Show of HandsShow of Hands

veritas1 July 2nd, 2013 5:28pm

Should the current electoral college system be replaced by a popular vote in presidential elections?

22 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Bait30
07/02/13 10:37 pm

The US is actually against the Electoral College. When helping set up the govt. of developing democracies, we make sure they use popular vote.

thelowend imitation is flattery
07/02/13 7:09 pm

a population density filter of the United States should answer this question in a second. anyone that votes popular vote is better should probably take a closer look....

Reply
lesil Colorado
07/02/13 6:41 pm

Now that we have computers, I think popular vote would be more representative of the people.

lesil Colorado
07/02/13 6:47 pm

The whole reason we have an electoral college is because originally, getting and counting every single vote was practically impossible. Then we got cars and computers, so we really have no need for it any more.

redwolf thisisavalidlocation
07/02/13 4:37 pm

Those that said "yes" don't understand the reason that the electoral college is in place

Reply
skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 4:43 pm

I do, I just think a popular vote would be more in line with our goals as a nation

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 4:53 pm

I agree redwolf. I believe the electoral college system is best for our country. Only downside really is that it enforces a 2 party system.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 4:55 pm

And that it makes my vote worthless.

skacey best poll is evenly split
07/03/13 7:23 am

That is a baseless accusation not backed up by facts. This is otherwise know as an ad hominem argument and is logically invalid.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/03/13 7:28 am

Oh you're right... I just ran out of space type my dissertation.

skinner Jersey City
07/03/13 7:33 am

Who are you talking to skacey

skacey best poll is evenly split
07/04/13 9:13 am

Redwolf started off with an ad hominem attack

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 3:38 pm

The electoral college works. Maybe states need to rethink the winner take all strategy.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/02/13 3:36 pm

The electoral college prevents small states' needs from becoming meaningless.

Reply
skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 4:42 pm

The people are more important than the state's.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/02/13 4:45 pm

States are people. The geography doesn't vote.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 4:56 pm

States are not people, give me a SCOTUS document, Constitutional reference, or even a revolutionary pamphlet declaring that to be true.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/02/13 4:59 pm

I just gave you everything you need. A state is just a group of people, organized by geography.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:01 pm

A state is not a person, I am a person, but because I live in Massachusetts if I voted for Romney my vote won't count.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/02/13 5:04 pm

Immaterial. The fact remains that the Electoral College system protects the rights of people living in small states.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:08 pm

Not really, as a republican in a small smurf state I am not represented.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/02/13 5:24 pm

Small referring to population, not geography, again. Your complaint is that you are a Republican on a coast, outnumbered and feeling ignored. My point is that everyone between Illinois and Idaho can be ignored in policy making, with direct election.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:33 pm

Elaborate please, I don't know how that could be true

skacey best poll is evenly split
07/03/13 7:26 am

In the last several elections, the decision was made by a handful of swing states. Unless you live in one of those states, your vote didn't count unless you agree with most of your neighbors.

Vincere Seattle
07/02/13 3:03 pm

I think that's the fastest I've ever clicked "yes" on any question.

Reply
BeachSt Coastal Virginia
07/02/13 2:25 pm

I don't care either way. Electoral college was set up in a sneaky way, but at least it's not that plan the republican governors were conjuring up after 2012. Votes by congressional districts.

Reply
skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 2:24 pm

Yes most definitely; it is the most democratic way of doing things,

Reply
PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 3:36 pm

We aren't a pure democracy, nor should we be

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 4:42 pm

We should be a direct democracy, the people of this nation should be able to express themselves to the full extent of the law.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 4:49 pm

A good number of people couldn't pick the vice-president out of a line up. Do you really think people are that informed?

I'd be hesitant to ever live in a mob rules society.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 4:54 pm

The you belong in China, pick one democracy or autocracy.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:08 pm

I think you need to read up on issues of pure democracy to understand why our system was set up as a federal democratic republic.

And just a hint... Most communist countries started as a "democratic" revolution.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:12 pm

It's a democratic revolution over totally different principals. If you think popular vote and communism are in anyway connected you need to retake government class. I know why some people dislike it but the current system is not free.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:12 pm

I'd rather live in a system in which the village idiot is included than the big government nation we currently reside in.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:21 pm

Communism is inherently tied to democracy.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:24 pm

Also our problems of an oversized federal government are tied to the decline in states' rights over the last 120 years. It isn't who rules, it's that it's too centralized and distant from the people. Government starts at the local level.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:24 pm

Communism is an economic system, if you are a direct democracy you are not necessarily communist, that is a simple assertion.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:35 pm

Communism is a socioeconomic philosophy that seeks an egalitarian classless society. Democracy is therefore a large part of that vision.

