Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Electoral College vs. Popular Vote

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Electoral College vs. Popular Vote

    Do you think the President should be selected by the electoral college or popular vote? Why or why not?
    42
    Electoral College
    54.76%
    23
    Popular Vote
    45.24%
    19
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    if we do it by popular vote, then the smaller states will be left out. Doing it by electoral college ensures that smaller states get their say.

    Comment


    • #3
      EC, because we monkey around with the Original Dads' plan, and we could mess it up. Things are just fine like they are, and there are good reasons to keep the EC (such as one-step-removed from pure popular accountability, which can lead to demogoguery and 'flavor-of-the-month'-type voting).

      No, if somebody can convince me that there exists greater political wisdom NOW than was present during the birth of the most ingenious and enduring political construct ever attempted, then FINE, I'll go along with what the NEW selfless and wise big brains come up with. Until then, though, I think we're doing fine with what has been bequeathed to us by the finest enlightened minds ever assembled in one place at the same time. That circumstance will not happen again, and attempting it with the politicians and statesmen of THIS age would be a pale imitation and a dangerous experiment.

      Comment


      • #4
        Popular vote - I am smart enough to cast a vote.

        Plus it would probably increase voter turn out. A Republican in New York or Democrat in Tennessee would have more reason to vote if their vote wasn't chucked out if the state they lived in at the time voted for the other side. Every vote would actually count.
        To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

        Comment


        • #5
          Electoral College, because it works in exactly the way the Founding Fathers intended it to (balancing the weight of big and small states) and there is absolutely no reason to change it.

          -dale

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
            EC, because we monkey around with the Original Dads' plan, and we could mess it up. Things are just fine like they are, and there are good reasons to keep the EC (such as one-step-removed from pure popular accountability, which can lead to demogoguery and 'flavor-of-the-month'-type voting).

            No, if somebody can convince me that there exists greater political wisdom NOW than was present during the birth of the most ingenious and enduring political construct ever attempted, then FINE, I'll go along with what the NEW selfless and wise big brains come up with. Until then, though, I think we're doing fine with what has been bequeathed to us by the finest enlightened minds ever assembled in one place at the same time. That circumstance will not happen again, and attempting it with the politicians and statesmen of THIS age would be a pale imitation and a dangerous experiment.
            Really. And golly gee, it seems the last time some idiots messed with things election-wise, they really f*cked things up in an offensive way, now didn't they? If I could only remember their names...

            ;)

            -dale

            Comment


            • #7
              Essentially we are doing a popular vote, just not across the nation, just across the state. If you win by popular vote in that state, you get to have those electoral votes. There was only one time that the President won the electoral college vote but not the popular vote and that was President Bush Jr.

              Comment


              • #8
                Popular Vote. Because I don't care how "Genius" the electoral college idea was... nor do I care that a state has specific pull or "say."

                Let the state have their say and pull their own weight for governor. America as a whole has the say for President.

                Do Governor elections have electoral votes for counties within the state? That way my county has the same say as Montgomery County (Philadelphia)??
                "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach...just make sure you thrust upward through his ribcage."

                Comment


                • #9
                  I would not like California, New York and New England to rule the country. Look at our major population centers:

                  Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                  Consider the prominent voting patterns/social values of those areas. The popular vote would blank out the "fly over states."
                  Last edited by GAU-8; 12 Feb 08,, 17:28.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The prominent voting patterns and social values of those areas also directly influence the electoral system too (i.e. "Such and Such State is historically a Republican/Democratic Stronghold.") All I'm saying is if 55% of the people from any given state vote for Douche "A" and 45 vote for Douche "B" it is highly unfair for Douche "A" to win all the electoral votes.

                    Majority should rule no matter what voting patterns or social values are prominent, IMO.
                    Last edited by ShawnG; 12 Feb 08,, 17:41.
                    "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach...just make sure you thrust upward through his ribcage."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I understand what you're saying Shawn. Here's an article written by Ron Paul a few years back that explains more eloquently the point I was trying to make.


                      The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
                      by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
                      November 2, 2004

                      Today’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the Electoral College, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

                      This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the Electoral College to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

                      A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

                      Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

                      The Electoral College threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, Midwestern, and western states – derided as “flyover” country – tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

                      Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.


                      Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington. [/I]
                        Since I was young, that's how I saw America, and still somewhat do today. We are a single nation with counties we refer to as states.

                        I suppose Majority rule can be put in negative connotations as "Mob rule." By definition it's correct, but the verbatim makes it sound terrible. I see what he was saying, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. It's worked so far, so I won't knock it. Until the last election... the majority winner DID win the most electoral votes.

                        I just see it as "One nation under God." Not 50 states under God. Just me though, and I'm not the brightest crayon in the box! :)) :)
                        "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach...just make sure you thrust upward through his ribcage."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ShawnG View Post
                          I just see it as "One nation under God." Not 50 states under God. Just me though, and I'm not the brightest crayon in the box! :)) :)
                          Nor am I by a long shot!

                          If we could trust our liberal-leaning betters in the northeast and left coast to keep in mind the morals and values that are important to the people of the "fly over states," they would pass just and fair laws for our One Nation Under God. I'd just rather not tempt them with that kind of power. As superior as they are, they are mere humans and subject to arrogance. Once they could outvote the rest of the country, I'd hate to see them develop a "we know what's best for them" attitude over their "wards." Getting rid of the Under God part of our One Nation might just be the first thing they would dictate to us. I'm afraid that wouldn't go over well.

                          And you know how uppity the serfs can get.
                          Last edited by GAU-8; 12 Feb 08,, 18:29.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well illustrated point.

                            All that set aside, I could give 2 $hits about electoral or majority voting... just give me a good candidate to vote for!
                            "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach...just make sure you thrust upward through his ribcage."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by GAU-8 View Post

                              And you know how uppity the serfs can get.
                              I prefer to call them "minions."

                              :P
                              "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach...just make sure you thrust upward through his ribcage."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X