Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Popular Vote

TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:30:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

These conversations pop-up often enough, everyone at some time or another questions this system we have built. There are a number of strong reasons to use the EC system, none MORE important than balancing the strengths of the population centers (and states) with the less populous areas.

Are you conservative? What state do you live in?
TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:33:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:30:52 PM, TBR wrote:

These conversations pop-up often enough, everyone at some time or another questions this system we have built. There are a number of strong reasons to use the EC system, none MORE important than balancing the strengths of the population centers (and states) with the less populous areas.

Are you conservative? What state do you live in?

Well, I've changed a lot over the years. I was far right, I'm more moderate now. On the political compass I've taken recently I'm a little to the right and into the libertarian side. I'm originally from NC and spent around 17 years of my 28 year life there.
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:50:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

The Founders wanted to actually protect against a direct democracy. The reason being is that they believed that this type of democracy would allow for majority rule and incompetent people to actually make grounds. They also feared factionalism and mob rule out of that majority rule, so they tried to limit direct population political electing.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:51:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:50:52 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

The Founders wanted to actually protect against a direct democracy. The reason being is that they believed that this type of democracy would allow for majority rule and incompetent people to actually make grounds. They also feared factionalism and mob rule out of that majority rule, so they tried to limit direct population political electing.

Do you think this still holds true with society as it is now?
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:53:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:51:38 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:50:52 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

The Founders wanted to actually protect against a direct democracy. The reason being is that they believed that this type of democracy would allow for majority rule and incompetent people to actually make grounds. They also feared factionalism and mob rule out of that majority rule, so they tried to limit direct population political electing.

Do you think this still holds true with society as it is now?

I think the Founders made it so that America could become more democratic, but I also think that in today's society even the limited direct participation we have now has resulted in many political issues, stemming from interest groups, advocacy groups, party polarization and affiliation (Founders didn't want parties), and campaign donations.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:57:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:53:28 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:51:38 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:50:52 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

The Founders wanted to actually protect against a direct democracy. The reason being is that they believed that this type of democracy would allow for majority rule and incompetent people to actually make grounds. They also feared factionalism and mob rule out of that majority rule, so they tried to limit direct population political electing.

Do you think this still holds true with society as it is now?

I think the Founders made it so that America could become more democratic, but I also think that in today's society even the limited direct participation we have now has resulted in many political issues, stemming from interest groups, advocacy groups, party polarization and affiliation (Founders didn't want parties), and campaign donations.

I think America would do fine with going towards a popular vote system for its elections. Maybe wean America towards by moving the smaller offices towards popular vote then working towards the presidency. It could just be that I have a lot of faith in Americans and humanity in general.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 4:15:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.
"I am for Socialism because I am for Humanity"-Eugene Debs

Ecuadorian Presidential election endorsement: Lenin Moreno
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 4:15:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

This video explains the problems very well
"I am for Socialism because I am for Humanity"-Eugene Debs

Ecuadorian Presidential election endorsement: Lenin Moreno
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 4:57:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:57:54 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:53:28 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:51:38 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:50:52 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

The Founders wanted to actually protect against a direct democracy. The reason being is that they believed that this type of democracy would allow for majority rule and incompetent people to actually make grounds. They also feared factionalism and mob rule out of that majority rule, so they tried to limit direct population political electing.

Do you think this still holds true with society as it is now?

I think the Founders made it so that America could become more democratic, but I also think that in today's society even the limited direct participation we have now has resulted in many political issues, stemming from interest groups, advocacy groups, party polarization and affiliation (Founders didn't want parties), and campaign donations.

I think America would do fine with going towards a popular vote system for its elections. Maybe wean America towards by moving the smaller offices towards popular vote then working towards the presidency. It could just be that I have a lot of faith in Americans and humanity in general.

Well, I think you may be a little confused. POTUS is the only race that uses the EC. Congress used districts, senate is by state, and I don't think you are suggesting electing either of those by country wide popular vote, right?
TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 5:17:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 4:57:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:57:54 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:53:28 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:51:38 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:50:52 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

The Founders wanted to actually protect against a direct democracy. The reason being is that they believed that this type of democracy would allow for majority rule and incompetent people to actually make grounds. They also feared factionalism and mob rule out of that majority rule, so they tried to limit direct population political electing.

Do you think this still holds true with society as it is now?

I think the Founders made it so that America could become more democratic, but I also think that in today's society even the limited direct participation we have now has resulted in many political issues, stemming from interest groups, advocacy groups, party polarization and affiliation (Founders didn't want parties), and campaign donations.

I think America would do fine with going towards a popular vote system for its elections. Maybe wean America towards by moving the smaller offices towards popular vote then working towards the presidency. It could just be that I have a lot of faith in Americans and humanity in general.

Well, I think you may be a little confused. POTUS is the only race that uses the EC. Congress used districts, senate is by state, and I don't think you are suggesting electing either of those by country wide popular vote, right?

Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.
TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 5:18:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 4:15:28 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

This video explains the problems very well


I'll take a look at it at my earliest convenience. I can't right now, unfortunately.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 7:13:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago

Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.

Super delegates etc. are all part of the internal party system. It has nothing to do with actual elections.
TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 7:26:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 7:13:25 PM, TBR wrote:

Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.

Super delegates etc. are all part of the internal party system. It has nothing to do with actual elections.

How would you feel if the delegates system switched to a popular vote system?
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 7:50:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

Well if the US was smaller in either size or influence in the world than a direct democracy would be easier. But that's a hypothetical. The public needs to be more educated and aware for a direct democracy to work. As for the current system which is actually a constitutional democratic republic, the people select some of the governing on a small level but on a large scale, it is governed by the few, while limited by the constitution. That's why I think the electorate and delegate system is important. Let's really fix the issue and form more parties vice this two party system we have now.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 8:25:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 7:26:06 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:13:25 PM, TBR wrote:

Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.

Super delegates etc. are all part of the internal party system. It has nothing to do with actual elections.

How would you feel if the delegates system switched to a popular vote system?

Nationally, or by state?

I have been on the frustrated end of super-delegate issues more than once, but I understand the purpose, and generally have no issue with them. Additionally, primary's and causes need to be by state. Again, very good reason to care, and balance this out. Do you want NY and California picking the candidates every year? That is what would happen without some state-by-state primary system.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:47:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 7:26:06 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:13:25 PM, TBR wrote:

Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.

Super delegates etc. are all part of the internal party system. It has nothing to do with actual elections.

How would you feel if the delegates system switched to a popular vote system?

Again, are you asking for a national popular vote for nominations? Is that what you are getting at?
TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 4:08:08 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/13/2016 1:47:51 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:26:06 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:13:25 PM, TBR wrote:

Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.

Super delegates etc. are all part of the internal party system. It has nothing to do with actual elections.

How would you feel if the delegates system switched to a popular vote system?

Again, are you asking for a national popular vote for nominations? Is that what you are getting at?

Yes, for the respective parties presidential nominees.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 12:37:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/13/2016 4:08:08 AM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:47:51 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:26:06 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:13:25 PM, TBR wrote:

Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.

Super delegates etc. are all part of the internal party system. It has nothing to do with actual elections.

How would you feel if the delegates system switched to a popular vote system?

Again, are you asking for a national popular vote for nominations? Is that what you are getting at?

Yes, for the respective parties presidential nominees.

Then no. You would end-up with candidates who, again, only represent population centers. Since I am a guy who has always lived in or near large city's, it would be great for me, but the "pandering" that candidates have to do for Iowa Farmers is a good thing really.

We are electing a president to represent ALL people. I understand the appeal in your mind, we all feel that way really, but when you start to think about what would happen, it starts to make sense why some of these things are the way they are.
TheFlex
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 12:53:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/13/2016 12:37:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:08:08 AM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:47:51 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:26:06 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:13:25 PM, TBR wrote:

Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.

Super delegates etc. are all part of the internal party system. It has nothing to do with actual elections.

How would you feel if the delegates system switched to a popular vote system?

Again, are you asking for a national popular vote for nominations? Is that what you are getting at?

Yes, for the respective parties presidential nominees.

Then no. You would end-up with candidates who, again, only represent population centers. Since I am a guy who has always lived in or near large city's, it would be great for me, but the "pandering" that candidates have to do for Iowa Farmers is a good thing really.

We are electing a president to represent ALL people. I understand the appeal in your mind, we all feel that way really, but when you start to think about what would happen, it starts to make sense why some of these things are the way they are.

Thanks for the insight, TBR. I've still got a some research ahead of me.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 12:56:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/13/2016 12:53:20 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:37:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/13/2016 4:08:08 AM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:47:51 AM, TBR wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:26:06 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 7:13:25 PM, TBR wrote:
v
Correct. I'm not familiar or knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm researching it. I know the POTUS uses the EC system and the election cycle using delegates/super delegates, it's the premise of them that I don't agree with. "My vote counts more than your's." You're also correct in that I don't think they should be country-wide popular vote, but specific to the state, county, etc.

Super delegates etc. are all part of the internal party system. It has nothing to do with actual elections.

How would you feel if the delegates system switched to a popular vote system?

Again, are you asking for a national popular vote for nominations? Is that what you are getting at?

Yes, for the respective parties presidential nominees.

Then no. You would end-up with candidates who, again, only represent population centers. Since I am a guy who has always lived in or near large city's, it would be great for me, but the "pandering" that candidates have to do for Iowa Farmers is a good thing really.