Communism is NOT an economic system, however when put into practice it turns into a centrally planned economy.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:40 pm

And I'm not arguing that if you believe in direct democracy you believe in communism. I was just saying that communism is associated with pure democracy when "you no longer own this, it is owned by the PEOPLE" mob rule takes over.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:48 pm

It really depends on what type of communism we are talking about. Are you comparing eliminating private property and eliminating the EC??? You say "mob rule" like its some kind of sin to count people's votes.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:53 pm

No, I'm saying eliminating the EC gets rid of states rights. I was trying to highlight issues of democracy when talking about mob rule. While I don't think our govt would nationalize companies based on public opinion, I do think...

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:57 pm

I do think we are seeing the "free lunch" problems of democracy where politicians "buying" votes with programs... Aka people should vote for me since I gave them Medicare part D/free healthcare/etc... Instead of what's best for our country.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:59 pm

How does it destroy states rights?
If we are debating direct democracy: the constitution would stop people from nationalizing businesses
If we are talking about EC: its just a corrupt system that perpetuates the two party system.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 6:01 pm

I also see the benefits as a problem, but the reason people want them are because politicians have figured out the system and are tempting them with it. In order to stop them from destroying our democracy we need to adapt.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 6:09 pm

How would it stop them? They own/owned General Motors?

The adaptation to fix the problem of democracy was the Constitution.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 6:14 pm

I don't think I understand what you just said.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 6:15 pm

Although now we have a problem of the two party system. How we fix that I have no idea... the problem would be getting rid of it since it is purposefully been built into our laws over 200 year. Then how would we keep it that way when they're gone...

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 6:19 pm

I was saying how would the Constitution stop them. Most would just ignore it, but our interpretation of the commerce clause is so broad now it wouldn't stop them.

We've already had the government owning GM... Not nationalizing but similar.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 7:05 pm

SCOTUS would stop them, there are checks and balances.if it makes you feel any better the Feds sold a big part of GM to a Chinese company. EC protects the two party system, eliminate that and it would make significant progress toward a 3 party system

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 7:10 pm

Eliminating the electoral college and moving toward a national presidential election would solve none of those problems. Getting rid of the two party system is very complicated. Also I already outlined why the EC is like it is...

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 7:27 pm

The facts are EC is a tool of the two party system.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 1:31 pm

This is a horrible idea. If you did that, then you would disenfranchise rural America. There would be no swing states and therefore politicians would only campaign to major cities. It's not the way this country was founded and it was for a reason!!!

Reply
veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 1:38 pm

That made no sense. You admit candidates are currently only campaigning in swing states, ignoring the rest of the country. And cities only about for 1 in 6 votes so that claim is manifestly false.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 2:26 pm

Flick: I live in a semi rural area, it's not that hard to go to the city and see a speech if you really want to.

redwolf thisisavalidlocation
07/02/13 4:39 pm

A semi-rural area is much different than a rural area. You are maybe an hour from Boston. Texas is much bigger than Mass. They could be hours from the nearest big city.

redwolf thisisavalidlocation
07/02/13 4:40 pm

And veritas, it made sense in the sense that the needs of small states and areas other than major cities would be disregarded. As of now, cities still get the attention of politicians even though they may not campaign there because they still need

redwolf thisisavalidlocation
07/02/13 4:41 pm

The votes. Without the EC, campaigners wouldn't need the support of farmers and rural areas, and they would be much more willing to screw them over.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 4:57 pm

This conversation is all wrong. The system was set up to protect individual state's rights. The state governments are technically deciding how the electoral votes are cast.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 4:59 pm

JGB: yeah that's exactly the way it was set up. It's right there in the preamble to the Constitution:
"We the States"
Oh... Wait, it's not.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:18 pm

It doesn't say that but the states' rights is a huge basis of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the articles of confederation (that failed since it left the federal govt powerless). You know originally Senators were state chosen right?

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:21 pm

They still are chosen by the state, just by all the people and not a small oligarchy.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:27 pm

It was up to the state legislature, which was chosen by the people. However that Senator would have been more interested in protecting the state level government's authority if chosen by the state legislature.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:34 pm

They would have been more interested in protecting the state legislatures special interest groups. The job of senator was notoriously corrupt which is why they changed the law with an amendment

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 5:42 pm

And it's gotten better? Politicians now win elections by convincing 51% they can get a free lunch on the backs of the 49%.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 5:49 pm

Which is why we need more democratic reform.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 6:39 pm

HAHAHAHA!!! More democratic reform??? Government is not the answer. It never has been. Our Founders saw government as a necessary evil, that's why they established the Constitution in such a way to limit what it could do. Read our Founding....

