The Electoral College

[hotatlboi]

I don't understand why a popular vote would lead to "mob rule" or tyranny of the populous states over the rest. What is the difference between "mob rule" and the present system, when according to wikipedia there were only three elections (1876, 1888 and 2000) where the loser of the popular vote became president?

And how would the populous states lord over the other states, when you have a senate, strong states who have power over a large range of issues and a constitution that protects state-rights and can only be amended by a majority of states? Disregarding the fact that we just discovered that the president has only limited amount of control over the legislative agenda, even when his own party controls congress.

And lastly, even if for example Pennsylvania would suddenly stop being a pretty evenly divided state and go all out for a single candidate in collusion with other populous states, what is the difference between a tyranny of the populous states and the tyranny of the swing-states?

It's a completely nonsensical argument when the current system is demonstrably worse. As it is a very small minority of "swing states" get all the focus and attention and pandering, when a majority of populous AND less populous states are ignored.

 

[rareboy]

And of course, up here in Canuckistan, we wonder why the electoral college exists at all.

Except that we also can can have a government elected without getting the majority popular vote.

I mean. What the Fuck?

 

[bankside]

And of course, up here in Canuckistan, we wonder why the electoral college exists at all.

Except that we also can can have a government elected without getting the majority popular vote.

I mean. What the Fuck?

The difference is that a government elected here with a minority is held accountable by the rest of Parliament who hold the power of the majority, in the aggregate.

 

[Benvolio]

If we are going to amend the Constitution, we should move to a parliamentary system, with the primier elected from the House or Congress. The election of a president requires talents quite different than governing. Federal experience is a negative because it involves past compromises to live down. A fresh new face with little experience has an advantage. Running is so difficult, the best people usually do not run. The cost of running for president increases enormously each time, and it takes more than a year.
Our system often result in gridlock, which does not often happen if the primier is elected from the parliament, and he can be changed when he is not working out.

 

[hotatlboi]

If we are going to amend the Constitution, we should move to a parliamentary system, with the primier elected from the House or Congress. The election of a president requires talents quite different than governing. Federal experience is a negative because it involves past compromises to live down. A fresh new face with little experience has an advantage. Running is so difficult, the best people usually do not run. The cost of running for president increases enormously each time, and it takes more than a year.
Our system often result in gridlock, which does not often happen if the primier is elected from the parliament, and he can be changed when he is not working out.

I agree that we should have shorter elections.

The fact that it takes a billion dollars to be elected president excludes the vast majority of competent and qualified people.

 

[JayHawk]

Any change would ultimately die at the alter of State's rights. The current system allows for a voter to cast their vote along with the other legal residents of their state. That is where their rights exist. No smaller state will allow for a populous vote applied directly to the Federal level because it would invalidate a good deal of their power. The electoral college is why a state like Idaho has just as much a seat at the table as New York or California or Texas even...

Someone mentioned earlier that we are using an outdated system to rule ourselves like the states are the EU. It seems to me that is the reason we work out well. Why a rural state like Oklahoma still feels obliged to be a part of the system because they own their rights at the state level and they are just as important on so many levels as a large eastern state. Between the Senate and the Electoral college I believe it is fair representation.

So really the argument comes down to whether you like the idea of state rights or you think it should be centralized in a federal system. I think too many things have been federalized already. Killing the electoral college is not the way to fix the undue influence wealth has in our system. In fact it would result in the opposite or MORE influence by the powerful over the weak.

 

[hotatlboi]

Any change would ultimately die at the alter of State's rights. The current system allows for a voter to cast their vote along with the other legal residents of their state. That is where their rights exist. No smaller state will allow for a populous vote applied directly to the Federal level because it would invalidate a good deal of their power. The electoral college is why a state like Idaho has just as much a seat at the table as New York or California or Texas even...

Someone mentioned earlier that we are using an outdated system to rule ourselves like the states are the EU. It seems to me that is the reason we work out well. Why a rural state like Oklahoma still feels obliged to be a part of the system because they own their rights at the state level and they are just as important on so many levels as a large eastern state. Between the Senate and the Electoral college I believe it is fair representation.

So really the argument comes down to whether you like the idea of state rights or you think it should be centralized in a federal system. I think too many things have been federalized already. Killing the electoral college is not the way to fix the undue influence wealth has in our system. In fact it would result in the opposite or MORE influence by the powerful over the weak.

