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 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 245

Thread: The electoral college

  1. #221
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,385

    The electoral college

    I'm leaving this discussion. Tired of being bombarded by text.

    The implication that states do not matter even though they all do is more a result of the Federalization of everything than the Electoral College. The deference to parties as well which are also not I'm the constitutionals it harder for alternative parties to grow.

    Having to run a complete national campaign forever enshrines the two parties as there is no opportunity to pick off a state or two to demonstrate viability.

    The continued nonsense about everyone's vote not being equal is again a national point of view when these are still state elections.

    Out of here.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  2. #222
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,494

    The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    And you don't think a national popular vote would be worse? Amazing.



    It's not about individuals, it's about states. That we are a UNION of states. When places like California and New York rule the nation, are doom is CERTAIN.
    So how does the electoral college keep us from being ruled by Ca and NY?
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  3. #223
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,494

    The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    They didn't make the decision for the whole country alone, it was a bunch of other states including Florida and Ohio that helped decided who the president is.
    No they didn't. A very small number of undecided voters in those states did.

    Like it or not the practical consequence of the EC and the winner-take-all rules of most states is that a minute - as compared to the total population of the nation - number of voters in a handful of states decide for the rest of us.

    So once again how does the EC protect you from us evil New Yorkers?
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  4. #224
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,889

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    No they didn't. A very small number of undecided voters in those states did.

    Like it or not the practical consequence of the EC and the winner-take-all rules of most states is that a minute - as compared to the total population of the nation - number of voters in a handful of states decide for the rest of us.

    So once again how does the EC protect you from us evil New Yorkers?
    I know some like yourself think the Electoral College as a fusty relic of a bygone era, an unnecessary institution that one day might undermine democracy by electing a minority. but did any of you feel that way when JFK was elected on the basis of the electoral vote? No of course not. This attempt to overthrow the electoral college is just another effort to destroy another institution that has added to the success of this country. It ain't broken yet you all want to change it...why? I will tell you why because the Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of the left in reforming this country into some European Socialist country.

    Another history lesson...
    James Madison’s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people.

    Recall the ways our constitution puts limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. Power at the national level is divided among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Power is divided yet again between the national government and the states. Madison noted that these twofold divisions — the separation of powers and federalism — provided a “double security” for the rights of the people.

    Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Oh well to Constitution Shredders, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. For those skeptics, I would point out two other advantages the Electoral College offers.

    First, we must keep in mind the likely effects of direct popular election of the president. We would probably see elections dominated by the most populous regions of the country or by several large metropolitan areas. And we all know those areas are Democratic strongholds. So what are you wanting to do with a popular vote is make every election a Democratic win?
    Yes, I definitely think that is what is behind this effort to tear down the institution of the Electoral College.

    Another thing to think about is...
    The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

    Also, the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. As such, it is an important part of our federalist system — a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power, And on that note I must say I have never met a leftie that was interested in restraining the power of the federal government. Hell they want the federal government to be the answer to all their needs without responsibility and Uncle Sam the father/provider for most of their children.

    If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.
    Last edited by vesper; 08-09-13 at 11:59 PM.

  5. #225
    User JayGatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    03-27-14 @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    62

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    What the hell do you think they will be if there was a big pooled together national popular vote?? Just as many, if not more, would not matter.

    I did not bother reading the rest of your wall of text which is clearly cut and paste propaganda.
    I have never once seen you provide a fact on this site... multiple times people present arguments toward you, including myself, that are factual or detailed, and you just deny everything they say and make a claim how the idea is horrible, and then you back it up with nothing. Can not tell if you are trolling or not.

    The point is in California there are millions of votes for Republican candidates that do not count, they get not one elector from California, the other party gets 50 something. This happens to Democrats in Texas as well. If you live in Montana you know your vote means hardly anything, 3 electoral votes most likely will have no affect on the election. Do you support this system just because you want to be a hardcore, some how more "American", "States-Rights" Constitutionalist, or do honestly think it is a fair way to elect the president of the WHOLE United States.
    In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people.
    - FDR

  6. #226
    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 JayGatsby View Post
    The point is in California there are millions of votes for Republican candidates that do not count, they get not one elector from California, the other party gets 50 something. This happens to Democrats in Texas as well. If you live in Montana you know your vote means hardly anything, 3 electoral votes most likely will have no affect on the election. Do you support this system just because you want to be a hardcore, some how more "American", "States-Rights" Constitutionalist, or do honestly think it is a fair way to elect the president of the WHOLE United States.
    Removed your bs personal attack. Now on with the rest...

    SO WHAT? If a state want's to divided up their EC votes based on state outcomes, go for it. They probably all should. That has nothing to do with removing the EC and going to straight popular vote.

    Does your state not do it, so you feel 'disenfranchised'? Then get off your backside and organize. Turnout in every state SUCKS. There are loads of people that can be stirred up and brought to the polls to make a difference. Oh, but that's like work, and some people don't actually want to put forth effort to be part of the system, eh?
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  7. #227
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: The electoral college

    I the election was by popular vote, we would have a mess on our hands. Think about the Florida vote in 2000, then multiply that fifty and add in DC too. We would be counting and recounting until the next election.

  8. #228
    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 pbrauer View Post
    I the election was by popular vote, we would have a mess on our hands. Think about the Florida vote in 2000, then multiply that fifty and add in DC too. We would be counting and recounting until the next election.
    Elections carry the risk of conflicts over recounts.

    The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

    The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

    The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

    Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

    The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

    The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

    We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

    The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
    “It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

    Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

    The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

    No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

    The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

  9. #229
    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 vesper View Post
    I know some like yourself think the Electoral College as a fusty relic of a bygone era, an unnecessary institution that one day might undermine democracy by electing a minority. but did any of you feel that way when JFK was elected on the basis of the electoral vote? No of course not. This attempt to overthrow the electoral college is just another effort to destroy another institution that has added to the success of this country. It ain't broken yet you all want to change it...why? I will tell you why because the Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of the left in reforming this country into some European Socialist country.
    . . .

    Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution. . .
    . . .

    If the Founders had wished to create a pure democracy, they would have done so. Those who now wish to do away with the Electoral College are welcome to amend the Constitution, but if they succeed, they will be taking America further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.
    One more time.

    The Electoral College is now 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.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not change anything in the Consitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.

    The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that 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. One person, one vote.

    40 states were left behind in the 2012 presidential campaign. 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), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

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

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a constitutional republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

  10. #230
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: The electoral college

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    Elections carry the risk of conflicts over recounts.

    The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely, not less likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

    The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

    The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

    Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

    The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

    The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

    We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

    The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
    “It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

    Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

    The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

    No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

    The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
    You almost had me convinced, however something would change if the election was decided by popular vote. I don't know if this has been covered but if the election were decided on popular vote then there would be many more people running. The election could be won by person receiving a low percentage of the votes, but more than anyone else.


Page 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 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
  •