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

[VHisback]

Do you think the current Electoral College System is the best method for electing the President or should we go to a system in which whomever receives the largest share of votes from across the nation wins the Presidency?

[Dave's Dreidel]

Popular vote.

The electoral college has lost its importance. A good chunk of voters know their vote doesn't count, because their states electoral votes are going to go a certain way, no matter what.

[Motherload]

If America switched to the popular vote - would this make things better for a third party on any real level?

[Dave's Dreidel]

I think you have to loosen the general election debate rules and guarantee something like the four highest polling parties get to participate.

I think you have to be consistently polling at about 10% to get on the stage? Can't remember the rules, but it's something like that.

Democratic
Republican
Green
Libertarian

Those are the four largest.

[Dick Punch]

The electoral college does not elect a true leader, California is a prime example of how much of a piece of shit this system is. What the fuck point is there in voting here if you are other than a dumbocrat? So you are telling me that, oh, 7 million votes don't count?

[Wildman]

I think you have to loosen the general election debate rules and guarantee something like the four highest polling parties get to participate.

I think you have to be consistently polling at about 10% to get on the stage? Can't remember the rules, but it's something like that.

Democratic
Republican
Green
Libertarian

Those are the four largest.

I think it is currently 15%, but I could be wrong.

Popular vote would be just as unbalanced as the EC vote in this country. The states with the highest populations would be electing our Presidents for the most part. The lesser populated states would have just as little say in our elections as the West Coast currently has.

Here's how I think it should work:

Each state tallies their own popular vote. Whoever wins the most states wins the election. If it results in a tie, then it would have to fall to national popular vote. If by some miracle the popular vote also ends in a tie, then the election goes to the non-incumbent party.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

It's 15% to be in the debate. They used to give leeway, which was why Perot was in the debates in 1992 but not in 1996. In 1996 they didn't consider him a "viable" candidate, despite getting over 8% in the general election without being in the debates. I also don't think it's a coincidence that in 1996 he went from being an independent candidate to a party candidate after his lobbying group became the Reform Party instead. Come 2000, they slapped 15% polling on as the hard and fast rule (which corresponds to Perot's polling once he reentered the race in 1992).

Anyway, I answered electoral college. It makes complete since within the context of the Constitution. There isn't a bunch of majority rule in that document. Electors vote for President, the President appoints the Supreme Court justices, Senators were selected by states. The President can overrule 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. 51 Senators can block 435 Representatives and 49 Senators. It takes a two-thirds vote to override a veto. It takes two-thirds of both houses to propose a Constitutional amendment and three-fourths of all states to ratify it. Basically (before the 17th amendment, which was a mistake IMO), only the House is elected majority rule.

The electoral college is simply a check and balance on the largest states/regionalism. If it were majority rule, 9 states could decide the fate of the Presidency over the other 41. With the electoral college, they only have 225 of the necessary 270 electoral votes. Basically, it makes sure that more states count come election day.

[Dave's Dreidel]

But the electoral college doesn't work as intended anymore. Fewer than nine states control each election now, and Democrats in Texas, and Republicans in California know that their vote is worth nothing.

[Wildman]

The electoral college is simply a check and balance on the largest states/regionalism. If it were majority rule, 9 states could decide the fate of the Presidency over the other 41. With the electoral college, they only have 225 of the necessary 270 electoral votes. Basically, it makes sure that more states count come election day.

Every state should count, though. That's why I think it should be based on states won.

[lovemachine97(Version 2)]

I am only 37 and not an expert in electoral college history, and I say that because there are only a few elections, maybe only 3, where I can recall all the news channels basically saying it comes down to Florida and Ohio. You could almost make the argument that far from 9 states, 2 states control destiny. I bring up my age and lack of context because I can only assume that Florida/Ohio isn't something that goes back 100 years; it's a recent phenomenon. And if it isn't, please let me know. But if it is, we are legislating, if we get rid of the electoral college, against a kink in the system that is likely to be, in the context of history, temporary.

In my home state, from 1952 to 1988, the republican candidate got our electoral votes in all but one Presidential election, 1964, when only something like 6 states went to Goldwater. It's only been since then that they all go "blue." But how do we know what the future brings? Since 1852, it's gone Republican significantly more than Democrat. Why legislate against something that is bound to change?

Couldn't we make the exact same argument to eliminate the Senate? It was intended as part of a system that put 3 entities at the table in DC: the people (House), the nation as a whole (President), and the states (Senate). Once the Senate went to popular vote, what purpose does it serve? It's now an undemocratic impediment to the voice of the people (the House), just like the electoral college. How far do we take this in the name of majority rule vs. Republic?

[Motherload]

It's 15% to be in the debate. They used to give leeway, which was why Perot was in the debates in 1992 but not in 1996. In 1996 they didn't consider him a "viable" candidate, despite getting over 8% in the general election without being in the debates. I also don't think it's a coincidence that in 1996 he went from being an independent candidate to a party candidate after his lobbying group became the Reform Party instead. Come 2000, they slapped 15% polling on as the hard and fast rule (which corresponds to Perot's polling once he reentered the race in 1992).

Anyway, I answered electoral college. It makes complete since within the context of the Constitution. There isn't a bunch of majority rule in that document. Electors vote for President, the President appoints the Supreme Court justices, Senators were selected by states. The President can overrule 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. 51 Senators can block 435 Representatives and 49 Senators. It takes a two-thirds vote to override a veto. It takes two-thirds of both houses to propose a Constitutional amendment and three-fourths of all states to ratify it. Basically (before the 17th amendment, which was a mistake IMO), only the House is elected majority rule.

The electoral college is simply a check and balance on the largest states/regionalism. If it were majority rule, 9 states could decide the fate of the Presidency over the other 41. With the electoral college, they only have 225 of the necessary 270 electoral votes. Basically, it makes sure that more states count come election day.

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.

[Dave's Dreidel]

Majority rule in the fashion you describe is dangerous, it creates a "mob rule" mentality.

We're a republic, and I like it that way, I think it's the best model out there, but we need to tweak our election process to include more than two options at the check out counter.

[Motherload]

Majority rule in the fashion you describe is dangerous, it creates a "mob rule" mentality.

We're a republic, and I like it that way, I think it's the best model out there, but we need to tweak our election process to include more than two options at the check out counter.

I understand what you are saying and why it is the way it is, but in a sense - aren't we slaves to government. Why do we need something to pass in government first if it's something that most people want anyway? Shouldn't the general public have more of a say. Why do you need to wait for a politician to come along - who agrees with us.

[Dave's Dreidel]

I understand what you are saying and why it is the way it is, but in a sense - aren't we slaves to government. Why do we need something to pass in government first if it's something that most people want anyway? Shouldn't the general public have more of a say. Why do you need to wait for a politician to come along - who agrees with us.

Because most citizens are not knowledgeable about the subjects at hand. It can be argued that many of the people we send to Washington or Ottawa are barely above moron status, but in many cases they are more knowledgeable about the citizenry on the issues as that is their main job, not a finance geek or a screenwriter.

It is also too inefficient. A certain percentage of our populace, and an ever growing percentage of yours (take the Trudeau blip out of it) can't find the time in their schedule to vote every couple of years, never mind them having to vote on a weekly or even daily basis.

[Motherload]

Because most citizens are not knowledgeable about the subjects at hand. It can be argued that many of the people we send to Washington or Ottawa are barely above moron status, but in many cases they are more knowledgeable about the citizenry on the issues as that is their main job, not a finance geek or a screenwriter.

It is also too inefficient. A certain percentage of our populace, and an ever growing percentage of yours (take the Trudeau blip out of it) can't find the time in their schedule to vote every couple of years, never mind them having to vote on a weekly or even daily basis.

So in your case - you are stuck with politicians you can't support and who won't do anything that you support -ala Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Clinton. It must suck having to wait every 4 years for hopefully someone to come along who is worthy of your support.