Utter nonsense. Popular vote for president doesn't mean the end of state's rights. States would still have jurisdiction over what they have today. The only difference is that EVERYONE's vote would count in a federal election, regardless of where they lived.

If I vote for Obama in Georgia (where I live), my vote means nothing, zero, as long as this is a red state.

It also means that every state would get paid attention to since both candidates could pick up votes in every state, not just a few "swing states" like it currently is, where all the others are already decided before any votes are even cast due to the state demographics.

 

[JayHawk]

That is of course your opinion. I stand by my statement. You will never see it in your life time no matter how many nonsensical arguments are made for a federalist system.

 

[hotatlboi]

That is of course your opinion. I stand by my statement. You will never see it in your life time no matter how many nonsensical arguments are made for a federalist system.

My argument is not nonsensical, and that may be your opinion but I don't necessarily agree. If enough people want it things can change. Half the needed electoral votes for the national popular vote interstate compact have already been secured by its passage in 9 states.

 

[JayHawk]

Yeah I read that above too but didn't see a cite... which nine states?

I used to believe what you believe because it seems that simple but it is not.

Right now what color are the Battleground states?

Where would Candidates spend their time if not for that electoral requirement.

Oh and the only reason I say your argument is nonsensical is because my argument is described by you as utter nonsense. Both clearly wrong assumptions simply because someone disagrees with your opinion. So why don't we both do discourse a favor and just throw out our insulting descriptions and leave the characterizations to inside... you know:

"....but keep it all in side."

 

[hotatlboi]

Oh and the only reason I say your argument is nonsensical is because my argument is described by you as utter nonsense. Both clearly wrong assumptions simply because someone disagrees with your opinion. So why don't we both do discourse a favor and just throw out our insulting descriptions and leave the characterizations to inside... you know:

Touché, and you're right, let's do that.

Yeah I read that above too but didn't see a cite... which nine states?

CA,VT,MD,WA,IL,NJ,DC,MA,HI
National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

Right now what color are the Battleground states?

Where would Candidates spend their time if not for that electoral requirement.

They would be spending time in more than just those states. That's why I say the argument that "small states would get ignored with a popular vote and that would be bad" doesn't make sense. The way it is now most small AND large states get ignored.

 

[JayHawk]

I dunno many small states get exposure during the primary process and the sitting candidate really doesn't need a local platform to lay out his intentions. Right now the swing states offer a great contrast in composition and thereby expose many different facets of each candidate. I mean lets face it New York is gonna vote lib and Texas is going red. Never will the two be swing states in our life time. SO those people may not have a the power to make a popular vote for Obama BUT they do get to work hard to try and motivate the electorate.

The list of states allowing for a popular vote seems a direct convulsion related to dummy beating the impersonal one since they all appear BLUE. Look at the population in the Midwest and the lean of most states.. DO you ever see them giving up their electoral power? SP perhaps they will flip a few states and get there but not based off of outrage from several years ago.

I just think the candidates for what they are get a fair shake down in the system we have. The problem is the system of TWO parties controlled by one group of financiers. The real way forward for this country is to leave the electoral college alone and develop a third party that is without corporate influence. The only way for that to happen is a populist party that embodies ideas of the people. The same kind of party that could have come about had the 99% not tossed their leverage into the wind.

 

[hotatlboi]

I dunno many small states get exposure during the primary process

We can leave the primary process as is, I just want the general election to be popular vote.

Right now the swing states offer a great contrast in composition and thereby expose many different facets of each candidate.

Again, not as much as if the candidates had to play in all the states.

The list of states allowing for a popular vote seems a direct convulsion related to dummy beating the impersonal one since they all appear BLUE.

That may be the case, I didn't look at when each state passed it.

Look at the population in the Midwest and the lean of most states.. DO you ever see them giving up their electoral power? SP perhaps they will flip a few states and get there but not based off of outrage from several years ago.

Perhaps it will take a Republican losing the electoral college while winning the popular vote.

I just think the candidates for what they are get a fair shake down in the system we have. The problem is the system of TWO parties controlled by one group of financiers. The real way forward for this country is to leave the electoral college alone and develop a third party that is without corporate influence. The only way for that to happen is a populist party that embodies ideas of the people. The same kind of party that could have come about had the 99% not tossed their leverage into the wind.

