Popular Vote?

[WT901]

Thought this would be interesting since Amendment One just passed.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53434.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402254.html

Both of these articles are in support of the National Popular Vote, a plan which would allow voters in America to directly elect the President of the United States. 7 states currently support it, most notably California. Every state has introduced the bill at least, most of whom are already working to pass it into legislation.

Just want to know your thoughts.

 

[deacondamo]

This a great idea. The electoral college disenfranchises people in my opinion. Why should a person in FL or OH have a more important vote than me? A national vote should develop an increase in voter turnout as well.

 

[bym051d]

This a great idea. The electoral college disenfranchises people in my opinion. Why should a person in FL or OH have a more important vote than me? A national vote should develop an increase in voter turnout as well.

They don't unless you live in CA or TX. The people with the most valuable votes live in places like AK or ID.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

A straight popular vote is a bad idea and would F up the country more than it already is. You think your vote means nothing now? Try living in a world where a handful of large metropolitan cities absorb all I the candidates attention.

I might support a more fragmented system instead of states but not a straight popular vote.

 

[HeavyPetter]

They don't unless you live in CA or TX. The people with the most valuable votes live in places like AK or ID.

I understand what you're saying, but Obama got less than 40% of the vote in both of those states. If you live in a state that votes overwhelmingly for one party, your vote for president is completely marginalized. Candidates from either side barely campaign there.

 

[HeavyPetter]

A straight popular vote is a bad idea and would F up the country more than it already is. You think your vote means nothing now? Try living in a world where a handful of large metropolitan cities absorb all I the candidates attention.

I might support a more fragmented system instead of states but not a straight popular vote.

So you're saying that the majority of the people shouldn't get the majority of the attention in a national election. Popular vote is how we vote for governor, why not president?

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

So you're saying that the majority of the people shouldn't get the majority of the attention in a national election. Popular vote is how we vote for governor, why not president?

Not only am I saying that...The Constitution says it as well. The Founding Fathers set up this system specifically to keep the heavily populated areas (They were more concerned about States but now it would be metropolitan areas) from controlling the Presidency and it has worked. Our Presidents have come from all sorts of backgrounds and have held all sorts of beliefs. Southern, Western, North eastern, Midwestern, rich, middle-class, small town, big town, conservative, liberal.... If we went to a straight popular vote our Presidents would be a lot more homogenous and there would be A LOT more disenfranchised voters.

 

[RacerDeac]

I prefer the EC over popular vote for Presidential elections, but I'm a "New Federalist" who prefers to see less centralized power in general.

 

[BillBrasky]

Not only am I saying that...The Constitution says it as well. The Founding Fathers set up this system specifically to keep the heavily populated areas (They were more concerned about States but now it would be metropolitan areas) from controlling the Presidency and it has worked. Our Presidents have come from all sorts of backgrounds and have held all sorts of beliefs. Southern, Western, North eastern, Midwestern, rich, middle-class, small town, big town, conservative, liberal.... If we went to a straight popular vote our Presidents would be a lot more homogenous and there would be A LOT more disenfranchised voters.

I 100% agree with this statement

 

[HeavyPetter]

Not only am I saying that...The Constitution says it as well. The Founding Fathers set up this system specifically to keep the heavily populated areas (They were more concerned about States but now it would be metropolitan areas) from controlling the Presidency and it has worked. Our Presidents have come from all sorts of backgrounds and have held all sorts of beliefs. Southern, Western, North eastern, Midwestern, rich, middle-class, small town, big town, conservative, liberal.... If we went to a straight popular vote our Presidents would be a lot more homogenous and there would be A LOT more disenfranchised voters.

I'm not sure I understand your argument as it basically would require a dissertation to explain. I do however think that you're ignoring thae fact that no one is getting elected these days without plenty of money from well heeled fundraisers from metropolitan areas. I understand that the constitution set up the electoral college 250 years ago. I think its time has passed.

I don't understand your assertion that there will be a lot more disenfranchised voters since you offer absolutely no evidence or argument to support it. How is someone disenfranchised if his vote is equal to that of everyone else's? Currently one vote in Ohio or Florida is way more valuable than one vote in Alabama or Texas.

 

[demondeacfreak]

A straight popular vote is a bad idea and would F up the country more than it already is. You think your vote means nothing now? Try living in a world where a handful of large metropolitan cities absorb all I the candidates attention.

I might support a more fragmented system instead of states but not a straight popular vote.

I'd like to see us assign each Congressional district 1 EV that goes the way that district votes and then give the overall winner of a state 2 EV per state instead of the winner-take-all approach. I think that would force campaigns to become more national than just focused on certain battleground states.

 

[PhDeac]

I'd like to see us assign each Congressional district 1 EV that goes the way that district votes and then give the overall winner of a state 2 EV per state instead of the winner-take-all approach. I think that would force campaigns to become more national than just focused on certain battleground states.

Simple effective solution. We still need to fix gerrymandering though.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

I'm not sure I understand your argument as it basically would require a dissertation to explain. I do however think that you're ignoring thae fact that no one is getting elected these days without plenty of money from well heeled fundraisers from metropolitan areas. I understand that the constitution set up the electoral college 250 years ago. I think its time has passed.

