Should the US switch to popular vote vs. electoral college?

[Nocturnalis]

Sounds like fun.

No it wouldnt be. They would always go with whoever had the majority in Congress.

But I thought you wanted majorities??

[San Lumen]

No it wouldnt be. They would always go with whoever had the majority in Congress.

But I thought you wanted majorities??

Yes whoever wins the most votes should be elected.

[Nocturnalis]

But I thought you wanted majorities??

Yes whoever wins the most votes should be elected.

And whoever wins more of the Congress has the majority, so what would be wrong with letting them choose the President?

[Proctopeo]

Yes whoever wins the most votes should be elected.

And whoever wins more of the Congress has the majority, so what would be wrong with letting them choose the President?

By the way, members of Congress are elected by majority, too.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And whoever wins more of the Congress has the majority, so what would be wrong with letting them choose the President?

By the way, members of Congress are elected by majority, too.

That would make it super fair, right? That would mean the winner has, like, 2 whole majorities.

[San Lumen]

Yes whoever wins the most votes should be elected.

And whoever wins more of the Congress has the majority, so what would be wrong with letting them choose the President?

It should be whoever wins the most votes whether its one or one million.

[Prussianaa]

I believe in the electoral vote.
If nothing else and if I can't convince you otherwise, at least it makes for a more unique election campaign.

[Sarigen]

I think proportional representation is important. Interesting that you included a Canadian option in the poll . It's actually a political issue in Canada right now - it was one of our prime minister's campaign promises, but he hasn't delivered on it yet.

[Proctopeo]

And whoever wins more of the Congress has the majority, so what would be wrong with letting them choose the President?

It should be whoever wins the most votes whether its one or one million.

You've said this exact same thing in the past. And I'm not even sure if you used different wording or not.
I've already explained why that's a dangerous train of thought with a thought example, so I won't bother doing so again.

[San Lumen]

It should be whoever wins the most votes whether its one or one million.

You've said this exact same thing in the past. And I'm not even sure if you used different wording or not.
I've already explained why that's a dangerous train of thought with a thought example, so I won't bother doing so again.

its not a dangerous train of thought

[Washington Resistance Army]

You've said this exact same thing in the past. And I'm not even sure if you used different wording or not.
I've already explained why that's a dangerous train of thought with a thought example, so I won't bother doing so again.

its not a dangerous train of thought

Yes it is. That line of thought will lead to the destruction of your fashion designers.

[Socialist Nordia]

And whoever wins more of the Congress has the majority, so what would be wrong with letting them choose the President?

By the way, members of Congress are elected by majority, too.

Elected by majority in squiggly line shaped districts designed to make them uncompetitive, yes.

[San Lumen]

its not a dangerous train of thought

Yes it is. That line of thought will lead to the destruction of your fashion designers.

Please tell me how the person with the most votes winning is a terrible thing? You just like how someone can win without the most votes and would probably like if statewide officers were elected the same way. Not by how many votes but by how many counties you win.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yes it is. That line of thought will lead to the destruction of your fashion designers.

Please tell me how the person with the most votes winning is a terrible thing? You just like how someone can win without the most votes and would probably like if statewide officers were elected the same way. Not by how many votes but by how many counties you win.

Lol, what? The hell are you going on about?

[San Lumen]

Please tell me how the person with the most votes winning is a terrible thing? You just like how someone can win without the most votes and would probably like if statewide officers were elected the same way. Not by how many votes but by how many counties you win.

Lol, what? The hell are you going on about?

Would you think it was fair if senators, governors and other statewide officials were elected not by how many votes you win but by how many counties you get? That's what the electoral college does. A vote in Oklahoma matters more than a vote in California.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Lol, what? The hell are you going on about?

Would you think it was fair if senators, governors and other statewide officials were elected not by how many votes you win but by how many counties you get? That's what the electoral college does. A vote in Oklahoma matters more than a vote in California.

No, and for what it's worth I'd like to make some changes to the electoral college as well. I just don't know what would work best.

[Proctopeo]

You've said this exact same thing in the past. And I'm not even sure if you used different wording or not.
I've already explained why that's a dangerous train of thought with a thought example, so I won't bother doing so again.

its not a dangerous train of thought

Remember the example with Joe, who under your ideals would have won with 11% of the vote? Yeah, that's why it's a dangerous train of thought.