We are electing a president to represent ALL people. I understand the appeal in your mind, we all feel that way really, but when you start to think about what would happen, it starts to make sense why some of these things are the way they are.

Thanks for the insight, TBR. I've still got a some research ahead of me.
No problem.

The interesting thing to me is, as jaded as people get about the political process, when you really exam in it, what we have built is incredibly elegant.
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 6:24:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"The interesting thing to me is, as jaded as people get about the political process, when you really exam in it, what we have built is incredibly elegant."

The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

In 2012, 38+ states and people were just spectators to the presidential election.

In 2012, more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the then only ten competitive states. Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
38 states were politically irrelevant.

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don"t even bother to poll them.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to "battleground" states when it comes to governing.

"Battleground" states receive 7% more federal grants than "spectator" states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion.
Since March, ASSUMING a Clinton vs. Trump campaign, some analysts believe there will be no swing states. States with 347 electoral votes are leaning, likely, or safe Democratic, and 191 Republican.
So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 38+ states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states" votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 6:29:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:57:54 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:53:28 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:51:38 PM, TheFlex wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:50:52 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.

The Founders wanted to actually protect against a direct democracy. The reason being is that they believed that this type of democracy would allow for majority rule and incompetent people to actually make grounds. They also feared factionalism and mob rule out of that majority rule, so they tried to limit direct population political electing.

Do you think this still holds true with society as it is now?

I think the Founders made it so that America could become more democratic, but I also think that in today's society even the limited direct participation we have now has resulted in many political issues, stemming from interest groups, advocacy groups, party polarization and affiliation (Founders didn't want parties), and campaign donations.

I think America would do fine with going towards a popular vote system for its elections. Maybe wean America towards by moving the smaller offices towards popular vote then working towards the presidency. It could just be that I have a lot of faith in Americans and humanity in general.

You do. If there's anything that history teaches us, it's that any optimism when it comes to human nature is completely unwarranted. When you design a government, you have to assume that people will try to do every fvcked up thing under the sun, because eventually they'll try it, and if your system isn't equipped to deal with human depravity then it will crumble when they do. Idealism has no place in political science.
"The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art"
- T. S. Eliot -
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 6:32:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
'You would end-up with candidates who, again, only represent population centers. Since I am a guy who has always lived in or near large city's, it would be great for me, but the "pandering" that candidates have to do for Iowa Farmers is a good thing really."

Iowa and New Hampshire are rare exceptions

38 states had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states" votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S, Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.com which were surveyed recently, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016 - Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4) , expected to get massive attention in the general election, while the rest of us are politically irrelevant.

The predictability of the winner of the state you live in, not the size of the population of where you live, determines how much, if at all, your vote matters.
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided "battleground" states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 6:34:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"You would end-up with candidates who, again, only represent population centers. Since I am a guy who has always lived in or near large city's, it would be great for me, but the "pandering" that candidates have to do for Iowa Farmers is a good thing really.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates" attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

In a nationwide election, as in statewide elections for governor and U.S. Senators, and elections for President in battleground states, candidates would campaign everywhere in proportion to the number of votes.

In a nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere"big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas"in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only the handful of battleground states.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention"roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 6:39:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"I think America would do fine with going towards a popular vote system for its elections. "

Virtually every other election in the country IS and has been by popular vote. Every voter is equal and matters, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state"s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes " 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 6:44:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
" The Founders wanted to actually protect against a direct democracy. The reason being is that they believed that this type of democracy would allow for majority rule and incompetent people to actually make grounds. They also feared factionalism and mob rule out of that majority rule, so they tried to limit direct population political electing."

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes would not make us a pure democracy.

Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution..

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party"s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

With National Popular Vote, the 270+ dedicated party activist electors in the enacting states, will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) meeting, as usual, in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges to elect the President.

There is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent an incompetent person from being elected President of the United States, regardless of whether presidential electors are elected on the basis of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule or the nationwide popular vote

FYI . . . With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
augcaesarustus
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 11:06:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:18:10 PM, TheFlex wrote:
If the USA was really about democracy, why don't we just go with the popular vote?
Why not just abolish the electorate/delegate system and just use the popular vote?
It's the true majority. What are the pros and cons of the popular vote system vs. what we have now? I can't help but look at our current system and see why someone's vote should count more than someone else's.
--
The biggest problem with a directly-elected Head of State is the 'Donald Trump' effect.
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:37:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"The biggest problem with a directly-elected Head of State is the 'Donald Trump' effect.

There is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent Trump from being elected President of the United States, regardless of whether presidential electors are elected on the basis of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule or the nationwide popular vote