Should the President be elected by direct popular vote, or the current electoral college system (winner take all in each state)? (UserQ)
We are a republic not a democracy know the difference! When you do you will fight to keep our republic with your dying breath!
A straight democracy can take your kids, property, and make you do things you don't want to do. A republic is a rule by law not majority rule. In a straight democracy their would be know civil rights no protection of property and no illegal search of your house. No one want a straight democracy.
With out the elector collage candidates will only campaign in big city's. State interests would no longer be importuned to presidential politics. This is why are founding fathers came up with the elector collage and the whole system. We are a republic not a straight democracy.
Well, despite being in CA, I stick by the ECollege. The US is diverse and it seems right to give the Dakotas and such a little more pull. Of course, that's what the Senate's for. Besides do we really want to amend the Constitution right now?
Thank goodness or we'd have a mexican president by now.
Seriously, if 90% of the population lived in one state, why would they only get a fraction of the sway? People are people. I don't care what state they're from
@dales. More people=more votes. Deal with it. It's perfectly fair. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can take away their votes.
Furthermore if you look at presidential election maps the heart of US and SouthEast is usually red and number of red states far exceeds blue states, but total popular vote is closer because of blue heavy populated few states.
I don't want heavy populated left wing states like CA, NY, NJ and north east given extra power and telling me how to live in South East.
@tristanb: why is a popular vote like anarchy?
@cokeaddict- that's true about bush vs gore, but I don't know if would wholeheartedly trust the opinion of someone with a username like yours, unless of course you're referencing soda. No offense.
Until every state requires proof of citizenship to vote it should be by electoral college.
I vote but I feel as if my vote doesn't count because the electoral college gets final say.
I dont think anyone knows what the electoral system is, popular vote would be anarchy and only the big cities and states would get a say in the vote
notice that about 40% of GOPers have a clue what this means for their partisan efforts.
You popularity folks do realize that a popular vote is next to anarchy. We are a republic form of government for a reason.
Wait are people saying they don't trust the uneducated masses because they think there is an electoral COLLEGE? lmao
What a puss. Biden’s crew had to file a complaint with the Senate press gallery over the confrontation he had with that journalist from Human Events.
For the sake of argument, let's just say that 90% of the people live in urban areas. Please explain to me why they shouldn't get 90% of the sway.
I believe electoral college was created out of necessity to keep all states interested in being part of the soon-to-be created United States. Some states believed they would get no say in things without it. I can see how it played a major role then, but now it seems to just undercut the popular will
@kandy, it didnt work in the bush vs gore election, bush lost the popular vote and won the electoral which shouldnt ever happen, its a dumb system. Its original purpose was to ease communication of what states had voted as. Its outdated
Electoral is more traditional and interesting
The electoral system is just much more hard to follow, personally, but I'm not an expert, and it's worked for 200+ yrs, so I suppose it's fine.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant (Obama)could manipulate public opinion (through Acorn) and come to power.
Adam377: Not all of the votes are counted now? Really? Where are you getting your information?
should stay as intended. fine for 200+ years. one word... ACORN!
With all the people that vote it would take way too long to count every vote from every person.
Loaded question. Think back to 2000 and really think about this question. Is DC today really a government for and by the people?
The Electoral College system gives greater representation to the states with a smaller population. Is this really fair?
Ugh, results are in, electoral college won overwhelmingly against us.
True the political divide means solid states get ignored, but in a pop vote scenario I think it would probably be exacerbated. Furthermore as populations move and change solid states can become swing states. Texas wasn't always solid and FL use to be solid.
technically we already elect by pop vote since the electoral votes are decided by the pop vote of the states. The number of electors is based on population. Which I think is an great way of keeping up with shifting populations. Of the 54 elections we've had, only 4 have come into question.
If anything, this system DISCOURAGES a candidate from campaigning to all people.
Is Obama really going to spend just as much tile campaigning in Texas (a state he will never win) as say…Florida? No!
25% of the popular vote is all that is needed to get the majority of the electoral vote.
An Obama supporter's vote will NEVER count at all in Texas. Or Romney in California.
It is an EXTREMELY flawed system. Let the people choose their leaders.
How can anyone be for the electoral college? The sole argument for it is that campaigns will be centered around population hubs. How does that change under the electoral system? Candidates campaign to the massive cities. Just because it is at a state and not national level makes no difference.
It should remain by electoral college to prevent against widespread voter fraud, to keep the emphasis on the state as a whole rather than just a few big cities, and to minimize the affects of state/local elections on the nation as a whole.
How we are doing it now is just fine. :)
I am willing to listen to reasons it should be otherwise though
It really should be popular, because in the current electoral system, if you live in a different color state than you, you're screwed because your vote has no worth.
I don't care if it's Obama, Jesus, or Joe Schmo. All elections need to be decided on the basis of a popular vote, not electoral votes.
@LuTang Actually the housing crises started in 90's when the government mandated banks make sub prime loans. It just didn't become a problem until 2000's.
Yah FlaPilot learn a little that the democrats didnt have control until jan 2009...roflmao
Anyone elected in 2008 didn't start serving until 2009. The housing crisis was early to mid 2008 before the elections.
crossfire, when did it all start to go bad?? 2008 maybe?? and what happened in 2008 that may have perpetuated that?? liberals taking over Congress....that spends money perhaps?? open your minds liberals and learn a little!!
Also, those saying a dictator is elected by popular vote,... How many examples did said dictator get elected by popular vote when there was a term limit?
Regardless of what kind of vote system, it can be ruled by ignorant people. There's plenty around.
Why does urban vs non urban even matter? Why be penalized for living where more people are? Why does that make sense? 1 person, 1 vote. Maybe electoral college protects from a Hugo Chavez or something like that, but shouldn't a people be responsible for their vote as opposed to a politician?
I don't trust the uneducated masses. That said, I don't trust the politicians either. Oh well. I like it here all the same. Better than lots of other places. And I count myself as lucky to be here
I wonder who would have been President after Gore if we used the popular vote. Obama won partly out of Bush hatred, so I wonder who would be our president now. I'll bet McCain. Hopefully without Palin though as VP