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 20 of 25 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 245

Thread: The electoral college

  1. #191
    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 Rainman05 View Post
    Ok. Educate me please. Give me 5 reasons, that I can't debunk, for why the electoral college is better than the popular vote and I'll shut up.
    1. Mob rule would allow a majority of bible thumpers to put into power people that would undo roe v wade, would undo the legalization of gay marriage, and loads of over negative things. Think minorities and how they would then be controlled by the majority. There are no other reasons needed, and this is not 'debunkable'.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  2. #192
    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
    1. Mob rule would allow a majority of bible thumpers to put into power people that would undo roe v wade, would undo the legalization of gay marriage, and loads of over negative things. Think minorities and how they would then be controlled by the majority. There are no other reasons needed, and this is not 'debunkable'.
    How do you achieve that? How does popular vote do that? Roe v wade was a Supreme court decision. The President of the USA and Congress had nothing to do with it. They aren't justices on the Supreme Court bench now are they? They didn't get a vote/
    I am not saying that you should have popular vote to elect Supreme court justices. We're talking about electing the President.


    What do you think popular vote means buddy? It means that instead of having this idiotic system where you win states, not people, and you make votes unequal depending in which state you live, and you disenfranchize millions of americans living in the territories that aren't states, you have a univeral vote. You go to the poll and vote. Just like you do today. Only instead of your vote going towards the state you're in, it goes directly to the tally of the presidential race.

    Now, if you live in California, your vote means less than the guy who lives in Delaware because Delaware, the state, gets 3 votes when it doesn't have the population to justify it. And California doesn't get the right number of votes for its population.
    And while this measure is meant to 'protect' the smaller states, no matter what idiotic notion that is, it doesn't because the candidates spend time in the swing states.


    This reason is thoroughly bogus. Please come up with another. Come on, I'm taking you to school right here and right now.

  3. #193
    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 Rainman05 View Post
    We're talking about electing the President.
    And you have totally bypassed what that means, other than putting someone in office.

    Personally those that live in California shouldn't have a vote, just as those that live in Detroit shouldn't. If you can't even get your state right, you have NO business being involved at a federal level.

    But it is clear you seem either unwilling or incapable of understanding what mob rule does, no matter how many examples there are through history. No point in any further discussion with someone blind to the reality of the history of humans. Such a person is not capable of taking anyone 'to school'. That they think they can is a hysterical joke.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  4. #194
    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
    And you have totally bypassed what that means, other than putting someone in office.

    Personally those that live in California shouldn't have a vote, just as those that live in Detroit shouldn't. If you can't even get your state right, you have NO business being involved at a federal level.

    But it is clear you seem either unwilling or incapable of understanding what mob rule does, no matter how many examples there are through history. No point in any further discussion with someone blind to the reality of the history of humans. Such a person is not capable of taking anyone 'to school'. That they think they can is a hysterical joke.
    Oh, so now you are disenfranchizing other citizens of the USA even those that are part of states. I guess taking away electoral rights from 4 millions of americans in the territories like Puerto Rico and Guam is not enough. If popular vote would be a thing, those people could have voted in this last election. And the one before that. And the one before that, etc.

    You still owe me 5 good reasons that I can't debunk. But there are no good reasons. There is just 1 motive that this exists, and that's because it's how the Constitution was written to give votes to states, not people. A flaw that has caused the more unpopular president to be elected 3 times in US history, the last of which being Bush.

    Mob rule means something very different. I fear you are the one who fails to understand what that is. for instance, if the court had bent to the will of the 'mob' in the trayvon martin case, that would be mob rule.

    The electoral college is a flawed system that encourages voter apathy. The way to have better leaders is less dependent on the system of voting but rather on the quality of the voters. Having popular vote wouldn't mean you will have better leaders. It just means you will have the more beloved leader by the people.

  5. #195
    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 Rainman05 View Post
    You still owe me 5 good reasons that I can't debunk.
    I *owe* nothing to the ignorant. But please further respond with more nonsense so everyone can see how off base you are in your beliefs.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  6. #196
    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
    I *owe* nothing to the ignorant. But please further respond with more nonsense so everyone can see how off base you are in your beliefs.
    Ok. Then link me to a place which can explain these things better than you? Come on, I really want to see what reasons can 29 people on this forum to vote for the electoral college.

    I can give you 2 videos as to why the electoral college is crap and if I am honest, here are 2 more sites that deal with this issue.

    The Electoral College - Pros and Cons

    Should the Electoral College be abolished? | Scholastic.com

    Want to know what is listed as a good argument to keep the electoral college? having a 2 party system and a first past the post voting method. Both of which are horrible, horrible ideas.
    Want to know what is listed as an against argument? Aside from the very well crafted arguments I made, the fact that we are living in the XXIth century where we have access to information at our fingertips. We just need to have the desire to enhance the means of obtaining said information. And with a 2 party system and the electoral college, that incentive is virtually innexistent because there is no real choice and your vote doesn't really matter, nor is it equal to others'. It's the states that matter, not the people.

  7. #197
    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 JayGatsby View Post
    There is no proof that any significant voter fraud happened, I mean big stuff, like how Fox claimed there were districts Obama where won every single vote... etc.
    But it wouldn't be any worse, the President won the popular vote in every election except for something like 3 or 4 times. You could argue turnout would increase since people who live in a landslide state would actually bother to vote, but I really don't think we would see many changes except for the cases where the pop vote is won and the electoral college is lost.
    Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

    National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

    The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

    Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?


    In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

    In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

    If presidential campaigns now did not ignore more than 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.

    With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

  8. #198
    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 JayGatsby View Post
    I agree, but I think they both are an issue, we could give each candidate a proportion of the electors based on the votes they earned in that state, but at the end of the day that is basically a national popular vote.
    Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

    If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

    If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

    The proportional method also 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.

    If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

    A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

    It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

    Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

    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.

  9. #199
    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 TheGirlNextDoor View Post
    I think we need election reform, but I don't like the idea of having the popular vote decide elections. Why? Because the population of some states is extremely high, giving them an advantage and playing into "mob rule". How about not having designated parties (R's and D's)...I'd rather see that kind of election reform.
    One person, one vote.

    With National Popular Vote, every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

    With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes 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 votes!

  10. #200
    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
    What is so great about having candidates visit your state? They snarl traffic and they bomb your airwaves with broadcast spam. Obama was more interested in the turnout in Philly than is any other big city.

    Advertising is truly the dumbest of reasons for getting rid of the Electoral College, which btw, IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!
    One more time. National Popular Vote does not get rid of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

    The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
    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 in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote


    Follow the campaign money and resources.

    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.

    The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

    Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
    “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

    In apportionment of federal grants by the executive branch, swing states received about 7.6% more federal grants and about 5.7% more federal grant money between 1992 and 2008 than would be expected based on patterns in other states.

    During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

    Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

    June 2012 “Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. “ - Wall Street Journal

    As of June 7, 2012 “Six current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year.”

Page 20 of 25 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... 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
  •