I don't understand your assertion that there will be a lot more disenfranchised voters since you offer absolutely no evidence or argument to support it. How is someone disenfranchised if his vote is equal to that of everyone else's? Currently one vote in Ohio or Florida is way more valuable than one vote in Alabama or Texas.

More people would be disenfranchised because our candidates would only campaign to metropolitan voters. A voter in Wake County (for example) would never see hide nor tail of a presidential candidate and his/her concerns would never be addressed. Why would Romney spend any time or resources in Ohio when he could reach nearly as many voters in New York city? You don't think the people of Ohio would be disenfranchised?

Sure, there are only a few states that swing a close Presidential election but it is not the same states. North Carolina for example is now a swing state where GWB won NC by 16 points. Each election is different and damn near any state could be a swing state in a given cycle depending on candidates and issues. A popular vote system would produce the same results 4 year after 4 year.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

Simple effective solution. We still need to fix gerrymandering though.

That is exactly what I was going to post. No way we could go to that system with the crazy gerrymandering going on. If we had a sensible congressional district drawing system then I could support that plan.

 

[HeavyPetter]

I'd like to see us assign each Congressional district 1 EV that goes the way that district votes and then give the overall winner of a state 2 EV per state instead of the winner-take-all approach. I think that would force campaigns to become more national than just focused on certain battleground states.

This is a horrible idea. Your presidential election would be fought out in the courts every time we redistrict. Instead of a few battleground states, we'd have a few battleground districts.

 

[deacondamo]

More people would be disenfranchised because our candidates would only campaign to metropolitan voters. A voter in Wake County (for example) would never see hide nor tail of a presidential candidate and his/her concerns would never be addressed. Why would Romney spend any time or resources in Ohio when he could reach nearly as many voters in New York city? You don't think the people of Ohio would be disenfranchised?

Sure, there are only a few states that swing a close Presidential election but it is not the same states. North Carolina for example is now a swing state where GWB won NC by 16 points. Each election is different and damn near any state could be a swing state in a given cycle depending on candidates and issues. A popular vote system would produce the same results 4 year after 4 year.

This makes no sense. NYC is a mostly blue city anyway. You wouldn't campaign towards a lost cause (at least, I wouldn't think so). There are about as many rural voters and urban voters. A candidate needs rural votes to win the election.

I live in a state that goes Democratic every election with every national seat. With the EC, my vote means nothing. My vote would matter under a one person, one vote system.

We could get rid of the antiquated and stupid primary systems as well. WGAF what Iowa and NH think about the primary? I am also in favor of one national primary election. The nation would save endless amounts of money that are wasted campaigning over the course of two years in several different states.

 

[RJKarl]

More people would be disenfranchised because our candidates would only campaign to metropolitan voters. A voter in Wake County (for example) would never see hide nor tail of a presidential candidate and his/her concerns would never be addressed. Why would Romney spend any time or resources in Ohio when he could reach nearly as many voters in New York city? You don't think the people of Ohio would be disenfranchised?

Sure, there are only a few states that swing a close Presidential election but it is not the same states. North Carolina for example is now a swing state where GWB won NC by 16 points. Each election is different and damn near any state could be a swing state in a given cycle depending on candidates and issues. A popular vote system would produce the same results 4 year after 4 year.

Why should one person in NC count more than one person in NY?

Why should a vote in NH count more than a vote in CA? It clearly does now.

 

[legacyfan]

One reason I support the EC is because of what happened in the "sacred" popular vote yesterday in North Carolina - my home state. Mood swings should not undo this country.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

This makes no sense. NYC is a mostly blue city anyway. You wouldn't campaign towards a lost cause (at least, I wouldn't think so). There are about as many rural voters and urban voters. A candidate needs rural votes to win the election.

I live in a state that goes Democratic every election with every national seat. With the EC, my vote means nothing. My vote would matter under a one person, one vote system.

We could get rid of the antiquated and stupid primary systems as well. WGAF what Iowa and NH think about the primary? I am also in favor of one national primary election. The nation would save endless amounts of money that are wasted campaigning over the course of two years in several different states.

And that is exactly why you would get more homogenous candidates. The candidate that invests money and resources to campaign less populated areas would be swamped by the candidate that would only have to cater to bigger metropolitan areas....winning NYC and LA would be like winning nearly all of the mid-west. A candidate would not need non-metropolitan voters to win the election.

 

[RacerDeac]

Why should one person in NC count more than one person in NY?

Why should a vote in NH count more than a vote in CA? It clearly does now.

Why shouldn't it? The argument for the EC has been made by very smart people throughout our nation's history. The more recently popular argument against it has been made over and over as well. Ultimately it comes down to how strongly you view this country as a Federation of States. If you see value in "States right", you probably like the EC. If you don't, you are a 1 man, 1 vote proponent when it comes to the Presidential election. As of now, the Constitution seems to support the strong Federation view. It's tough for me to tell where popular opinion on the issue comes down because I don't think many people really think a lot about the issue and just take our gov't structure for granted.