[San Lumen]

Would you think it was fair if senators, governors and other statewide officials were elected not by how many votes you win but by how many counties you get? That's what the electoral college does. A vote in Oklahoma matters more than a vote in California.

No, and for what it's worth I'd like to make some changes to the electoral college as well. I just don't know what would work best.

Just have simple popular vote like every other country that directly elects its president.

its not a dangerous train of thought

Remember the example with Joe, who under your ideals would have won with 11% of the vote? Yeah, that's why it's a dangerous train of thought.

Whoever wins the most votes should be elected. simple as that. Perhaps if no one gets a majority there should be a run off election?

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, and for what it's worth I'd like to make some changes to the electoral college as well. I just don't know what would work best.

Just have simple popular vote like every other country that directly elects its president.

It's already been explained to you in a previous thread (maybe this one in fact) that plenty of other countries don't go solely off of the popular vote. I dunno why you're always so dense but t's kind of annoying.

Proctopeo pretty greatly explained why I don't like going solely off of the popular vote.

[Proctopeo]

No, and for what it's worth I'd like to make some changes to the electoral college as well. I just don't know what would work best.

Just have simple popular vote like every other country that directly elects its president.

Remember the example with Joe, who under your ideals would have won with 11% of the vote? Yeah, that's why it's a dangerous train of thought.

Whoever wins the most votes should be elected. simple as that. Perhaps if no one gets a majority there should be a run off election?

I was thinking more along the lines of instant runoff - you get to choose second-, third-, and beyond picks. Whoever has the fewest votes is dropped and the second choices of their voters are added to the remaining candidates. Do this until someone has a majority.

[San Lumen]

Just have simple popular vote like every other country that directly elects its president.


Whoever wins the most votes should be elected. simple as that. Perhaps if no one gets a majority there should be a run off election?

I was thinking more along the lines of instant runoff - you get to choose second-, third-, and beyond picks. Whoever has the fewest votes is dropped and the second choices of their voters are added to the remaining candidates. Do this until someone has a majority.

Thats not a bad idea and one I could possibly support. I think Maine will start doing that in 2018.

Just have simple popular vote like every other country that directly elects its president.

It's already been explained to you in a previous thread (maybe this one in fact) that plenty of other countries don't go solely off of the popular vote. I dunno why you're always so dense but t's kind of annoying.

Proctopeo pretty greatly explained why I don't like going solely off of the popular vote.

I said every other country that directly elects its President goes solely of popular vote. Some might have runoffs but no other country has a system were someone wins based on land area as opposed to votes. No other country in the world has a electoral college.

[Proctopeo]

I was thinking more along the lines of instant runoff - you get to choose second-, third-, and beyond picks. Whoever has the fewest votes is dropped and the second choices of their voters are added to the remaining candidates. Do this until someone has a majority.

Thats not a bad idea and one I could possibly support. I think Maine will start doing that in 2018.

It's called "instant runoff", by the way.

[Khalisako]

No.... it just needs not to be bipartison... if it even qualifies as bipartison considering how the democrats lack any spine and constantly pander to the GOP. Not much purpose in having a "Democracy" if you've no choices.

American democracy is dead until there's choices. Electoral college or not.

[San Lumen]

No.... it just needs not to be bipartison... if it even qualifies as bipartison considering how the democrats lack any spine and constantly pander to the GOP. Not much purpose in having a "Democracy" if you've no choices.

American democracy is dead until there's choices. Electoral college or not.

if you don't like the choices then grab a clipboard and run for office yourself.

[The Saint James Islands]

I said every other country that directly elects its President goes solely of popular vote. Some might have runoffs but no other country has a system were someone wins based on land area as opposed to votes. No other country in the world has a electoral college.

First, the US President is not directly elected, but rather indirectly elected; the people elect a smaller group of people who do the real electing. Whether this is a good idea or not is certainly up for debate. Saying that every country that directly elects its head of state does so by popular vote is like saying that all apples are apples.

Second, Germany, India, Pakistan, Estonia, Myanmar and others would like to have a word with you. Even the Irish and French have electoral colleges, though they elect an upper house instead of a head of state.