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

[Bressen]

Again, you're not addressing the point. Sunstruck was just generally annoyed with the masses and their choice of vote, and the masses would include everyone regardless of if it was the electoral college or a popular vote.

the electoral college makes it so certain votes count more than others. No candidate has ever won by the margin in popular vote that clinton did and lost the election. I shudder to think it could happen again in 2020. What will people say then?

You're completely missing the point, which I've explained twice already. It wasn't about the electoral college and the popular vote, it was about the voting tendencies of the masses in general that Sunstruck didn't have faith in.

Regardless, I for one prefer the parliamentary system, but I doubt America is going to adopt Big Brother Britain's ways anytime soon.

[Izandai]

I don't know of a voting system that would completely prevent a trend towards a two-party system, only of ones that lessen the pressure for that and make it easier for third parties to gain influence, like instant runoff.

You can have a multi-party system in any voting system, you just have to give the third-parties more representation and put them on equal ground with the two-parties. For example, including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the Presidential Debates (or, including the one with the highest poll numbers at the very least) would be a tremendous step in the right direction for breaking through the two-party system.

Nope. All voting systems (that I know of) trend towards 2 main parties as smaller parties that cannot garner enough support die off and their supporters transition to supporting the major party they prefer. Again, there might be a voting system I don't know about that allows for the existence of lots of parties, all operating on equal footing, but getting there is not just a matter of letting the third-party candidates debate the major party candidates.

[Izandai]

You can have a multi-party system in any voting system, you just have to give the third-parties more representation and put them on equal ground with the two-parties. For example, including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the Presidential Debates (or, including the one with the highest poll numbers at the very least) would be a tremendous step in the right direction for breaking through the two-party system.

and if you got rid of the electoral college a vote for a third party wouldnt be a spoiler like it was in 2016

No, it still would be. That's a consequence of first past the post voting, not the Electoral College. If you want to eliminate the spoiler effect (which we should all want to do) you're gonna want to implement something like instant runoff voting (AKA preferential voting).

[Bressen]

You can have a multi-party system in any voting system, you just have to give the third-parties more representation and put them on equal ground with the two-parties. For example, including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the Presidential Debates (or, including the one with the highest poll numbers at the very least) would be a tremendous step in the right direction for breaking through the two-party system.

Nope. All voting systems (that I know of) trend towards 2 main parties as smaller parties that cannot garner enough support die off and their supporters transition to supporting the major party they prefer. Again, there might be a voting system I don't know about that allows for the existence of lots of parties, all operating on equal footing, but getting there is not just a matter of letting the third-party candidates debate the major party candidates.

Parliamentary systems allow for third-party representation, just look at the UK. Of course, people are going to trend towards major parties because the major parties are the most popular by virtue of being polar opposites, but third-parties such as the Liberal Democrats have their say in the House of Commons which means that anyone who voted LibDem is going to have their voice heard in the legislative chambers, which is a step in the right direction for combating the two-party system.

The issue of third-parties dying off is purely an issue of representation and appeal; third-parties need to start appealing more to two-party voters by tapping into the elements of both sides that their third-party seeks to represent. For example, a third-party in the UK could tap into Labour's supporters by promising to keep the NHS away from privatisation, and could tap into Conservative supporters by promising to cut back on government spending. It's all about precarious balance.

[Izandai]

Nope. All voting systems (that I know of) trend towards 2 main parties as smaller parties that cannot garner enough support die off and their supporters transition to supporting the major party they prefer. Again, there might be a voting system I don't know about that allows for the existence of lots of parties, all operating on equal footing, but getting there is not just a matter of letting the third-party candidates debate the major party candidates.

Parliamentary systems allow for third-party representation, just look at the UK. Of course, people are going to trend towards major parties because the major parties are the most popular by virtue of being polar opposites, but third-parties such as the Liberal Democrats have their say in the House of Commons which means that anyone who voted LibDem is going to have their voice heard in the legislative chambers, which is a step in the right direction for combating the two-party system.

The issue of third-parties dying off is purely an issue of representation and appeal; third-parties need to start appealing more to two-party voters by tapping into the elements of both sides that their third-party seeks to represent. For example, a third-party in the UK could tap into Labour's supporters by promising to keep the NHS away from privatisation, and could tap into Conservative supporters by promising to cut back on government spending. It's all about precarious balance.

Okay yes there are ways for voting for representatives in a legislature to support third parties but I was talking about the election of a single executive.

[Bressen]

Parliamentary systems allow for third-party representation, just look at the UK. Of course, people are going to trend towards major parties because the major parties are the most popular by virtue of being polar opposites, but third-parties such as the Liberal Democrats have their say in the House of Commons which means that anyone who voted LibDem is going to have their voice heard in the legislative chambers, which is a step in the right direction for combating the two-party system.

The issue of third-parties dying off is purely an issue of representation and appeal; third-parties need to start appealing more to two-party voters by tapping into the elements of both sides that their third-party seeks to represent. For example, a third-party in the UK could tap into Labour's supporters by promising to keep the NHS away from privatisation, and could tap into Conservative supporters by promising to cut back on government spending. It's all about precarious balance.

Okay yes there are ways for voting for representatives in a legislature to support third parties but I was talking about the election of a single executive.

Then maybe the problem is that you have a single executive who has the power to go over the heads of the legislative chambers. Britain doesn't, and we get along just fine.

[Proctopeo]

Okay yes there are ways for voting for representatives in a legislature to support third parties but I was talking about the election of a single executive.

Then maybe the problem is that you have a single executive who has the power to go over the heads of the legislative chambers. Britain doesn't, and we get along just fine.

*points to checks and balances*

[Bressen]

Then maybe the problem is that you have a single executive who has the power to go over the heads of the legislative chambers. Britain doesn't, and we get along just fine.

*points to checks and balances*

Why not just circumvent the need for checks and balances by not having an executive who's both the Head of State and Head of Government?

[Proctopeo]

*points to checks and balances*

Why not just circumvent the need for checks and balances by not having an executive who's both the Head of State and Head of Government?

Head of State doesn't inherently do anything. You know that, right? Head of Government does the things, and that's what both the Prime Minister of the UK and what the President of the US are. It just so happens that instead of having a monarch as the Head of State, we give that figurehead position to the Head of Government.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

*points to checks and balances*

Why not just circumvent the need for checks and balances by not having an executive who's both the Head of State and Head of Government?

That's not how you circumvent checks and balances. Non-Westminster parliamentary democracies separate the positions and still have veto powers issued to their ceremonial presidents.

[Bressen]

Why not just circumvent the need for checks and balances by not having an executive who's both the Head of State and Head of Government?

Head of State doesn't inherently do anything. You know that, right? Head of Government does the things, and that's what both the Prime Minister of the UK and what the President of the US are. It just so happens that instead of having a monarch as the Head of State, we give that figurehead position to the Head of Government.

The point of not having the President as the Head of State and the Head of Government is that it changes the dynamic of how elections work. It's not this simple in and of itself, but if Britain is any system to go by, the fact that the Prime Minister is the Head of Government and isn't elected by popular vote has only resulted in election campaigns focusing on party platform rather than the character and popularity of the Prime Minister-to-be.

The fact that the President is given the ceremonial position of Head of State by virtue of their office is just more incentive to vote based on the President character rather than their politics, because said President is not only acting as the leader of the government, but also acting as the international representative and figurehead of the nation. There's a lot more incentive to vote in a charismatic and benevolent President based on this fact, as opposed to an introverted and callous President.

[Bressen]

Why not just circumvent the need for checks and balances by not having an executive who's both the Head of State and Head of Government?

That's not how you circumvent checks and balances. Non-Westminster parliamentary democracies separate the positions and still have veto powers issued to their ceremonial presidents.

But in those circumstances, the checks and balances are working in reverse. Instead of the legislative chamber having checks and balances to stop the President from overreaching their powers, it's the President having checks and balance against the legislative chamber to prevent them from overreaching their powers. The latter dynamic works better, because there's a very limited number of ways the legislative chamber can overreach their powers since their very existence is dedicated to making legislation that affects the whole country in a democratic and representative way.

[Shazbotdom]

If you're referring to America's previous election cycle, can you blame them? Neither choice of candidate proved themself to be good, and it was essentially a vote for the lesser evil.
America definitely needs to step away from a two-party system to fix this.

One was a great candidate the other was terrible. This election cycle proved that certain votes count more than others and we should just switch to popular vote only like the rest of the world.

Ah no.
Both were terrible candidates.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

That's not how you circumvent checks and balances. Non-Westminster parliamentary democracies separate the positions and still have veto powers issued to their ceremonial presidents.

But in those circumstances, the checks and balances are working in reverse. Instead of the legislative chamber having checks and balances to stop the President from overreaching their powers, it's the President having checks and balance against the legislative chamber to prevent them from overreaching their powers. The latter dynamic works better, because there's a very limited number of ways the legislative chamber can overreach their powers since their very existence is dedicated to making legislation that affects the whole country in a democratic and representative way.

That's an interesting contention. I am unfortunately only familiar with the American system.

[Proctopeo]

That's not how you circumvent checks and balances. Non-Westminster parliamentary democracies separate the positions and still have veto powers issued to their ceremonial presidents.

But in those circumstances, the checks and balances are working in reverse. Instead of the legislative chamber having checks and balances to stop the President from overreaching their powers, it's the President having checks and balance against the legislative chamber to prevent them from overreaching their powers. The latter dynamic works better, because there's a very limited number of ways the legislative chamber can overreach their powers since their very existence is dedicated to making legislation that affects the whole country in a democratic and representative way.

Okay, it's clear that you don't understand American checks and balances. For example, the Executive has a check on the Legislative, by being able to veto a law, which the Legislature has their own check on, the veto override. Thinking outside of vetoes, the Executive needs the Legislature to actually make laws, but the President can suggest ideas for bills to members of the Senate. Outside of the Executive-Legislative dynamic, the Judicial branch can override laws and executive orders for not being constitutional, but the President and the Legislature are responsible for actually filling out the Judicial.

[Bressen]

But in those circumstances, the checks and balances are working in reverse. Instead of the legislative chamber having checks and balances to stop the President from overreaching their powers, it's the President having checks and balance against the legislative chamber to prevent them from overreaching their powers. The latter dynamic works better, because there's a very limited number of ways the legislative chamber can overreach their powers since their very existence is dedicated to making legislation that affects the whole country in a democratic and representative way.

Okay, it's clear that you don't understand American checks and balances. For example, the Executive has a check on the Legislative, by being able to veto a law, which the Legislature has their own check on, the veto override. Thinking outside of vetoes, the Executive needs the Legislature to actually make laws, but the President can suggest ideas for bills to members of the Senate. Outside of the Executive-Legislative dynamic, the Judicial branch can override laws and executive orders for not being constitutional, but the President and the Legislature are responsible for actually filling out the Judicial.

What's the point in giving the Executive a veto on the legislature when the legislature can just counter the veto? Seems like a lot of unnecessary checks and balances when you could just not give the President the amount of power they have that allows them to veto the legislature in the first place, which in turn serves to not raise the president above the authority of the legislature which, in any true democracy, is the arbiter of legislation.

Executive orders can thus only be ruled on for being unconstitutional, no? So, any executive order created by the president that is constitutional is still a piece of legislature that has been made without the consultation of the legislative branch, which is just another example of the unnecessary power invested in a single individual.

The British system works much better in this regard, as nothing can veto the legislature except the Head of State, but that's only in technicality as if the Queen ever refused to provide the Royal Assent to legislation there'd be political uproar on a big enough scale that the Monarchy would be under threat of abolishment. Though, I will concede this system only really works in Britain given our history of monarchs and our principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

[Proctopeo]

Okay, it's clear that you don't understand American checks and balances. For example, the Executive has a check on the Legislative, by being able to veto a law, which the Legislature has their own check on, the veto override. Thinking outside of vetoes, the Executive needs the Legislature to actually make laws, but the President can suggest ideas for bills to members of the Senate. Outside of the Executive-Legislative dynamic, the Judicial branch can override laws and executive orders for not being constitutional, but the President and the Legislature are responsible for actually filling out the Judicial.

What's the point in giving the Executive a veto on the legislature when the legislature can just counter the veto? Seems like a lot of unnecessary checks and balances when you could just not give the President the amount of power they have that allows them to veto the legislature in the first place, which in tern serves to not raise the president above the authority of the legislature which, in any true democracy, is the arbiter of legislation.

Executive orders can thus only be ruled on for being unconstitutional, no? So, any executive order created by the president that is constitutional is still a piece of legislature that has been made without the consultation of the legislative branch, which is just another example of the unnecessary power invested in a single individual.

The British system works much better in this regard, as nothing can veto the legislature except the Head of State, but that's only in technicality as if the Queen ever refused to provide the Royal Assent to legislation there'd be political uproar on a big enough scale that the Monarchy would be under threat of abolishment. Though, I will concede this system only really works in Britain given our history of monarchs and our principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

It's important to note that the veto override requires a two-thirds vote in both houses, and the President has more than the basic veto in his deck: if the Legislature goes on recess within ten days of the President receiving the bill, he can not sign it and it dies there - the pocket veto. The combination of the veto, the veto override, and the pocket veto, give a balance of authority, but, remember, the Judiciary has the very final say in these maters.

Executive orders can also be ruled on for being against laws made by the Legislature. EOs are generally only directed at government agencies, primarily agencies of the Executive branch. For example, the Emancipation Proclamation was an EO. And remember - these orders can be overturned at any time by anyone who holds the position of Executive, including the one who issued it. EOs are like laws, but much more volatile and impermanent.

The British system works because it's being used by Britain, and I doubt it would go remotely smoothly anywhere else.

[Izandai]

Okay, it's clear that you don't understand American checks and balances. For example, the Executive has a check on the Legislative, by being able to veto a law, which the Legislature has their own check on, the veto override. Thinking outside of vetoes, the Executive needs the Legislature to actually make laws, but the President can suggest ideas for bills to members of the Senate. Outside of the Executive-Legislative dynamic, the Judicial branch can override laws and executive orders for not being constitutional, but the President and the Legislature are responsible for actually filling out the Judicial.

What's the point in giving the Executive a veto on the legislature when the legislature can just counter the veto? Seems like a lot of unnecessary checks and balances when you could just not give the President the amount of power they have that allows them to veto the legislature in the first place, which in turn serves to not raise the president above the authority of the legislature which, in any true democracy, is the arbiter of legislation.

Executive orders can thus only be ruled on for being unconstitutional, no? So, any executive order created by the president that is constitutional is still a piece of legislature that has been made without the consultation of the legislative branch, which is just another example of the unnecessary power invested in a single individual.

The British system works much better in this regard, as nothing can veto the legislature except the Head of State, but that's only in technicality as if the Queen ever refused to provide the Royal Assent to legislation there'd be political uproar on a big enough scale that the Monarchy would be under threat of abolishment. Though, I will concede this system only really works in Britain given our history of monarchs and our principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

The point is to ensure the neither the legislature nor the executive has total authority. The president can override Congress, but Congress can override the president, and both are beholden to the Supreme Court, the members of which are decided on by both the president and Congress but who act independent of them, with no oversight. It's almost certainly an imperfect system, but I think the exact nature of the checks and balances between the branches of government is a less important conversation than many others we could be having. The system works. It's messy and it sometimes makes it hard to get anything done, but it's good enough for now.

[Tahar Joblis]

Anyone who thinks that Virginia was ready to dominate a popular vote and not an electoral college (A) hasn't read the proceedings of the convention and (B) has forgotten the single most important issue dividing the states. Namely slavery.

Madison liked the idea of a popular vote in principle. Virginia's delegation voted against it in spite of Madison's support, however.

EDIT: Well, maybe they read it and just didn't believe Madison was an honest note-taker. Or weren't paying attention. Or thought that the Framers didn't have a very good idea of the voting-eligible population of Virginia as compared to other states.

Umm the virginal plan, authored by Madison and proposee by Randolph would have given large states more voting power than the small states

The new jersey plan gave each state one vote.

The compromise is more or less what we have now. (The original senate was one vote per state).

Slavery was a contriversial issue, but it was more or less put aside as the south never would have gone for the constitution if it had limited slavery. With the exception of the 3/5th compromise and the sun setting of the international slave trade for 20 years.

The Virginia Plan, as with the draft version of the Constitution, had the executive elected by Congress; the New Jersey Plan likewise. Neither featured an Electoral College, and neither featured a popular vote for the President.

My point, however, stands. Virginia restricted the franchise to not only free whites, but free white land-owners. While Virginia had the largest population of any state at the time of the convention, it had significantly fewer eligible voters than Pennsylvania, which had a comparable population of free adult white men, laxer franchise requirements, and allowed blacks to vote. It is doubtful that Madison and his fellow Virginia delegates envisioned Virginia fielding any more voters than New York or Massachusetts.

Under the parliamentary plan (as intended until the very last few weeks of the Convention) or under the Electoral College as implemented, however, Virginia's more restrictive franchise requirements were a moot point, and Virginia was allowed to count its slave population. If we compare Virginia's expected influence over the presidency to Pennsylvania's expected influence over the presidency in the light of their relative situations at the time of the Convention, the ratio roughly doubles when you go from a popular vote to the Electoral College system (from no more than 70% to no less than 140%).

A popular vote would not have been dominated by Virginia; it would have been dominated by Northern states.

[Free Missouri]

Then maybe the problem is that you have a single executive who has the power to go over the heads of the legislative chambers. Britain doesn't, and we get along just fine.

*points to checks and balances*

Too bad your boy Obama and the other side's boy Trump don't care about our constitutional system based on Obama's use of Exec orders (not the number, the *CONTENT*) and both of theirs love for the NSA spying programs

[Kazarogkai]

If you're referring to America's previous election cycle, can you blame them? Neither choice of candidate proved themself to be good, and it was essentially a vote for the lesser evil.
America definitely needs to step away from a two-party system to fix this.

I don't know of a voting system that would completely prevent a trend towards a two-party system, only of ones that lessen the pressure for that and make it easier for third parties to gain influence, like instant runoff.

Presidential systems in general help serve as a catalyst for a two party system in general; America just has the bad luck to have both a presidential system and a FPTP voting system both of which strongly encourage a trend toward a two party system. Getting rid of the presidency or having them and their cabinet appointed by congress would help greatly in preventing the trend to a two party system.