Poll: US Elections - Electoral College System or Popular Vote, which do you favor?

[edwardv]

I would not change the electoral college. I do have problems with the primary system for presidential elections with the way delegates are appropriated and this super delegate bs. Needs to be a uniformed system for all states.

[Dave's Dreidel]

As much as I don't like how the Republicans do it, the Democratic system is even worse.

They should change the name of all these super delegates to "the DNC's personal choice for nominee".

[ziggysmalls]

There are pros and cons but I think it should stay as is.

The rationale is that if its just popular vote you are going to disenfranchise entire states. Why should a president or vice president visit Vermont, Wyoming and other like states? I mean Vermont has 600,000 people. Wyoming has 500k. Columbus Ohio is more important to the presidency than a few states. Entire states will be bypassed and I am sorry but that shouldn't happen.

Our country was founded on states combining forces. Electoral college allows smaller states to have a larger voice as it should. We are not a democracy either. We are a republic.

Now would I change the rules in primaries>Certainly.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

As a libertarian - you don't want to live in a majority world? Think of it - if the majority of Americans feel a certain way about something per a certain percentage level, the government has to respond.

So for argument sake - let's say 80% of Americans feel that pot should be legal. Boom - the government would have to make pot legal. No further debating - that's what Americans want. The same can be true for something that I disagree with - if the majority rules that abortion should be illegal, then it becomes illegal.

Would you have a problem with such a system. If Obamacare is so hated, the people can repeal it with a majority vote.

What you're missing about libertarian thought is that government is necessary to protect rights. You can't just have a majority vote that says Synagogues are banned. Free exercise of religion is protected and government is needed to protect it. And as Dave explained, we were set up as a Republic to prevent mob rule.

You're actually making a great argument to get the government out of our lives, for the most part. If marriage didn't have to be approved by the state, then gay marriage is a non-issue. Once the state is involved, the majority can impose their will. If the majority could just do what it wanted, California's Prop 8 wouldn't have been a big deal. Voters said marriage was between one man and one woman. But you and I both agree that anyone has a right to marriage. Mob rule shouldn't take that away.

[Motherload]

What you're missing about libertarian thought is that government is necessary to protect rights. You can't just have a majority vote that says Synagogues are banned. Free exercise of religion is protected and government is needed to protect it. And as Dave explained, we were set up as a Republic to prevent mob rule.

You're actually making a great argument to get the government out of our lives, for the most part. If marriage didn't have to be approved by the state, then gay marriage is a non-issue. Once the state is involved, the majority can impose their will. If the majority could just do what it wanted, California's Prop 8 wouldn't have been a big deal. Voters said marriage was between one man and one woman. But you and I both agree that anyone has a right to marriage. Mob rule shouldn't take that away.

So is there no possible middle ground outside of protecting rights? How about my pot example - made legal because that's what the people want in a majority.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

So is there no possible middle ground outside of protecting rights? How about my pot example - made legal because that's what the people want in a majority.

I am sensitive to this because I live in a state with a referendum process where basically anyone can get anything on the ballot for the people to vote on, majority rule. Around 20 years ago, voters passed Prop 227 which outlawed bilingual education. Problem is that education needs to be malleable. What works for one kid may not work for another, and eliminating the home language entirely in a classroom with English language learners is effectively tying one hand behind the back of all California schools. Why? The majority in California didn't like illegals from Mexico, so fuck their language, was basically the thought process. Education policy shouldn't be left to those kinds of whims. It is still law. We're finally, I think, voting to repeal it this November, but that is nearly 20 years of bad education policy left to majority rules. That's really bad, even if legalizing marijuana is good. And yes, I know this is an "old" example that doesn't matter because it's old and therefore irrelevant history

What frustrates me in conversations like this is I can point to history where "exceptions" to rule of law that were done for "the greater good" have lead all the way to this exact conversation, but then I get slammed for giving "incoherent history lessons." Suffice to say, the exact thing you profess I should just accept as "the way it is," which is that rule of law/consistency doesn't matter is what gives the federal government power to OVERRULE states that have a liberalized marijuana lawsby majority rules. A 1940s SCOTUS decision for the "greater good" relied upon a ridiculous interpretation of the power to regulate interstate commerce. That leads directly to the 2005 SCOTUS decision that said, no, really, based upon this 1940s decision, Congress has the power OVER majority rule to say you cannot grow even one marijuana plant in your backyard for home consumption because they have the power to regulate "interstate" commerce.

My entire philosophy is about getting the government out of all of this shit and letting people decide on their own, but not in a way that lets the majority do whatever it wants to the minority.

[rocknblues81]

Popular Vote.

The electoral college is garbage.

[Motherload]

I am sensitive to this because I live in a state with a referendum process where basically anyone can get anything on the ballot for the people to vote on, majority rule. Around 20 years ago, voters passed Prop 227 which outlawed bilingual education. Problem is that education needs to be malleable. What works for one kid may not work for another, and eliminating the home language entirely in a classroom with English language learners is effectively tying one hand behind the back of all California schools. Why? The majority in California didn't like illegals from Mexico, so fuck their language, was basically the thought process. Education policy shouldn't be left to those kinds of whims. It is still law. We're finally, I think, voting to repeal it this November, but that is nearly 20 years of bad education policy left to majority rules. That's really bad, even if legalizing marijuana is good. And yes, I know this is an "old" example that doesn't matter because it's old and therefore irrelevant history

What frustrates me in conversations like this is I can point to history where "exceptions" to rule of law that were done for "the greater good" have lead all the way to this exact conversation, but then I get slammed for giving "incoherent history lessons." Suffice to say, the exact thing you profess I should just accept as "the way it is," which is that rule of law/consistency doesn't matter is what gives the federal government power to OVERRULE states that have a liberalized marijuana lawsby majority rules. A 1940s SCOTUS decision for the "greater good" relied upon a ridiculous interpretation of the power to regulate interstate commerce. That leads directly to the 2005 SCOTUS decision that said, no, really, based upon this 1940s decision, Congress has the power OVER majority rule to say you cannot grow even one marijuana plant in your backyard for home consumption because they have the power to regulate "interstate" commerce.

My entire philosophy is about getting the government out of all of this shit and letting people decide on their own, but not in a way that lets the majority do whatever it wants to the minority.

I am not debating you. I understand your position and no, this isn't a case of irrelevant history.

I am just curious to see if there IS a happy medium that works for you. SOME things like pot that do go to a majority vote.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

I am not debating you. I understand your position and no, this isn't a case of irrelevant history.

I am just curious to see if there IS a happy medium that works for you. SOME things like pot that do go to a majority vote.

We have that happy medium in California with the referendum process. The same happy medium that legalized recreational marijuana likely led to fewer immigrants being able to proficiently speak English.

If you want a referendum process like California, assuming courts protect the rights of others, like in marriage, just understand it can be wielded in ways that are detrimental to society too. Bill Nye wants to throw climate science deniers in jail for directly leading to a decline in the quality of life of people like him who want to do something about it. If 50%+1 agree with him and vote on it, that's a pretty chilling thing to me.

[Motherload]

We have that happy medium in California with the referendum process. The same happy medium that legalized recreational marijuana likely led to fewer immigrants being able to proficiently speak English.

If you want a referendum process like California, assuming courts protect the rights of others, like in marriage, just understand it can be wielded in ways that are detrimental to society too. Bill Nye wants to throw climate science deniers in jail for directly leading to a decline in the quality of life of people like him who want to do something about it. If 50%+1 agree with him and vote on it, that's a pretty chilling thing to me.

Well I suspect there would be rules put into place for such a thing. 50%+1 would be enough to change things. But if 70%+ vote a certain way - it's good to go.

Playing devil's advocate though - wouldn't this be closer to true freedom. Why are we waiting around for a politician to come along that shares our views and campaigns on it. A politician mind you that everyone thinks is corrupted and bought and paid for and that someone like you couldn't possibly vote for.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

Well I suspect there would be rules put into place for such a thing. 50%+1 would be enough to change things. But if 70%+ vote a certain way - it's good to go.

Playing devil's advocate though - wouldn't this be closer to true freedom. Why are we waiting around for a politician to come along that shares our views and campaigns on it. A politician mind you that everyone thinks is corrupted and bought and paid for and that someone like you couldn't possibly vote for.

This gets to the core of my philosophy which you said "doesn't matter," so I am not sure what I could say that could convince you. True freedom shouldn't be the majority being able to impose their will upon the minority while ignoring the rule of law. Yes, people typically don't have a coherent philosophy that is applied universally. They hear an idea, they like it, they think it should be law. They don't think about the rule of law or consequences. That is how most people think about public policy. When those have unintended consequences, we need a new law to fix that. And so on, and so forth.

That isn't freedom. That's more and more laws exerting more and more control over people, which in turn results in corporations being able to influence all that power wielded in all of those laws. Instead, what I am saying, is we need to get government OUT of most of these situations. They shouldn't be telling me what I can't put in my body. They shouldn't be telling me whether I can or can't get married. They shouldn't be telling me what I grow in my backyard.

In other words, there is no need for a vote--and no possibility of unintended consequences--if we simply back up and say, 'Is it smart or even right for government to control this?'

I realize that isn't 'reality' now, but the other way isn't working. Almost literally, there is no limit to our limited government. And the government has nearly everyone fooled that it is acting in the interest of all of us. It's not.

[Motherload]

This gets to the core of my philosophy which you said "doesn't matter," so I am not sure what I could say that could convince you. True freedom shouldn't be the majority being able to impose their will upon the minority while ignoring the rule of law. Yes, people typically don't have a coherent philosophy that is applied universally. They hear an idea, they like it, they think it should be law. They don't think about the rule of law or consequences. That is how must people think about public policy. When those have unintended consequences, we need a new law to fix that. And so on, and so forth.

