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

[Greed and Death]

Looking at how it would have given McCain the win in 2008 I think it is fine as is.

...So we're back to "this approach is good because it allows the people I support to win".

I don't see you supporting something that screws over your side

[San Lumen]

Looking at how it would have given McCain the win in 2008 I think it is fine as is.

...So we're back to "this approach is good because it allows the people I support to win".

Yup I don't like who you support so your vote should count less or not at all. Us city people are evil elitists who hate those rural people and should have to only be subject to their values and their needs. Our needs don't matter one bit.

[Vassenor]

...So we're back to "this approach is good because it allows the people I support to win".

I don't see you supporting something that screws over your side

Besides, McCain wining in that situation in the face of an actual majority would really kick this hornet's nest.

[San Lumen]

I don't see you supporting something that screws over your side

Besides, McCain wining in that situation in the face of an actual majority would really kick this hornet's nest.

Yeah and with gerrymandering one side would always win. But as long as certain party wins its perfectly ok. Those rural people could ignore us city folk because they'd always get their candidate.

[Greed and Death]

I don't see you supporting something that screws over your side

Besides, McCain wining in that situation in the face of an actual majority would really kick this hornet's nest.

Just like when Trump won your side would have protested for 3 days then went about their business.

[Vassenor]

Besides, McCain wining in that situation in the face of an actual majority would really kick this hornet's nest.

Just like when Trump won your side would have protested for 3 days then went about their business.

So yes, "a rigged system is fine as long as it's rigged in my favour".

[Greed and Death]

Just like when Trump won your side would have protested for 3 days then went about their business.

So yes, "a rigged system is fine as long as it's rigged in my favour".

Isn't that what politics is all about ?

[San Lumen]

So yes, "a rigged system is fine as long as it's rigged in my favour".

Isn't that what politics is all about ?

uh no it should be about being fair to everyone and representing the nation as a whole and popular vote only would do that. Not making certain votes count more than others.

[Greed and Death]

Isn't that what politics is all about ?

uh no it should be about being fair to everyone and representing the nation as a whole and popular vote only would do that. Not making certain votes count more than others.

Thank you I needed that laugh this morning. Seriously though you have to get rid of that idealism or I do not see much future for your side of the aisle.

[Free Missouri]

When the could've spent their vote helping the libertarian party to get to 5%, then I think it's a waste of a protest vote when they could've taken up the responsibility for change.

To be fair, this is literally the "What's Aleppo?" candidate we're talking about.
Really, the only good choice in the elections are Clinton and McMullin...but they're obviously the evil establishment shill.

With 5% for Gary Johnson the future libertarian candidate in 2020 would have federal funding and be on every ballot in America automatically

[Great Nepal]

There is a problem with doing a pure popular vote.
It is often more difficult for voters in rural or suburban areas to have higher turnout. If you are an Urban voter you likely live 5 minutes away from your polling place and likely live 15 to 30 minutes away from where you work by mass transit. A rural voter might live an hour away by country road from their polling place.

Suburb voters will typically live within 15 minutes of their polling place but they may have an hour long commute into and out of the city to vote. The electoral college balances the life style effect on voter turn out to some degree.

Though I think as a compromise we should do electoral votes by congressional district with the winner of a state getting the two senate votes.

...we have invented a thing called post which people can put papers in, and pop into nearest box which then gets transported by a van to wherever it needs to go to.

It's pretty much an exact analogue of the EC in the UK system. You vote for a local member of parliament. The local member of parliament then endorses a national government. Majority governments elected with a minority of the votes are standard (of course there are also more than two candidates as standard, usually at least four or five with name recognition on any ballot).

Not really, it is partially like what EC was originally supposed to be except there's active, independent committee changing the size of areas so there's roughly same amount of people in each area - it'd only be properly analogous if states were re-designated regularly based on their population - which'd mean it roughly reflects the popular vote.

[Greed and Death]

There is a problem with doing a pure popular vote.
It is often more difficult for voters in rural or suburban areas to have higher turnout. If you are an Urban voter you likely live 5 minutes away from your polling place and likely live 15 to 30 minutes away from where you work by mass transit. A rural voter might live an hour away by country road from their polling place.

Suburb voters will typically live within 15 minutes of their polling place but they may have an hour long commute into and out of the city to vote. The electoral college balances the life style effect on voter turn out to some degree.

Though I think as a compromise we should do electoral votes by congressional district with the winner of a state getting the two senate votes.

...we have invented a thing called post which people can put papers in, and pop into nearest box which then gets transported by a van to wherever it needs to go to.

Not every state allows vote by mail without cause. Also Vote by mail needs to be post marked either the day of the election or the day before the election to count. Breaking news could make another candidate a better choice.

[Lorragen]

I think America's voting system needs to be changed to a two-round popular vote system, this way one candidate will always get a majority of the votes. Also voting should be compulsory.

[Purpelia]

What I don't understand is why you don't just have one elector per state. If the president is supposed to be a federal leader why not simply have it be the guy that most of the states want as opposed to some sort of convoluted numbers game?

Because that makes it even more disproportionate.

How so?

[Vassenor]

Because that makes it even more disproportionate.

How so?

Because right now the number of electors in each state doesn't fairly represent the proportion of the population that lives in that state. Reducing the number of electors increases that disparity. So it makes the voting power of the smaller states even greater.

[Great Nepal]

...we have invented a thing called post which people can put papers in, and pop into nearest box which then gets transported by a van to wherever it needs to go to.

Not every state allows vote by mail without cause.

That sounds like a legal obstacle posed by inability of states to move forward rather than innate technical obstacle.

Also Vote by mail needs to be post marked either the day of the election or the day before the election to count. Breaking news could make another candidate a better choice.

If you're deciding on national elections, after months of campaigning and debates based on what will inevitably be rushed, rumor-filled and incomplete picture coming out of news in the last week before d-day.

[HMS Vanguard]

It's pretty much an exact analogue of the EC in the UK system. You vote for a local member of parliament. The local member of parliament then endorses a national government. Majority governments elected with a minority of the votes are standard (of course there are also more than two candidates as standard, usually at least four or five with name recognition on any ballot).

Not really, it is partially like what EC was originally supposed to be except there's active, independent committee changing the size of areas so there's roughly same amount of people in each area - it'd only be properly analogous if states were re-designated regularly based on their population - which'd mean it roughly reflects the popular vote.

There is for the EC as well. Although the states have fixed boundaries and therefore very different populations, they also have very different numbers of electoral college delegates.

[Free Missouri]

a mix between meritocracy and limited-franchise democracy based on precepts like in Starship Troopers where one must both complete a philosophy course explaining the system and why it is designed as a limited-franchise democracy as well as serve a term in some type of federal service (not bureaucratic, an actual service, be it military, humanitarian, disaster response, certain diplomatic roles, etc. etc. etc. something that requires you actually earn your franchise and that actually benefits others) before being enfranchised or holding office.

So let me get this straight. You hate any form of government bureaucracy that exists to protect people from unsafe food, fake medicine, and predatory financial practices, but you want to create a massive bureaucracy that exists for the sole purposes of ensuring only people that you like get the vote?

wouldn't have to be a massive bureaucracy. You'd just have to show your proof of service/citizenship to the poll workers. A photo ID that you'd automatically get upon finishing your term satisfactorily (not getting canned/drummed out for bad conduct, etc. etc. etc.)

[San Lumen]

So let me get this straight. You hate any form of government bureaucracy that exists to protect people from unsafe food, fake medicine, and predatory financial practices, but you want to create a massive bureaucracy that exists for the sole purposes of ensuring only people that you like get the vote?

wouldn't have to be a massive bureaucracy. You'd just have to show your proof of service/citizenship to the poll workers. A photo ID that you'd automatically get upon finishing your term satisfactorily (not getting canned/drummed out for bad conduct, etc. etc. etc.)

Yeah but city folk like me should have our votes count less or not at all because we don't grow the food even though we provide you with so much other stuff. We should have to
bend to your values

[Post War America]

So let me get this straight. You hate any form of government bureaucracy that exists to protect people from unsafe food, fake medicine, and predatory financial practices, but you want to create a massive bureaucracy that exists for the sole purposes of ensuring only people that you like get the vote?

wouldn't have to be a massive bureaucracy. You'd just have to show your proof of service/citizenship to the poll workers. A photo ID that you'd automatically get upon finishing your term satisfactorily (not getting canned/drummed out for bad conduct, etc. etc. etc.)

Surely you must be joking. Who do you think would be tracking each of agencies you support for counting towards becoming a citizen. Who defines, writes, prints, and grades the philosophy exams? Its not like you can accomplish that without bureaucracy. Further, you'd need more people to cross check the citizenship documents, which is more people you'd need to hire.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes, the electoral college is good for disenfranchising the urban population. Which isn't why the electoral college was implemented. I don't see why a candidate who gets less votes should win, unless you are endorsing the idea of minority rule. Which has always worked so well.

Th British parliamentary system isn't like the electoral college. Pretending it is misses so many of the issues with the both the British Parliamentary system and with the electoral college.

There is a problem with doing a pure popular vote.
It is often more difficult for voters in rural or suburban areas to have higher turnout. If you are an Urban voter you likely live 5 minutes away from your polling place and likely live 15 to 30 minutes away from where you work by mass transit. A rural voter might live an hour away by country road from their polling place.

Suburb voters will typically live within 15 minutes of their polling place but they may have an hour long commute into and out of the city to vote. The electoral college balances the life style effect on voter turn out to some degree.

Though I think as a compromise we should do electoral votes by congressional district with the winner of a state getting the two senate votes.

I don't think the trials of the Rural voter are such that their vote should count for 2-3+ times as much as a Urban voters. Here I'm just interested, is there any evidence that rural voters have a significantly lower turn out than urban voters?

I think the easier response would be to simply move the day of the election to a week end, which would probably help voter turn out overall. As mentioned vote by mail is a thing, though it does have some flaws that keep it from being a perfect solution.

Not really, it is partially like what EC was originally supposed to be except there's active, independent committee changing the size of areas so there's roughly same amount of people in each area - it'd only be properly analogous if states were re-designated regularly based on their population - which'd mean it roughly reflects the popular vote.

There is for the EC as well. Although the states have fixed boundaries and therefore very different populations, they also have very different numbers of electoral college delegates.

The electoral college means that a vote in Wyoming counts for ~3.6 times as much as a vote in California. Though that isn't it's true sin, as bad as that is. The true sin of the electoral college is that it causes the existence of safe and swing states, which means candidates spend all of their time and money campaigning in 6 out of the 50 states.

[Greed and Death]

There is a problem with doing a pure popular vote.
It is often more difficult for voters in rural or suburban areas to have higher turnout. If you are an Urban voter you likely live 5 minutes away from your polling place and likely live 15 to 30 minutes away from where you work by mass transit. A rural voter might live an hour away by country road from their polling place.

Suburb voters will typically live within 15 minutes of their polling place but they may have an hour long commute into and out of the city to vote. The electoral college balances the life style effect on voter turn out to some degree.

Though I think as a compromise we should do electoral votes by congressional district with the winner of a state getting the two senate votes.

I don't think the trials of the Rural voter are such that their vote should count for 2-3+ times as much as a Urban voters. Here I'm just interested, is there any evidence that rural voters have a significantly lower turn out than urban voters?

I think the easier response would be to simply move the day of the election to a week end, which would probably help voter turn out overall. As mentioned vote by mail is a thing, though it does have some flaws that keep it from being a perfect solution.

There is for the EC as well. Although the states have fixed boundaries and therefore very different populations, they also have very different numbers of electoral college delegates.

The electoral college means that a vote in Wyoming counts for ~3.6 times as much as a vote in California. Though that isn't it's true sin, as bad as that is. The true sin of the electoral college is that it causes the existence of safe and swing states, which means candidates spend all of their time and money campaigning in 6 out of the 50 states.

The states that are safe and are swing change over time sometimes at surprising times, for instance ask Mrs. Clinton about Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those types of presumptions about safe and swing states seems to have cost Clinton the Election.

This is also the first time since 1920 that the Republicans have won the White house without losing Virginia. And the first time since 1916 the Republicans have won the White house without Nevada. These states do in fact change.

[HMS Vanguard]

There is for the EC as well. Although the states have fixed boundaries and therefore very different populations, they also have very different numbers of electoral college delegates.

The electoral college means that a vote in Wyoming counts for ~3.6 times as much as a vote in California. Though that isn't it's true sin, as bad as that is. The true sin of the electoral college is that it causes the existence of safe and swing states, which means candidates spend all of their time and money campaigning in 6 out of the 50 states.

Which is insignificant, when you consider that Wyoming only counts for one vote anyway. "Wasted" votes from some states being locks for certain parties is certainly a bigger issue than this, but not a "problem" as such as it is intended in the design of the system.

[Greed and Death]

The electoral college means that a vote in Wyoming counts for ~3.6 times as much as a vote in California. Though that isn't it's true sin, as bad as that is. The true sin of the electoral college is that it causes the existence of safe and swing states, which means candidates spend all of their time and money campaigning in 6 out of the 50 states.

Which is insignificant, when you consider that Wyoming only counts for one vote anyway. "Wasted" votes from some states being locks for certain parties is certainly a bigger issue than this, but not a "problem" as such as it is intended in the design of the system.

3 votes in Wyoming they get the 2 Senators as well. But this Rural votes count 3.6 times is boulder dash. First 15% of California's population is rural and second most states have populations that are a mix of rural, urban, and suburban and mostly predominated by the latter two populations. Yes some states have all or nearly all rural populations (a feet only matched in urban by DC) but their effect on the election is minimal.

It is also worth pointing out that DC and Wyoming have roughly equal populations and have the same Electoral vote count. It is not about rural voters votes counting more even though some rural voters in Wyoming do have their votes count more, because Urban voters in Washington DC have their votes count ~3.6X as much as California as well.

Because it is not rural vs urban it is small versus large. Yes small states do gain some additional representation in Presidential elections and even more so in the Senate. Large states like New York and Virginia (then a high population state), agreed to give up some representation to ease the fears of small states being totally out voted in the national govnerment. That is the compromise we reached you want to change that amend the Constitution the process of which favors small states.

[Spirit of Hope]

Which is insignificant, when you consider that Wyoming only counts for one vote anyway. "Wasted" votes from some states being locks for certain parties is certainly a bigger issue than this, but not a "problem" as such as it is intended in the design of the system.

3 votes in Wyoming they get the 2 Senators as well. But this Rural votes count 3.6 times is boulder dash. First 15% of California's population is rural and second most states have populations that are a mix of rural, urban, and suburban and mostly predominated by the latter two populations. Yes some states have all or nearly all rural populations (a feet only matched in urban by DC) but their effect on the election is minimal.

It is also worth pointing out that DC and Wyoming have roughly equal populations and have the same Electoral vote count. It is not about rural voters votes counting more even though some rural voters in Wyoming do have their votes count more, because Urban voters in Washington DC have their votes count ~3.6X as much as California as well.

Of the smallest states, and DC, they are generally rural, especially in comparison to the states with large populations. Because most of that population tends to be urbanized.

But really the vote diffrence isn't the major problem of the electoral college, it is the safe vs. swing state issue that is the larger problem.

Because it is not rural vs urban it is small versus large. Yes small states do gain some additional representation in Presidential elections and even more so in the Senate. Large states like New York and Virginia (then a high population state), agreed to give up some representation to ease the fears of small states being totally out voted in the national govnerment. That is the compromise we reached you want to change that amend the Constitution the process of which favors small states.

That isn't actually why the electoral college was implemented historically. It was largely about differences in suffrage between states, slavery, and a belief that electors would be above party politics. Since the first two issues have largely disappeared, it is only the later we must be concerned with. I think it is obvious to say that electors are involved in party politics, thus removing the last reason for using the electoral college.

The electoral college means that a vote in Wyoming counts for ~3.6 times as much as a vote in California. Though that isn't it's true sin, as bad as that is. The true sin of the electoral college is that it causes the existence of safe and swing states, which means candidates spend all of their time and money campaigning in 6 out of the 50 states.

Which is insignificant, when you consider that Wyoming only counts for one vote anyway. "Wasted" votes from some states being locks for certain parties is certainly a bigger issue than this, but not a "problem" as such as it is intended in the design of the system.

Except that wasn't the intended design of the system. As I have noted multiple times, the electoral college was set up largely because of slavery, differences in suffrage and a distrust of the legislator to choose the president given party politics. Since the former no longer are issues, and party politics has always been part of the electoral college, I see no not to switch.