

Thread: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

  1. #31
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Every single vote counts now.
    They certainly don't count equally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Only California and 19 others would count and the candidates wouldn't be visiting New Hampshire, or Iowa.
    That is nonsense since California does not vote as a block. One cannot count on ALL of California or all of any state. If one only courts part of the country, one will lose, because no one can win all, or even more than a 60 or 70 percent lead of any given geographic area. A candidate would have to appeal to the whole nation.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,863

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    I disagree, if im a canidate this would only happen if the super majority of people in those states like me and did NOT like my opponent.

    otherwise i would have to go to little places also

    for example if the 20 states of your picking had 100million voters and say 60 of them liked me by polling thats great

    but

    that leaves 40 million votes and that other guy is DEFINITELY going other places like Iowa (if he wants to win) to try and get another 21million votes so i will HAVE to go also to stop him

    im not saying its impossible im saying the strs have to really be aligned to make it happen and theres a slim chance it could happen today too (places being ignored)

    I think a direct vote would be AWESOME BUT also make it for a minimum of 3 maybe more candidates and second place should be the vice
    It's prudent to go where they can hit the most voters at once. There is a possibility to cobble together a bunch of small states, but the cost would be enormous, better to mine votes in more populous areas.

  3. #33
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    It's prudent to go where they can hit the most voters at once. There is a possibility to cobble together a bunch of small states, but the cost would be enormous, better to mine votes in more populous areas.
    in theory I agree but you have to be "winning" where those most voters are but


    what does the person behind in the polls do (loser) do? he has to go else where

    what do the candidates do if its close? they both have to go else where

    I think the lower populations would get just as much attention as they do now if not more in some cases
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #34
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,921

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    But you still get electoral votes based on population anyhow. The way it stands now, because the liberals outnumber the conservatives in California, every vote in California will almost always go to the liberal candidate. My vote doesn't count because all electoral votes are going to Obama regardless.

    Why vote for president at all?
    You just pointed out the solution to the problem with the the Electorial college. I live in California it is winner take all. Thats why its seems as though your vote dont count. Make it to where the winner gets the amount of delegates they won plus two and the loser gets their delegates. Winner take all is a bastardization of a very good compromise. Nebraska has proprotional representation as does Minnesota I believe. Not positive on Minnisota. Anyway even though Nebraska is very conservative the Omaha Lincoln area is not so much and they generally get a represinative at the College. If winner take all was eliminated I have feeling people would be more inclined to vote because it would actually count for something. It would also put many more states in play as you would have more to make up for the delegates you didnt get. California would go from 54 delegates to 30 for the winner. The winner would have to win else where now to get the votes they need to win office.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,863

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    They certainly don't count equally.



    That is nonsense since California does not vote as a block. One cannot count on ALL of California or all of any state. If one only courts part of the country, one will lose, because no one can win all, or even more than a 60 or 70 percent lead of any given geographic area. A candidate would have to appeal to the whole nation.
    You miss my point. Of course because California does not vote as a block, candidates would focus where the most votes are to had for the least campaign money. California's voters would be courted to a much greater extent than they are now. Romney has hardly visited there because 60% of the vote went to Obama the last time. He hasn't really made his case there. Take away the EC and the next Republican candidate will spend loads more time there, taking away from the states he is spending more time in now. I like that they have to spend time in places like Nevada and Ohio and such.

    Texas would be the same story. Though a red state now, there is no serious contest there for Democrats.

    They wouldn't appeal to the whole nation, just those with the most votes to offer.

  6. #36
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    You miss my point. Of course because California does not vote as a block, candidates would focus where the most votes are to had for the least campaign money. California's voters would be courted to a much greater extent than they are now. Romney has hardly visited there because 60% of the vote went to Obama the last time. He hasn't really made his case there. Take away the EC and the next Republican candidate will spend loads more time there, taking away from the states he is spending more time in now. I like that they have to spend time in places like Nevada and Ohio and such.

    Texas would be the same story. Though a red state now, there is no serious contest there for Democrats.

    They wouldn't appeal to the whole nation, just those with the most votes to offer.

    what you are missing is the loser will always have to do this will they not? what would make them not go else where if they are losing in the pools just like now?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #37
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,554

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.

    Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?
    I see the only way for us to have a fair election is to get rid of it.

    As it stands, if you're a democrat in texas, or a republican in new york, you have no vote.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    From a previous Poll of the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    I voted no. I am too lazy to explain why, when someone has already done so in an older thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    Ah, because the State itself needs to be recognized separately from the People?
    We are a Nation of States, not a Nation of individuals.

    Why should a minority of States with the largest populations be able to dictate to a majority of States who will be the President?
    The Electoral College strikes a balance. Does it not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    No, the Electoral College serves a purpose.
    The People were never meant to vote for the President.
    To allow this would be unfair/unequal representation of the States.
    The People already have their representation through Congress.
    I again have to agree with emdash.


    "From the Electoral College's site."
    ... The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. ...

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The great lakes
    Last Seen
    06-12-13 @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,907

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    ... The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. ...
    Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.

  10. #40
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    re: Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

    Quote Originally Posted by H. Lee White View Post
    Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.
    Exactly. Because the President represents the States of the Union, and the States choose.
    In the absurd; If a State wanted it to be contingent on the date of a "smelt run" it could.

Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •