Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Direct popular vote vs. Electoral College

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 3:26:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Direct. No longer will a few "swing" states be the only ones to get attention.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 4:25:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It should either be popular vote, or, if keeping the college is that serious, do away with the winner-take-all system in favor of proportional representation.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:13:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 4:25:06 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It should either be popular vote, or, if keeping the college is that serious, do away with the winner-take-all system in favor of proportional representation.

True dat.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:39:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Electoral college.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:54:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 5:49:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 11/14/2011 5:39:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
Electoral college.

Why?

My opinion is extremely tentative, but after debating the issue this month I felt that Swing states are actually a good thing. When candidates campaign in swing states they create a moderate platform, as opposed to just sucking their native regions dry for every vote they can get. There's also evidence out there showing that when countries have abolished electoral systems they've started to ignore the less populous areas. Consider France as an example, the rural poverty rate has increased since they switched to DPV (I know correlation != causation, but it's logical to me.)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
resistance4ever
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 1:21:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is the point in voting at all with our current system? The electoral College makes every persons vote worthless. It doesn't matter if everyone in the country voted for that communist baboon we currently have, if the members of the electoral college voted for Rapin-Herman, he would win. It's all completely ridiculous.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 5:34:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Electoral college. The purpose is to make candidate campaign widely and make a case that appeals to a broad cross section of voters. A straight popular vote would put the emphasis on big city campaigning. It would feed a "tyranny of the majority."
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 5:43:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 5:34:22 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Electoral college. The purpose is to make candidate campaign widely and make a case that appeals to a broad cross section of voters. A straight popular vote would put the emphasis on big city campaigning. It would feed a "tyranny of the majority."

one post you give out about one dude leading us all, the next you give out about us leading ourselves... what else is there?!
signature
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 6:08:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 5:34:22 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Electoral college. The purpose is to make candidate campaign widely and make a case that appeals to a broad cross section of voters. A straight popular vote would put the emphasis on big city campaigning. It would feed a "tyranny of the majority."

The EC feeds a "Tyranny of the minority".

In 2008, McCain had 37.8% of his campaign events in 4 states (344 events of his total 909), those 4 states represnt 8.89% of the US population. His top 10 states take home 69.3% of all his events.

Obama was no better, of his top 4 states, 3 were the same a McCain, and they were 35.5% of all his events (350 out of 985) represented only 6.57% of the nation's population.

There were 30 states that received 10 or less events from Obama (in both the primaries and general election) and 32 that 10 or less from McCain, and 28 that received 10 or less from both of them.

28 of the 50 states were basically ignored by both candidates.

If the EC's goal is to make them appeal to a broad cross section of voters, then it is failing. They only appeal to a handful of states that they have a chance of winning. I would also disagree that you would see only big city appealing. You would see something similar to what you see now. Appealing to where the most undecided voters are. Only in the EC, they appeal to the states where the undecideds can swing the state. By removing that limit, it allows them to appeal to more undecideds.

Because if they can come to Oregon in a single visit and convince 30,000 more people to vote for them, that won't swing the state, but it will allow those 30,000 to count in the actual outcome, and so those 30,000 actually mean something, and so politicians will actually do that event and campaign. It is the EC that is limiting the scope of appeal.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 6:16:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 6:08:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/15/2011 5:34:22 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Electoral college. The purpose is to make candidate campaign widely and make a case that appeals to a broad cross section of voters. A straight popular vote would put the emphasis on big city campaigning. It would feed a "tyranny of the majority."

The EC feeds a "Tyranny of the minority".

In 2008, McCain had 37.8% of his campaign events in 4 states (344 events of his total 909), those 4 states represnt 8.89% of the US population. His top 10 states take home 69.3% of all his events.

Obama was no better, of his top 4 states, 3 were the same a McCain, and they were 35.5% of all his events (350 out of 985) represented only 6.57% of the nation's population.

There were 30 states that received 10 or less events from Obama (in both the primaries and general election) and 32 that 10 or less from McCain, and 28 that received 10 or less from both of them.

28 of the 50 states were basically ignored by both candidates.

If the EC's goal is to make them appeal to a broad cross section of voters, then it is failing. They only appeal to a handful of states that they have a chance of winning. I would also disagree that you would see only big city appealing. You would see something similar to what you see now. Appealing to where the most undecided voters are. Only in the EC, they appeal to the states where the undecideds can swing the state. By removing that limit, it allows them to appeal to more undecideds.

Because if they can come to Oregon in a single visit and convince 30,000 more people to vote for them, that won't swing the state, but it will allow those 30,000 to count in the actual outcome, and so those 30,000 actually mean something, and so politicians will actually do that event and campaign. It is the EC that is limiting the scope of appeal.

So what? You haven't argued any negative impact to swing states, so what if politicians focus their campaigns on those areas (the areas that better represent the average American) more? They would focus on cities more under DPV, no? Further your implied wasted votes arguments is fallacious reasoning..how is that any different than voting for a losing candidate in a nation-wide vote? The votes have to stop somewhere, under the EC it's just at a State level instead of a national one.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 6:35:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 6:16:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/15/2011 6:08:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/15/2011 5:34:22 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Electoral college. The purpose is to make candidate campaign widely and make a case that appeals to a broad cross section of voters. A straight popular vote would put the emphasis on big city campaigning. It would feed a "tyranny of the majority."

The EC feeds a "Tyranny of the minority".

In 2008, McCain had 37.8% of his campaign events in 4 states (344 events of his total 909), those 4 states represnt 8.89% of the US population. His top 10 states take home 69.3% of all his events.

Obama was no better, of his top 4 states, 3 were the same a McCain, and they were 35.5% of all his events (350 out of 985) represented only 6.57% of the nation's population.

There were 30 states that received 10 or less events from Obama (in both the primaries and general election) and 32 that 10 or less from McCain, and 28 that received 10 or less from both of them.

28 of the 50 states were basically ignored by both candidates.

If the EC's goal is to make them appeal to a broad cross section of voters, then it is failing. They only appeal to a handful of states that they have a chance of winning. I would also disagree that you would see only big city appealing. You would see something similar to what you see now. Appealing to where the most undecided voters are. Only in the EC, they appeal to the states where the undecideds can swing the state. By removing that limit, it allows them to appeal to more undecideds.

Because if they can come to Oregon in a single visit and convince 30,000 more people to vote for them, that won't swing the state, but it will allow those 30,000 to count in the actual outcome, and so those 30,000 actually mean something, and so politicians will actually do that event and campaign. It is the EC that is limiting the scope of appeal.

So what? You haven't argued any negative impact to swing states, so what if politicians focus their campaigns on those areas (the areas that better represent the average American) more?

Swing states are not a better representation of the average American.

They would focus on cities more under DPV, no?

No, they wouldn't. Just like when they go to a swing state now, they go to EVERYWHERE in the swing state, not just the big cities. As I said, they will go to where they can influence the most people, and that will be where there is the more undecideds, which can be anywhere.

Further your implied wasted votes arguments is fallacious reasoning..how is that any different than voting for a losing candidate in a nation-wide vote?

Because a nation-wide election is going to be closer than many individual states. Look at 2000, the popular vote difference was 0.5%, the 2004 election was 2.4%. Going back over the last 50 years (well, 51, going back to 1960), 10 of the 13 elections have been within 10 points of each other, 6 have been within 5 points and 3 within 1 point.

Compare this to 39 states (including the DoC) that had a greater than 10% difference. And 47 were greater than 8% difference (only 2 were less than 1%). So there is a difference. While it is possible that the matchup is so off that there is nothing that can be done, the likelyhood of that happening on a given state is EXTREMELY more likely than on a national election.

The votes have to stop somewhere, under the EC it's just at a State level instead of a national one.

And I showed why that makes it mean less.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jjx1
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 9:48:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here were my contentions in favor of Electoral College.

Contention One: Ere on the side of caution-the electoral college works.

American democracy has far outpaced any form of democracy in the history of the world. George Washington's peaceful transition to John Adams set a precedent that would be followed for years to come-that citizens of the United States would follow an orderly method of governing themselves. The electoral college has been the guiding hand in this incredibly successful system. As a panel of senators on the judiciary committee pointed out, "It is not sufficient for the partisans of direct election to argue that the electoral college is somehow defective. All mode of election are less than perfect, all provide certain benefits at the expense of certain other." The Pro in today's debate has an extraordinary burden of proof-it must show that a system which has overwhelmingly worked for over 200 years ought to be thrown away in a blink of an eye. The stakes are immensely high. The United States is the leading power in the world, it cannot afford-the world cannot afford-for even one election of the executive to be called into question. As two professors noted in the Journal of Public Choice, the public debate rages on and "If, with the advantage of 200 or so years of data on how an institution operates, we cannot agree on what it does, we must express even greater skepticism about our ability to predict what some new institution for electing the president will do." It is entirely noteworthy to uphold the electoral college because it is a system we know: a reliable and stable form of democracy.

Contention Two: Direct popular vote is flawed in many ways.

Proponents of a direct popular vote too often over simplify the question at hand. They fail to realize that, like any other system, direct popular vote will be vulnerable to numerous problems. One such problem is the increased threat of vote fraud. The electoral college is a series of self-sealing containers, so that each state does not influence the outcome of another. If fraud occurs, it is isolated. In a direct election, however, each vote is of premium importance to the national decision. As such, agents within the election will have a far greater decision to manipulate votes. Consider an election that stays in an almost complete deadlock throughout the day. As word travels, the urgency of West Coast votes becomes so great that the temptation to commit fraud by local officials is overwhelming. The election is illegitimate. The electoral college avoids this because even if one county of one state commits fraud, it will not be enough to impact the overall election.
A far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts. As Professor Judith Best argues, "an electoral system should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes that create uncertainty and public turmoil." This is the function now played by the Electoral College. To its defenders, it does so in two ways. On, it saves the nation "from the effects of an ambiguous outcome." In this way, it confers the requisite legitimacy even in the face of close elections. And two, it also "protects the nation from the crisis of a disputed election." In a direct popular vote, during a close election, candidates will be too tempted to challenge every result. Whereas before if you carry a state by 10% there is no reason to challenge under the electoral college, now a nationwide deadlock will ensure each state undergoes a recount. The judiciary committee once again explains, If one candidate contests a certain area, his opponent, to protect himself, warns of a contest where he thinks something might have been adverse to him. And in a little while, the whole electorate is involved.

Contention Three: The electoral college creates a reasonable, moderate majority.

The cornerstone of democracy is not majority rule. It is reasonable majority rule with the protection of minority rights. A nation is far better served when moderate ideologies prevail. This government ensures liberty and equality maintain an optimal balance for all citizens. As former senator James Eastland writes, "Because of winner-take-all(under the electoral system), a party is under a strong inducement to extend its platform as widely as possible within each State; it must expand its base of support to carry a popular plurality. Since both major parties face the same requirement, both must campaign in most of the same places before most of the same votes. Both must be hospitable to a wide range of minority interest which might otherwise be excluded from electoral competition." This has so many great benefits, including reasonable polices that are widely applicable in nature. Under a direct popular vote, no such system would hold. Candidates must currently be able to get a majority of votes in a statewide election to obtain even a single electoral vote. Ideologically extreme candidates are discouraged from running because they know they cannot appeal to that broad of an electorate. Under direct popular vote, however, there is no need to win statewide majorities and therefore elections will become crowded with extreme candidates. This will further polarize politics as candidates make specific appeals to narrow voter interests. Then, the President will not be elected by a large body politic. He or she will be the voice of only a few.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:09:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 5:43:57 PM, badger wrote:
At 11/15/2011 5:34:22 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Electoral college. The purpose is to make candidate campaign widely and make a case that appeals to a broad cross section of voters. A straight popular vote would put the emphasis on big city campaigning. It would feed a "tyranny of the majority."

one post you give out about one dude leading us all, the next you give out about us leading ourselves... what else is there?!

Since I had only one post in this thread, I have no idea what you are talking about specifically.

In general there is no contradiction between wanting a good leader and being concerned with how the leader is selected.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:20:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 1:21:03 PM, resistance4ever wrote:
What is the point in voting at all with our current system? The electoral College makes every persons vote worthless. It doesn't matter if everyone in the country voted for that communist baboon we currently have, if the members of the electoral college voted for Rapin-Herman, he would win. It's all completely ridiculous.

No, the electors in 30 states are legally bound to vote on the first ballot for whoever wins the popular vote in heir state. In 20 states they are not legally bound, but because the electors are selected by the Parties of the candidates, it rarely happens. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the President is picked by a vote of the House.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:35:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 6:08:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If the EC's goal is to make them appeal to a broad cross section of voters, then it is failing. They only appeal to a handful of states that they have a chance of winning. I would also disagree that you would see only big city appealing. You would see something similar to what you see now. Appealing to where the most undecided voters are.

Well, I agree that it's not geographically broad, but appealing to swing state voters is a good thing in terms of broad discussion of issues. For example, winning Florida depends upon candidates appeal to older voters. Without Florida, a reasonable strategy would be to say as little as possible about some of those issues. The reason swing states are swing states is because they present voters divided on the issues. If it were direct popular voting, Democrats would spend time rolling up vote totals in California, and Republicans would do likewise in Texas.

National media is so pervasive these days that the importance of the whole issue is probably a lot less than it once was. "Events" used to involve candidates speaking on train stops. Now everything is broadcast nationally. The effect of national media has been shown in the Iowa Republican primary race. Iowa traditionally demanded that each candidate visit all 99 counties and shake hands with nearly every voter. Now the polls swing in Iowa depending solely on the national new. Cain rose to the top in Iowa without much presence in the state, and has declined similarly.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:50:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 10:35:32 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/15/2011 6:08:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If the EC's goal is to make them appeal to a broad cross section of voters, then it is failing. They only appeal to a handful of states that they have a chance of winning. I would also disagree that you would see only big city appealing. You would see something similar to what you see now. Appealing to where the most undecided voters are.

Well, I agree that it's not geographically broad, but appealing to swing state voters is a good thing in terms of broad discussion of issues. For example, winning Florida depends upon candidates appeal to older voters. Without Florida, a reasonable strategy would be to say as little as possible about some of those issues. The reason swing states are swing states is because they present voters divided on the issues. If it were direct popular voting, Democrats would spend time rolling up vote totals in California, and Republicans would do likewise in Texas.

National media is so pervasive these days that the importance of the whole issue is probably a lot less than it once was. "Events" used to involve candidates speaking on train stops. Now everything is broadcast nationally. The effect of national media has been shown in the Iowa Republican primary race. Iowa traditionally demanded that each candidate visit all 99 counties and shake hands with nearly every voter. Now the polls swing in Iowa depending solely on the national new. Cain rose to the top in Iowa without much presence in the state, and has declined similarly.

I think that it's more important that, if we are going to have a democracy, that all votes are counted equal. It wouldn't matter if a large percentage of Texas suddenly swung the other way, it would probably still go Republican. In fact, if the Democrat population in Texas went up, there would be a good chance that this would add as Republican electoral votes. Some people's votes are worth about three times as much as those of others.

Because of the national media that you mentioned, the fact that politicans may "focus on cities" (though I don't believe there is a clear cause and effect relationship), even then people all over the country will hear the message. Why should a senior in Florida have more influence than a senior in Texas? Should there be electoral colleges based on age instead of state?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 11:02:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I actually like the electoral collage. America is not a true democracy, a republic. With a direct popular vote then it is rule by majority, rule by the mob. So that means if we adopt that system then it wold be if 51% of you wanted to kill me then I would be killed. Also it is more fair. How? In a majority rule one party will outnumber the other and give them more power, making it impossible for the minority to rise up often.
Without the electoral college, candidates will spend all their time trying to rack up big victories in big cities with big media, ignoring the rest of the voters. So only the big cities would get what they want, and the smaller towns would not have their voices heard.
Electoral college prevents purely regional candidates from winning by requiring the winner to put together a continental coalition popular in many different regions. So people in the northeast or in California would have an advantage over a guy from Kansas.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 9:28:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 10:35:32 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/15/2011 6:08:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If the EC's goal is to make them appeal to a broad cross section of voters, then it is failing. They only appeal to a handful of states that they have a chance of winning. I would also disagree that you would see only big city appealing. You would see something similar to what you see now. Appealing to where the most undecided voters are.

Well, I agree that it's not geographically broad, but appealing to swing state voters is a good thing in terms of broad discussion of issues. For example, winning Florida depends upon candidates appeal to older voters. Without Florida, a reasonable strategy would be to say as little as possible about some of those issues. The reason swing states are swing states is because they present voters divided on the issues. If it were direct popular voting, Democrats would spend time rolling up vote totals in California, and Republicans would do likewise in Texas.

National media is so pervasive these days that the importance of the whole issue is probably a lot less than it once was. "Events" used to involve candidates speaking on train stops. Now everything is broadcast nationally. The effect of national media has been shown in the Iowa Republican primary race. Iowa traditionally demanded that each candidate visit all 99 counties and shake hands with nearly every voter. Now the polls swing in Iowa depending solely on the national new. Cain rose to the top in Iowa without much presence in the state, and has declined similarly.

That doesn't make sense. If you claim that in appealing to a national vote, the candidates will just troll their bases, the in a swing state they'll just do the same by the same reasoning. As said before, on national elections, the nation as a whole, is often comparable to a swing state (less than 6% spread). In swing states trolling your base is not effective so it would be logical that trolling your bases would not work in a general popular vote.

There are three things that are needed to win for a popular vote election.

1) get your supporters to vote (since you know they'll vote for you)
2) get your opponent's supporters to not vote (since you know they'll never vote for you)
3) get undecideds to vote for you rather than your opponent

Trolling your bases only accomplishes 1 of those 3 and as such is a failure of a plan.

There are also three things that are needed to win for an EC election.

1) get your supporters to vote in states that are close.
2) get your opponent's supporters to not vote in states that are close.
3) get undecideds to vote for you rather than your opponent in states that are close.

All the EC does is put walls up that limit the representation of the president.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
debate_queen
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 2:57:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Electoral College. the main argument for the direct popular vote is that it'll get rid of the swing states, but then of course, the focus will be on swing CITIES. which would you rather have? focus on a couple of large cities? or on states? also, I don't believe in "swing states", so in every way electoral college is better because it UNITES our country and makes sure our president has a distribution of support...not just the entire east and west coast. (if anyone wants to debate me on this? come at me...(: )