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 1 of 32 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 319

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

  1. #1
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    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?

  2. #2
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    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 voted get rid of it. The only reason I could see for the electoral college would be in cases where a candidate suddenly became unable to serve in that short window of time. Other than that, they're simply middle-men that just get in the way of the people's choice. 'Course that could be avoided if states could split their electoral votes depending upon the popular vote in their particular states. Some states do that. Those are the fairest of all. Winner-take-all in the Presidential Race serves no one but politicians.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #3
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    05-19-14 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,083

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

    No because then its 51% voting for the 49 to give them what ever they want. If you think zero liabity voters are bad now wait till you get direct voting.

  4. #4
    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]

    The electoral college is founded on the idea that the people who live in a state are all homogeneous with each other. The college is intended to prevent more populous states from imposing their will on the smaller ones. But states don't actually operate that way. Most states are split close to 50/50, and even the most divisive states split closer to 60/40, maybe reaching as far as 70/30. In 1998, GWB won re-election as governor of Texas in a landslide with 69% of the vote. 69% is a landslide. Clearly, Texas is not as uniformly red as some people might think. No state is uniformly one way or another. That's just not how voters work in this country. The problem that the electoral college exists to prevent doesn't actually happen. New York wouldn't have any influence in a presidential election, because New York wouldn't be a prize to be won. Each individual voter in the state would be a unique and separate data point, and some would go one way and some the other. A direct popular vote would make every single vote count the same, since states do not move as homogeneous blocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungConserv View Post
    No because then its 51% voting for the 49 to give them what ever they want. If you think zero liabity voters are bad now wait till you get direct voting.
    Why do you have so little respect for the majority of the population of your nation? Do you hate the United States that much?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  5. #5
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,911

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

    I would stop winner take all.

  6. #6
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

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

    Eliminate the electoral college, and VP running mates. 2nd place is VP. Just like the good ole days.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  7. #7
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

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

    The process by which electors are chosen either (1) requires that they vote for the candidate selected by the popular vote of their state by legally binding mandate or (2) more or less requires they vote for the candidate selected by the popular vote because they must be selected from a pool of the party faithful whose personal self interest and history causes them to vote for that party with almost no margin of error.

    Wasn't always like that, but is now -- the electoral college exists only as a formality.

    As far as whether it should be a nationwide popular vote -- my impression is that will be the nail in the coffin for federalism.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 10-24-12 at 01:46 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  8. #8
    Demented Lycanthropist
    wolfman24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    East Waboo USA
    Last Seen
    02-14-17 @ 01:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    I have been saying for a long time that the EC needs to go. Last nights third party debate cast it in bronze.
    The EC does not count each vote. The idea of a winner take all in national elections is absurd.
    Knowning what parties have potential and are growing can help people. It can also set a trend for future debates.
    First though GET PRIVATE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS> period.
    Let the people see alot of different points of view and decide for themselves instead of getting stuck on a machine that no longer works.
    "Those who do not learn from history and condemned to relive it".

    "There are those who will debate the necessity of wilderness, I will not, either you know it in your bones or you are very very old". Aldo Leopold - Sand County Almanac

  9. #9
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,031

    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?
    YES. YES. YES again.

    Although technically that is not really direct democracy. Electing a president is still part of our representative democracy.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #10
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,073

    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?
    We should keep the electoral college. I do not like the idea of New York,California and a handful of other densely populated states being able to screw the rest of the country.This is why our forefathers went with the electoral college.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 1 of 32 12311 ... 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
  •