Popular Vote?

[demondeacfreak]

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

We need to fix gerrymandering whether we change the EC or not, definitely agree. However, even with gerrymandering the House seems to change control with some regularity. Over 50 states with various degrees of gaming the system the Republicans and Democrats largely neutralize each other in that regard. I think the hybrid approach could work about as well as the current system, but has room for improvement.

 

[RJKarl]

You can't compare 18th century America to today. If you want to say, "that's the way the Founders wanted it", then you'd have to accept slavery and women not being allowed to vote. It's disingenuous to only pick the parts of the founding of our nation you like.

In 18th and 19th century America, people were North Carolinians first not Americans first. Much of the population never visited another state. Hell a huge percentage may not have made it more that five counties away in their entire lives.

We aren't a loosely held together federation like we were then. States would still have rights if voting for POTUS was the same as voting Senate.

 

[RacerDeac]

You can't compare 18th century America to today. If you want to say, "that's the way the Founders wanted it", then you'd have to accept slavery and women not being allowed to vote. It's disingenuous to only pick the parts of the founding of our nation you like.

No it's not. That's exactly how you improve something. You get rid of the bad and replace it with better. You just disagree with some about which parts are good, otherwise you'd be suggesting we scrap the entire thing and start from scratch.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

It's not really a popular vote vs. state vote, it's a city vote vs. state vote. In a popular vote, the wants of the most populous cities will dominate an election, disenfranchising large areas of the country. Our current system still gives power to populous areas, while valuing the vote of less populated areas as well. Even though GWB looms large, only 4 presidents have ever been elected without winning the popular vote, and 3 of those voter differences were less than 300K

 

[RacerDeac]

We aren't a loosely held together federation like we were then. States would still have rights if voting for POTUS was the same as voting Senate.

That argument only really works if I get to vote for your Senator in CA as a North Carolinian. Senators are elected from the States to represent them in the National gov't (much like the EC works...popular vote within the State to choose the way the State votes as a whole).

 

[RacerDeac]

Our current system still gives power to populous areas, while valuing the vote of less populated areas as well. Even though GWB looms large, very few presidents have ever been elected without winning the popular vote.

Exactly, in almost all cases the "popular vote" still wins while, at the same time, forcing the President to better represent the needs of those in less populated areas, States, etc.

 

[RJKarl]

No it's not. That's exactly how you improve something. You get rid of the bad and replace it with better. You just disagree with some about which parts are good, otherwise you'd be suggesting we scrap the entire thing and start from scratch.

and the bad is making a person in Delaware's vote count THIRTY times as much as person's vote in CA.

 

[HeavyPetter]

11-11. Split decision.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

and the bad is making a person in Delaware's vote count THIRTY times as much as person's vote in CA.

speaking of disengenious. You know that Cali has 55 Electoral College Votes, and Delaware has 3. This "swing state" idea you're stuck on is only possible because some states are more politically diverse than others, and thus could swing from left to right. If you want to move to a swing state, go right ahead. I hear Cleveland is nice this time of never. Just don't cry about Cali being so liberal that your vote doesn't matter.

 

[ChrisL68]

Politicians would still campaign in less populated states. I can show you several examples where California was given a disproportional advantage due to the electoral college that it wouldn't have necessarily had with the popular vote.

The only thing the electoral college provides incentive to is campaigning in states that are close. Your vote matters in those states. If the state isn't close, your vote matters not.

In a popular vote election, every vote would matter and driving up advantages in states you would win anyway or lessening disadvantages in states you would lose anyway could win you the election.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Politicians would still campaign in less populated states. I can show you several examples where California was given a disproportional advantage due to the electoral college that it wouldn't have necessarily had with the popular vote.

The only thing the electoral college provides incentive to is campaigning in states that are close. Your vote matters in those states. If the state isn't close, your vote matters not.

In a popular vote election, every vote would matter and driving up advantages in states you would win anyway or lessening disadvantages in states you would lose anyway could win you the election.

Every vote does matter, some voters just happen to live on top of each other in cities, while others are spread out around the country. People are still voting individually in those populated areas. It's their choice to vote a certain way and to live in a certain place. Why should smaller states be punished because metro centers vote so predictably?

 

[RacerDeac]

and the bad is making a person in Delaware's vote count THIRTY times as much as person's vote in CA.

That's your opinion. That wasn't the opinion of those who laid out our government nor is it the opinion of many now. You look at it from the standpoint of the individual vote and many look at it from the standpoint of the views/needs of a certain State or area of the country being more fairly represented over that of the popular majority. It's a system designed to give a voice to the minority (much like the Senate does as well, as opposed to the house).

 

[WT901]

I'm surprised people haven't brought one issue up with popular vote: Many people in the electorate simply DO NOT TRUST voters to make an informed decision about the President.

We made gay marriage illegal in NC based off of religious reasons, for the most part. Why should we be trusted to elect the President directly?

Logistics aside, this is a problem for me, personally.

Competitive poll atm. 12-13-1

 

[ChrisL68]

Every vote does matter, some voters just happen to live on top of each other in cities, while others are spread out around the country. People are still voting individually in those populated areas. It's their choice to vote a certain way and to live in a certain place. Why should smaller states be punished because metro centers vote so predictably?

So the people who are spread out don't vote predictably either? I don't see how a smaller state is being punished by not giving them more influence then their population would justify.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I'm surprised people haven't brought one issue up with popular vote: Many people in the electorate simply DO NOT TRUST voters to make an informed decision about the President.

We made gay marriage illegal in NC based off of religious reasons, for the most part. Why should we be trusted to elect the President directly?

Logistics aside, this is a problem for me, personally.

Competitive poll atm. 12-13-1

Their are checks with an electoral vote to help prevent disenfranchisement. A popular vote has none, it's strictly the rule of the majority, and as we saw yesterday, that's not always the best or most fair way.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

So the people who are spread out don't vote predictably either? I don't see how a smaller state is being punished by not giving them more influence then their population would justify.

They are only given more influence because their vote could fall either way. That's the definition of unpredictable. I'm pretty sure that states like Alabama and Mississippi aren't swing states because they are just as predictably red as cali or NY is blue.

 

[RJKarl]

You can never allow a popular vote on civil rights.

Having a popular vote for an elective office is quite different.

Your analogy doesn't hold water.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

You can never allow a popular vote on civil rights.

Having a popular vote for an elective office is quite different.

Your analogy doesn't hold water.

Thank you for providing absolutes with exactly zero facts or ideas.

My "analogy" holds plenty of water. Do you believe that the 8 million people in NY have the best interests of Iowa citizens in mind when they vote? In a popular vote, NYC could easily have more political sway than 3 or 4 midwestern states put together. If you think that's fair, then you also think it's fair that all the rightwing conservatives in Eastern NC can decide whats best for Winston-Salem and Greensboro as to gay marriage.

 

[RJKarl]

The idea is is quite clear, a popular vote.

 

[ChrisL68]

They are only given more influence because their vote could fall either way. That's the definition of unpredictable. I'm pretty sure that states like Alabama and Mississippi aren't swing states because they are just as predictably red as cali or NY is blue.

I agree. And that's my point. It randomly provides inordinate influence to voters of certain geographic areas that just happen to be split down the middle between two parties.