That isn't freedom. That's more and more laws exerting more and more control over people, which in turn results in corporations being able to influence all that power wielded in all of those laws. Instead, what I am saying, is we need to get government OUT of most of these situations. They shouldn't be telling me what I can't put in my body. They shouldn't be telling me whether I can or can't get married. They shouldn't be telling me what I grow in my backyard.

In other words, there is no need for a vote--and no possibility of unintended consequences--if we simply back up and say, 'Is it smart or even right for government to control this?'

I realize that isn't 'reality' now, but the other way isn't working. Almost literally, there is no limit to our limited government. And the government has nearly everyone fooled that it is acting in the interest of all of us. It's not.

I suspect your bigger position is that if majority did rule - you personally wouldn't like the kind of things that you fellow citizens of America would rule on, which is fine.

For me, I think it puts many things on the fast track that shouldn't be taking the decades it takes to implement or change due to the sloth like movement of governement. So in that regard, I like the notion of getting shit done fast. On the flipside of that, I can accept the fact that there will be things that I won't support regarding a majority - however it won't be forever as they can revisit these things every 4 years for example.

If people's positions haven't changed - it stays at it is. If after 4 years, people see the negative aspects of their past vote and want to change their vote - they can do so.

I just think it's sort of odd that it's understandable that people want to have choice and control over their TV watching and it's understandable that cable is dying due to services like Netflix, etc giving people WHAT THEY WANT as opposed to the cable companies. But we can't have the same control and choice when it comes to our lives, country, government and law within reason. Of course murder can't be made legal.

Why can't the demands of the public put an end to many aspects of government like the demands of people put an end to the music industry for example. Is it just a matter of too many people liking what the government provides. I am certainly not comparing TV/music industries with government, but it is interesting how certain industries can be on the road to extinction when the people demand change. Is the government above this? Is there a Netflix version of government that can come along and offer better choice because the people demand it?

[Dave's Dreidel]

^
^
Well said LoveMachine.

[I Coulda Hada VH]

DD hit on this earlier, but if you are a Republican living in California or New York, or a Democrat living in Texas, the Electoral College renders your vote absolutely meaningless. That is a major problem.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

I suspect your bigger position is that if majority did rule - you personally wouldn't like the kind of things that you fellow citizens of America would rule on, which is fine.

For me, I think it puts many things on the fast track that shouldn't be taking the decades it takes to implement or change due to the sloth like movement of governement. So in that regard, I like the notion of getting shit done fast. On the flipside of that, I can accept the fact that there will be things that I won't support regarding a majority - however it won't be forever as they can revisit these things every 4 years for example.

If people's positions haven't changed - it stays at it is. If after 4 years, people see the negative aspects of their past vote and want to change their vote - they can do so.

I just think it's sort of odd that it's understandable that people want to have choice and control over their TV watching and it's understandable that cable is dying due to services like Netflix, etc giving people WHAT THEY WANT as opposed to the cable companies. But we can't have the same control and choice when it comes to our lives, country, government and law within reason. Of course murder can't be made legal.

Why can't the demands of the public put an end to many aspects of government like the demands of people put an end to the music industry for example. Is it just a matter of too many people liking what the government provides. I am certainly not comparing TV/music industries with government, but it is interesting how certain industries can be on the road to extinction when the people demand change. Is the government above this? Is there a Netflix version of government that can come along and offer better choice because the people demand it?

I think I can differentiate between things I don't like personally and things that are unconstitutional. For example, I think net neutrality is a terrible idea. But we have it now and it probably isn't going away. I don't think that is unconstitutional, though, and people seem to want it, so here we are. However, if the majority wanted to vote to make hate speech illegal, well, I think that is unconstitutional and wholly wrong. Where this gets confused sometimes is that I don't "support" repugnant speech; I just don't think people should go to jail for it.

Where we are disagreeing here is on the use of force. Creative destruction is desirable. It's vital because it tells people who fail that they are doing something wrong, and it happens organically. Netflix, HBO, Amazon, Showtime, AMC, etc., etc., have not only made great TV, they've upped everyone's game due to competition. (One major reason non-network TV is so good is that they are not subject to the heavy regulation of the FCC. They are free to make what they want. Cable companies are beholden to their advertisers and eyeballs to a lesser extent, but subscription and streaming companies are only beholden to eyeballs. Networks are beholden to the FCC and advertisers.)

Without government picking winners and losers, you can get nearly everything you want outside of a cable subscription. You can get Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Showtime as an Amazon add on, Starz as an Amazon add on, and HBO for $67 a month. Eventually, you will be able to pay a couple bucks for FX unbundled, AMC unbundled, ESPN unbundled, your local sports stations, all for under $100 a month, probably less. I'd bet for $90 eventually I will be able to get every channel I want for 40% less than it costs using cable/satellite.

All of that without the government having to force anyone to do anything and risking that such regulations retard innovation. In fact, outside of government regulation, cable channels, subscription channels, and streaming have put out insanely good product. The people will get what they want and innovators are free to experiment without the blunt instrument of force the government uses, which stifles innovation and distorts creative destruction.