My beef is not that the candidates don't get a shake down. It's that your vote does not count at all if you do not vote with the majority in your state.

 

[JayHawk]

But what gives you the right to elect the President? Where do all of your personal rights come from?

There is the Declaration , the constitution and the bill of rights. However for everything you call valuable where does your power come from? Your property rights = your state, your legal residency = your state, your marriage license (i know you cant) = your state, your benefits are derived often from how your state decides things. Like it or not because of where you choose to live you cast your lot with that state. So if they are not your people then perhaps you should find another group of people who better represent you. You are lumped with those people around you whether you like it or not and that i am afraid will not change. I should say rather that the state control over Federal issues is not likely to change.

 

[JayHawk]

I have been in many of them too and understand many of the difference. I serve the federal government as a representative from (originally) the State of Ohio BUT for many reason I changed that to Tennessee. I keep my state rights the entire time I serve.

It is how I think it should be.

 

[hotatlboi]

But what gives you the right to elect the President?

The simple basic principle that everyone's vote should count.

Where do all of your personal rights come from?

There is the Declaration , the constitution and the bill of rights. However for everything you call valuable where does your power come from? Your property rights = your state, your legal residency = your state, your marriage license (i know you cant) = your state, your benefits are derived often from how your state decides things.

And in state elections, or determining those things on a state level, my vote does count so I can influence those types of policies. In the presidential election, it doesn't.

Like it or not because of where you choose to live you cast your lot with that state. So if they are not your people then perhaps you should find another group of people who better represent you.

So everyone should segregate themselves into pockets of civilization where we all agree? I don't really see that as a beneficial change.

 

[bort138]

I just think the candidates for what they are get a fair shake down in the system we have. The problem is the system of TWO parties controlled by one group of financiers. The real way forward for this country is to leave the electoral college alone and develop a third party that is without corporate influence. The only way for that to happen is a populist party that embodies ideas of the people. The same kind of party that could have come about had the 99% not tossed their leverage into the wind.

The electoral college actually favors the two party system and makes it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to receive any electoral votes. Unless a third party can win the majority in an entire state it doesn't even matter how many popular votes they get. In the 1992 election Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote yet received 0 electoral votes. The only way a new party will ever have a chance in the two party system is to replace one of the two major parties. If you are tired of having to choose between the same two parties every year, the electoral college needs to go.

 

[hotatlboi]

The electoral college actually favors the two party system and makes it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to receive any electoral votes. Unless a third party can win the majority in an entire state it doesn't even matter how many popular votes they get. In the 1992 election Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote yet received 0 electoral votes. The only way a new party will ever have a chance in the two party system is to replace one of the two major parties. If you are tired of having to choose between the same two parties every year, the electoral college needs to go.

Another excellent point. The plurality winner take all model makes third parties completely irrelevant.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Go to a National Vote, and the data is still there to verify how the vote played out in all 50 states plus District of Columbia.

The arguments against the National Vote — that elections would be won by claiming at least 12 of the Top 15 states — is not recognizing that all states do not vote the same. Charlie Cook's PVI assigned to each one is just recognizing how much more red or blue a state voted, in the last cycle, compared to the national. (How many more points.)

In the last ten elections (1972 through 2008), only Ohio voted for all winners. States that went nine for ten are as follows (with year it did not side with winner in parenthesis): Arkansas (2008), Florida (1992), Kentucky (2008), Louisiana (2008), Missouri (2008), Nevada (1976), Tennessee (2008). Some credit can go to New Mexico, which votes like Nevada and was also "wrong" in 1976 but sided with the popular-vote winners of both 2000 (Al Gore) and 2004 (George W. Bush). Along with Iowa, N.M. was one of just two states with that outcome.

With the exceptions of John Kennedy (1960) and Jimmy Carter (1976), all presidential winners in the last 56 cycles carried more than half the available states anyway. No one should really believe, with a National Vote (and available data for state-by-state results), that the winner of more raw votes is going to carry only between, say, 12 and 18 states.

And the example of Georgia is a fine one. But an example of any state, which is decisively a partisan advantage for one party over the other, also makes for a fine argument for the National Vote.

 

[evanrick]

i am convinced the federalists fucked our country from the get-go. fucking conservatives.