Do you think it's time to go back to the popular vote?
With modern technology I see no reason why we can't & how can they say ever vote counts, When it really doesn't
Damn skippy! I'm tired of living in a state that will go red no matter what...
Um, what's this "back" to the popular vote thing? I can only assume you're unaware that the Electoral College was included in the original Constitution. Btw the Founding Fathers specifically put it in there because they didn't trust "the people" to necessarily make the right decisions in an election; their ideas about democracy were, in actuality, much closer to those of a plutocracy than anything else. All the "we, the people" stuff was pretty much lip service.
Not that I disagree that we should dump the Electoral College, but still.
It would be interesting to see what this country would be like as a Democracy rather than a Republic.
You sound like a communist, r3
Are you guys sure that what you really want. I think there's more ignorant, uninformed Americans than there are those who know and understand the issues. Moreover, any time gay marriage is up for vote -- despite what people tell pollsters -- gay marriage always loses.
I think before we think about changing our voting process, we need election reforms that making sure that people who vote actually understand what it is they are voting for. We have too many low-information voters as it is.
Well, yeah, the electoral college is part of the constitution, but it doesn't have to be a state-by-state beauty pageant.
I'd be happy with the vote for each house district going to the candidate who won that district, and then the 2 other votes going to the candidate who won the state as a whole.
Well, we do have a popular vote, however, it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of the popular vote and still lose the election due to the proportional weight given to each state's results in the Electoral College.
Personally, I think the College makes sense. We are a huge and diverse republic of sovereign states. Eliminating the Electoral College would change the way candidates campaign in a negative way and ignore large portions of the country with small populations.
Popular vote, all citizens must vote by law or face financial penalties.
Proportional representation by state population too. (Bye bye Senate...)
Also term limits on ALL Judges.
Go back to the popular vote? The president was never elected with the popular vote to begin with.
The US is not a democracy, and the electoral college preserves the concept of state sovereignty. It's not perfect, but there's no reason to change it.
No. People are stupid. Just look at what California has done to itself through direct voting.
Do you want the South deciding the election OP?
Shut the fuck up.
[quote] Do you want the South deciding the election OP?
How would using the popular vote favor the South? The Electoral College favors sparsely populated, rural states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Alaska (which are strongly Republican) at the expense of heavily populated states like California and New York (which are strongly Democrat).
[quote] Btw the Founding Fathers specifically put it in there because they didn't trust "the people" to necessarily make the right decisions in an election
And it seems they were on to something.
I think reason the Electoral College seems so unfair is because of the "winner take all" states. If all states were apportioned by district, then the Electoral College would be very very close to a popular vote. Right?
r12, the South is 99% red. I don't want those idiots running up the Republican vote. There's Republicans in the North as well.
Trust me, let's stay a Republic.
I'll go ahead and trust Alexander Hamilton. He was a complete asshole but a verifiable genius. He was smart enough to know a true popular vote could lead to scary results.
[quote] the South is 99% red. I don't want those idiots running up the Republican vote.
But under the Electoral College, the South is 100% red because no Democrat can ever win those Southern states, so ALL of their electoral votes go to the Republican. Under the popular vote, the Democrat would at least pick up SOME votes in the South. The Electoral College actually hurts the heavily populated urban Northeastern states, which have disproportionately less representation. The Electoral College is biased in favor of the rural red states.
Take Georgia for instance. The state is Red, but Atlanta is Blue. If it were not "winner take all", then instead of the candidate who had the most votes getting all 15 delegates, Atlanta's votes would be COUNTED - giving say as an example 10 to Red and 5 to Blue.
The Electoral College system is ridiculous. I live in Texas and I don't believe my past Democratic votes have ever assisted in getting a President into office.
But the same argument can be made for California. So much of it is pure red state idiocy. The blue of LA and SF save it.
I think they should "lip sync for your life."
I strongly support the Electoral College. Regardless of its original purpose, it serves a great purpose to this day. It gives the people of each state a set proportion of the total Electoral vote, no matter how many people vote in other states or whom the people in other states vote for. If your state has 10 Electoral votes, they have 10/538 of the total say in who gets to be President. So if people in other states run up their vote total or vote overwhelmingly for one candidate, it doesn't dilute your state's share of the total. That if a very fair system.
On the other hand, I would be okay with Electors chosen by Congressional district and/or the number of Electors reduced to being only equal to the number of representatives (and no longer count Senators).
[quote]On the other hand, I would be okay with Electors chosen by Congressional district and/or the number of Electors reduced to being only equal to the number of representatives (and no longer count Senators).
Of course, that would be for the state to decide. There are some states who chose to allocate their electoral vote that way. There are also other states who have decided that if an electoral majority of states decide to allocate their electoral votes to the majority popular vote winner, they will all allocate their electoral votes to the majority popular vote winner, which is also within their rights. It's up to the states to decide how they vote in the electoral college, as it should be.
I'm also in favor of a popular vote and i think that would make the candidates go to more places then they do under the current rules. Someone in L.A or Dallas might be able to see the nominees campaign. A democrat would go to Memphis and a republican would go to New York City.
If we must have the electoral college at least make it fair by getting rid of the 2 senate seats each states gets on their total. Why should someones vote in Wyoming be worth more than someone in California? If it wasn't in the constitution i think it would be unconstitutional.
Everybody's vote should count equally. We are supposed to be a democracy. A country for the people, by the people. Not for the State, by the State. It is complete bullshit that everyone's vote does NOT count. It is just plain wrong when the vast majority of voters vote one way and the state decides to give the electoral votes to the contrary of what the people obviously want. I can't believe the founding fathers put this crap in the constitution to be begin with. Everyone is part of the country, whether others think them ignorant or not. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but we all still all citizens of this country that is supposed to be a Democracy. The whole system is a sham. It makes many of the people in the Small electoral states feel like it isn't worth their time to vote, because their State has very little effect on the big picture. Even though, there are many people in some of these small states. Popular vote is the only true Democratic way and we are and never will be a true Democracy until the People are all counted equally.