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

[joko104]

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?

 

[MaggieD]

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.

 

[YoungConserv]

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.

 

[Paschendale]

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.

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?

 

[celticwar17]

I would stop winner take all.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Eliminate the electoral college, and VP running mates. 2nd place is VP. Just like the good ole days.

 

[Morality Games]

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.

 

[wolfman24]

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.

 

[haymarket]

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.

 

[jamesrage]

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.

 

[Cameron]

My sole concern with ending the electoral college is that it could make elections 10x as expensive as they already are. Money already seems to determine the outcome of these things.

 

[Fisher]

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?

The 7 swing states this election may not be the 7 swing states next election. The non-swing states numbers are already in the math, but that does not mean they do not matter. If CA were to come into play, there would be 1 swing state. IMO if there were no EC, rural areas wouldn't even have paved roads or electricity because all the money would be spent on disco balls and naked firemen in Miami, New York, San Fransisco, and all the other big liberal cities who are freaking clueless as to what life outside their bubble is like.

 

[wolfman24]

My sole concern with ending the electoral college is that it could make elections 10x as expensive as they already are. Money already seems to determine the outcome of these things.

If you take private money out then it won't. Heres a thought. Anyone who fills out a 1040 and owes taxes or gets a refund will be required to pay $1 in campaign funds automatically. I am assuming here but that should come to about 200 or so million dollars per year. (SWAG).
That money would be distributed to any party who has enough registered members to be on a national ticket and maybe state tickets too. The money would be divided according to a formula or perhaps equally. I don't know.

In any event this money comes in every year. That would be enough to take care of most of not all campaigns. Problem?

 

[Cephus]

Eliminate the electoral college, and VP running mates. 2nd place is VP. Just like the good ole days.

The only problem with that is you run into people who would gladly kill the president so their guy could take over.

 

[Cephus]

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.

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?

 

[PrometheusBound]

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?

You've mixed up two issues: the representation of less populous states and the winner-take-all assignment of each state's electoral vote.

 

[H. Lee White]

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?

The President does not represent the people in our government - which explains, in part, why the people neither elect him nor a right to vote for him.
The President is the President of the United States, not the People if the United States, and thus the states rightly determine who hold that office.

 

[straykatz]

I don't know ....still trying to understand it's purpose and why it exists.....what I do know is that it frustrates me that 7 states seem to have the deciding factor election after election.

 

[rathi]

If you are going to replace the electoral college, you might as well introduce a voting system like third party.

The electoral college means that all the money and attention goes to swing states, namely Florida Ohio and Virginia. Its absurd to claim that small states would ignored if we removed the electoral college when they are already being ignored with the current system. Insanely stupid policies like the embargo with Cuba exist precisely because Florida has disproportionate power over our elections. No system of voting is perfect, but our current one sucks and should be replaced with something better.

 

[roughdraft274]

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.

They are already able to do this. California gets 50-something votes while Nebraska gets 2. If you were arguing for a system where each state got equal votes you'd be on the right track.

 

[Smeagol]

Its worth considering IMHO. I think we'd also need a runoff system so the President has at least 50% plus 1 vote. And since US citizenship will become the new prerequisite to vote for President and not state citizenship; Puerto Ricans, Virgin Islanders, Guam citizens and American Samoans would get the right to vote for POTUS, something they've wanted for a while.

On the downside, we'd still have "irrelevant" parts of the country as nearly all the focus could be on reaching major metropolitan areas who's values and concerns are often sharply different than rural America.

Direct elections does seem for fair however; one man, one vote.

 

[Gina]

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.

Every single vote counts now.

 

[Gina]

They are already able to do this. California gets 50-something votes while Nebraska gets 2. If you were arguing for a system where each state got equal votes you'd be on the right track.

Only California and 19 others would count and the candidates wouldn't be visiting New Hampshire, or Iowa.

 

[AGENT J]

Only California and 19 others would count and the candidates wouldn't be visiting New Hampshire, or Iowa.

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

 

[joko104]

I left off another discussed alternative of the President being selected by the members of the House of Representatives of Congress. This would be indirect democracy but on a nationwide basis. Many countries have such a system.