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 6:40 pm

Documents and you will see that. It's limited government. I never saw a Democrat win 49 states in 1984....

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 6:43 pm

Flick: i don't mean democratic reform as in the democratic party. I agree government is not the answer that's why I want to reduce the reach of government by initiating a popular vote.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 6:46 pm

Okay, well you're still wrong. We're not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 6:51 pm

Okay, that doesn't mean we are forced to have a corrupted electoral college.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 6:53 pm

And how is the electoral college corrupted? They vote based on popular vote from each state.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 6:58 pm

Just so we're clear... You're vote for president is statistically insignificant either way. It is literally impossible for 1 vote to decide a national election.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 7:01 pm

The two party system ruins it. It creates an EC that only represents certain states. It does not adequately represent the will of the people. EC leads to gerrymandering. EC forces a two party system and the integrity of the electors is questionable.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 7:02 pm

JBG: But right now it counts for 0. I want it to count for 1.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 7:03 pm

And out Founders established a two party system because any additional parties would add corruption and complicate the system.
And yes, your vote does matter. It matters more than you know.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 7:06 pm

Flick... Whoa, not true in the least bit.

Skinner, Id suggest you read up on the constitution, the federalist papers and such and then you'll understand why it is how it is.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 7:09 pm

Flick: that's not true Washington hated all political parties and heavily warned against them in his farewell address.
www.original-republican.com/george-washington-on-the-danger-of-political-parties/

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 7:11 pm

Yes it is true JGB. Look at 2012 as a perfect example. People didn't show up to vote and we ended up with 4 more years of Obama. Another example is 1992 where a third party played a major role. Without Perot, Bush would have won a second term.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 7:13 pm

Skinner I'm well aware if Washington's views. He wasn't our only Founder. He was a part of a team of people who formed this country.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 7:14 pm

No, originally there were supposed to be no political parties. Political parties developed mostly out of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates/issues between Jefferson and Hamilton.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 7:20 pm

I know. It was determined that political parties were inevitable. Also a necessary evil that couldn't be omitted.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 7:25 pm

Good Lord... I'm done with this debate.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 7:27 pm

It wasn't determined by any individual. It was, as you said, started by the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 7:29 pm

Skinner, I think you're well intentioned but I don't think a popular vote is "the fix" and the founders discussed why.

The parliamentary system would actually be better for a popular vote with runoffs requiring >50% majority and getting 3rd...

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 7:29 pm

Flick: then no one ever determined them to be a necessary evil.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 7:30 pm

Our system of government did. You can't have a nation run by the people without parties because not everyone has the same ideologies.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
07/02/13 7:31 pm

parties involved but that would be a complete revisioning of our government and scraping the structure of our government part of the Constitution. That's a bigger debate.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 7:34 pm

No, political parties are bad, they control individual representatives and make it harder for them to represent their constituents. Even if parties were necessary their should be more than two.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 7:37 pm

Skinner, parties are not a good thing, but they are necessary. Having more of a bad thing will only complicate and corrupt the system.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 7:42 pm

I disagree competition has always proven to be a good thing, while oligopolies are horrific.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/02/13 7:56 pm

We're talking about government.... Not private industries. You can't make it work that way.

skinner Jersey City
07/02/13 8:22 pm

Those same principals can apply to government

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
07/03/13 5:07 am

No they can't.... Industries are supposed to grow, government is not. Government and industry are supposed to be opposites.

skinner Jersey City
07/03/13 5:10 am

The government will not grow by establishing a third party or destroying the EC, in fact it is liable to shrink.

TomM
07/02/13 11:28 am

Popular vote has issues too, it may work for a president, but for congress I don't like it. I can only really speak for Denmark but I'm quite sure it applies to other countries too. Through popular vote a candidate with appeal to a very small ...

TomM
07/02/13 11:30 am

..group can be elected. You end up with a parliament with many small unique interest groups. Forming a government or governing in general can be difficult. Examples Israel.

veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 11:33 am

You can't get elected president that way. For congress, proportional representation is the best way, IMO.

TomM
07/02/13 11:41 am

I like the winner takes it all, it forces a candidate to appeal to everyone in the district. I like Kay's suggestion splitting into more districts. Big states like TX or CA, it seems unfair they each are one district.

veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 11:48 am

What's the goal of that, though? 1) less gerrymandering and 2) making votes more equal. The popular vote ELIMINATES gerrymandering and completely equalizes everyone's vote so that citizens from Wyoming's votes aren't worth 5x as much as Californians'

Kay41 the Midwest
07/02/13 10:45 am

I think the electoral college does what it's original purpose was. However, I wish it were not a "winner take all" vote for the state. It seems more fair for the votes to be cast per congressional areas.

Reply
TomM
07/02/13 11:10 am

For my understanding...
You are suggesting that instead of winner takes it all in each of the 50 states, there are 435 districts?

Kay41 the Midwest
07/02/13 11:18 am

What I mean is that Illinois has 20 electoral votes. It would be more fair to distribute those based on percentage of the popular vote of the state.

Kay41 the Midwest
07/02/13 11:22 am

Although 435 districts would accomplish the same thing.

veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 11:23 am

@kay If the goal is to make everyone's vote worth the same, the popular vote is by far the fairest.

Kay41 the Midwest
07/02/13 11:34 am

I actually agree with you Veritas to an extent. But, I think an overhaul of the electoral system would happen before its complete elimination.

palindrome California
07/02/13 11:36 am

That's extremely dangerous. The possibility of abuse ( eg gerrymandering ) is far too great.

Kay41 the Midwest
07/02/13 11:53 am

You might be right. Gerrymandering could be a problem with too many districts. But, I don't think it would be a problem if they were distributed by popular state vote.

Mattiga14 Massachusetts
07/02/13 10:41 am

It would also prevent gerrymandering. And give people a say in states that don't vote their way, ( republican in Massachusetts, democrat in the south etc.)

Reply
TomM
07/02/13 11:12 am

Gerrymandering is for the house seats. I don't think the poll suggest changing that. Or am I getting your comment wrong?

Mattiga14 Massachusetts
07/02/13 11:18 am

Yea, you are right. Latter half still applies

Mattiga14 Massachusetts
07/02/13 10:37 am

If it did change we wouldn't hear as much complaining about voter fraud.

ZiggySpringer Fields of Trenzalore
07/02/13 10:36 am

The electoral college was made for a reason. It forces the candidates to campaign everywhere. If it was popular vote the candidates would campaign along the east coast and California. They wouldn't even care about small population density areas.

Reply
Mattiga14 Massachusetts
07/02/13 10:44 am

Candidates don't go everywhere. The candidates were in in swing states like Ohio. Obama didn't really need to go to California or Massachusetts. Romney didn't need to go to Texas or Alabama.

veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 10:55 am

55% of all campaign visits and spending by the Obama and Romney camps during the last 3 months before the election were spent in FOUR states. Clearly if what you're saying was the goal of the EC, it has failed spectacularly.

ZiggySpringer Fields of Trenzalore
07/02/13 10:57 am

Ok not everywhere but it still "forces" them to campaign in more areas and in rural areas. No one area holds a vast majority of the electoral votes. There were several swing states instead of them campaigning just along the upper east coast.

veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 10:58 am

They can't just campaign in cities if that's what you're saying. The 100 most populous cities combined only make up less than 20% of the total population.

ZiggySpringer Fields of Trenzalore
07/02/13 11:18 am

That is a population density map which shows where the candidates would campaign.

veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 11:21 am

But those spikes are still less than 20% of the total pop. Besides, under the EC, you only need to win 25% of the popular vote to win the election. Campaigning just in cities wouldn't for the pop vote, and it's still better than the current system.

ZiggySpringer Fields of Trenzalore
07/02/13 11:31 am

They may account for less than 20% of the population, but why would they campaign outside of those spikes since if they campaigned other places there would only be 5% of the population? Since all states get three guaranteed votes in the college and

ZiggySpringer Fields of Trenzalore
07/02/13 11:34 am

they just get more from population it gives a disproportionate power to the smaller states giving the candidates more incentive to campaign there than if it was popular vote they would have far less incentive to campaign there.

veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 11:50 am

Before I even address that, the current system is self-evidently far worse. Only 18 states received visits AT ALL during that time period.And I don't understand how the fact that Obama visited your city makes everyone much more likely to vote for him

ZiggySpringer Fields of Trenzalore
07/02/13 12:30 pm

I think campaigning doesn't just involve visits. During a presidents first term with the popular vote system, if they are trying for reelection, why would they do anything to help Wyoming? or anything that would help rural areas?

ZiggySpringer Fields of Trenzalore
07/02/13 12:31 pm

Or urban areas if there are more people in rural areas.

suppressedID destiny is right now
07/02/13 10:32 am

Say NO to the Tyranny of the Masses.

Don't start questioning the checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers now.

veritas1 Panda
07/02/13 10:54 am

The masses aren't the ones deciding in the current system?