View Poll Results: How should presidents be elected

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Popular vote

    34 48.57%
  • Electoral college

    36 51.43%
Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 245

Thread: The electoral college

  1. #151
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
    Who cares who it is popular with.. it doesn't matter. Popular vote is the quickest way to (further) ruin the country. Mob voting. Horrible idea. Nobody with any common sense would support such nonsense.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Who cares who it is popular with.. it doesn't matter. Popular vote is the quickest way to (further) ruin the country. Mob voting. Horrible idea. Nobody with any common sense would support such nonsense.
    You have no idea what you are talking about. It's not the voting method which fails you, but it's you, the people who vote who mess up because you vote in a 2 party system between candidates who suck. Universal vote and popular election is the only fair way to have each individual represented. The vote of a texan and a californian is less than the vote of a guy in small state whose state gets more electoral seats than it should because of the minimum of 3 per state. Not to mention that there are US territories who don't get to vote. The only place on the planet where the american population can't vote is within the USA itself in the territories. Popular vote would fix that since the whole idiocy of the electoral college would go away.

  3. #153
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    "Fly over" country is flown over. IGNORED. That's what it means.

    80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
    Your theory is that voters who vote for losing candidates have their votes ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every vote is an important part of the political process and the political dialogue keeps us centered.

  4. #154
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,343

    The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    No. you're scenario is an exaggeration based upon unrealistic premises. What I present is basic mathematics in a very possible and plausible scenario. If you aren't going to take a discussion seriously then better end this chat here. I don't intend to waste any more of my time and energy in making a blind person see the very obvious and stupid faults the electoral college has.
    Your premise is not plausible and that is the first time you expressed that it was.

    And don't get upset with me because the Electoral College isn't going away.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  5. #155
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    Your theory is that voters who vote for losing candidates have their votes ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every vote is an important part of the political process and the political dialogue keeps us centered.
    Follow the money.

    Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    Minority party votes in each state are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

    Now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

  6. #156
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    And if 6 candidates are on the ballot and the one with the majority votes wins with lets day, 30% of the vote, how well will that go over? Rare? Sure, but as someone else said, it is "perfectly possible"..
    With the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.

    Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

    If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

    Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

    Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

    And, FYI, with the current system, it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's

  7. #157
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    I'd be perfectly fine with the congressional district based system used in Nebraska and Maine.
    Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

    A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
    * 71% favored a national popular vote;
    * 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
    * 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
    ***

    A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
    * 60% favored a national popular vote;
    * 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
    * 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

    NationalPopularVote

    Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

    If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

    The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

    Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

    Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

    Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

    A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

  8. #158
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Xsnake1 View Post
    If you're going to vote, please explain your answer.
    I support the electoral college.I do not want California,New York and a few other extremely populated states making decisions for the whole entire country.
    "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

  9. #159
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,343

    The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.

    A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
    * 71% favored a national popular vote;
    * 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
    * 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
    ***

    A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
    * 60% favored a national popular vote;
    * 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
    * 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).

    NationalPopularVote

    Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

    If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

    The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

    Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

    Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

    Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

    A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
    I don't read massive cutting and pasting of poll data. Have a point to make, express it yourself. If polls mattered, we would just use them to replace voting.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  10. #160
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,441

    The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I support the electoral college.I do not want California,New York and a few other extremely populated states making decisions for the whole entire country.
    But you're fine with Florida and Ohio doing so?

    Moving away from winner takes all does no such thing.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •