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

[Alvecia]

California allows illegal aliens to vote. The very definition of voter fraud. As long as that is the case, NONE of the votes from Cali should count.

Yeah, no part of that is true. I notice that you also completely ignored the point.

Snopes breakdown
http://www.snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/

Edit: Assuming this is the right thing, mind.

[The New Union of American States]

Voter fraud is negligible. How, exactly, is having some people's vote be worth more than others in any way fair? What exactly is the relevance of the word "republic"?

California allows illegal aliens to vote. The very definition of voter fraud. As long as that is the case, NONE of the votes from Cali should count.

Yeah, and some Californians want to secede. And others, certainly some of the same who think seceding, which is laughable, is a good idea, also believe in the importance of States' rights when it comes to pot, but forget about the EC. Give me a break. Hypocrites.

[Big Jim P]

Democracy is inherently flawed. Welcome to the Republic.

What, exactly, do you think "republic" means? Because it sure as fuck doesn't have anything to do with electoral systems.

Why don't you look it up.

[Great Nepal]

Or if you''d prefer if Californian citizens weren't worth a third of Wyoming citizens electorally speaking.

Not that anyone actually seriously interested in winning an election would sacrifice huge swathes of the American populace in the arrogant belief they could win every single vote they need by getting massive turnouts and massive support from a select few areas of the country...

Precisely.
Idea that somehow without popular vote candidates can win just by catering to couple of areas is based on the weird premise that somehow they'll win not just every single vote in that region but will win get every eligible adult to vote and they'll vote for them. If this were the case candidates would currently campaign in 12 states holding most electoral college votes and win comfortably. Once you take into account the fact that not everyone votes, and not everyone votes in same way just because of campaigns, even allowing for 80% leads you've scenario where under popular vote you actually need to win more (15) states - and need to win them in landslides rather than 51% as permitted by electoral college.

Edit: also that theory is entirely discredit just by looking at any of the countries doing proportional representation, or where they keep constituencies roughly same population size. Surprisingly despite urban-rural divide existing almost everywhere those countries don't have "cities only" political parties, and certainly not ones who always win elections.

[Salandriagado]

What, exactly, do you think "republic" means? Because it sure as fuck doesn't have anything to do with electoral systems.

Why don't you look it up.

It is a system of government in which representatives are elected. Notice that both NPV and EC systems are methods of electing representatives, and so any system involving them is inherently a republic.

[Forsher]

What, exactly, do you think "republic" means? Because it sure as fuck doesn't have anything to do with electoral systems.

Why don't you look it up.

Where? Big Jim P Wiki? He asked you what you think it means... not what, e.g., Wikipedia thinks republic means.

[Big Jim P]

California allows illegal aliens to vote. The very definition of voter fraud. As long as that is the case, NONE of the votes from Cali should count.

Yeah, and some Californians want to secede. And others, certainly some of the same who think seceding, which is laughable, is a good idea, also believe in the importance of States' rights when it comes to pot, but forget about the EC. Give me a break. Hypocrites.

People only support state rights when the states are going along with what they already think. If not, they then want the feds to step in and force the states to comply.

[The New Union of American States]

What, exactly, do you think "republic" means? Because it sure as fuck doesn't have anything to do with electoral systems.

Why don't you look it up.

Oh my God, you need to look up that word. And do some thinking.

[Forsher]

Why don't you look it up.

It is a system of government in which representatives are elected. Notice that both NPV and EC systems are methods of electing representatives, and so any system involving them is inherently a republic.

Including, say, the UK?

[The New Union of American States]

Yeah, and some Californians want to secede. And others, certainly some of the same who think seceding, which is laughable, is a good idea, also believe in the importance of States' rights when it comes to pot, but forget about the EC. Give me a break. Hypocrites.

People only support state rights when the states are going along with what they already think. If not, they then want the feds to step in and force the states to comply.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Big Jim P]

Why don't you look it up.

Oh my God, you need to look up that word. And do some thinking.

I have done some thinking, which is why I came to this conclusion:

The only reason to drop the EC is if you want the nation dominated by the west coast and New England. Unreasonable at best.

[Oldowan]

Attempts by foreign occupied states to abolish the last firewall protecting American sovereignty and in particular protecting states with small populations from bully states with big populations like California would result in civil war. The consequence of which would be the break up of California by the rest of America, whether Californians wanted it or not.

Don't fuck with the Electoral College. It will be considered an act of war. Just because you have bigger population does not mean you get to dictate policy to the rest of America.

Americans tolerate a lot. They will not tolerate anyone abolishing the first amendment nor will they tolerate any attempt by percieved foreigners to abolish their Electoral College system of government.

[The New Union of American States]

Oh my God, you need to look up that word. And do some thinking.

I have done some thinking, which is why I came to this conclusion:

The only reason to drop the EC is if you want the nation dominated by the west coast and New England. Unreasonable at best.

So you changed your mind? Good job.

[Gamagia]

In my opinion. The United States electoral college system is good enough.

As it was said before; you have to remember that the United States is NOT a true democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

That means that the officials are elected as representatives of the people of the state that voted for them. Overall it was an attempt to limit the governments power over the citizens.

Back onto point. The electoral college system has been sufficient enough for the last 200 years, over 50 presidential elections and it shows that the nominee has a sufficient amount of popular support (remember, Donald Trump is only around 1 million votes lower than Hillary Clinton and this shows that he does have a lot of popular support) and that the support is spread sufficiently throughout the whole country to make the governing of all states a lot easier and effective as they support the candidate.

That is the beauty of the electoral system. It is a far more democratic way to vote than the popular vote as the popular vote will be decided only by the states with major populations and therefore will not relect what the whole country believes in, or wants for that matter. If the United States did switch to the popular vote it'd be so much harder to govern the country due to the fact that a majority of states won't matter with what they choose or believe due to their relatively low populations. States like California (Democrat), New York (Democrat), Illinois (Democrat), New Jersey (Democrat), Massachusetts (Democrat) and Texas (Republican) will decide the majority of who wins the elections. And as you can see the majority of those states are democrat which will lead America into a one-party leadership, just like countries such as Cuba, North Korea and China.

Overall: Though I believe that the popular vote is a sufficient system, it is not good enough and democratic enough to decide who wins the elections. The United States electoral system is the best system in place in the United States for a stable and fair government, even if that is a two-party system. At least the people have a choice between two parties rather than being solely ruled by one.

Also, the Republicans are in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. So even if there was anything planned to change it, it would be almost impossible now to do so.

[The New Union of American States]

Attempts by foreign occupied states to abolish the last firewall protecting American sovereignty and in particular protecting states with small populations from bully states with big populations like California would result in civil war. The consequence of which would be the break up of California by the rest of America, whether Californians wanted it or not.

Don't fuck with the Electoral College. It will be considered an act of war. Just because you have bigger population does not mean you get to dictate policy to the rest of America.

Americans tolerate a lot. They will not tolerate anyone abolishing the first amendment nor will they tolerate any attempt by percieved foreigners to abolish their Electoral College system of government.

Hallelujah.

[Salandriagado]

It is a system of government in which representatives are elected. Notice that both NPV and EC systems are methods of electing representatives, and so any system involving them is inherently a republic.

Including, say, the UK?

Functionally, yes.

[Great Nepal]

In my opinion. The United States electoral college system is good enough.

As it was said before; you have to remember that the United States is NOT a true democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

Which doesn't preclude not treating Californian citizens as being electorally worth a third of Wyoming one when .

That means that the officials are elected as representatives of the people of the state that voted for them. Overall it was an attempt to limit the governments power over the citizens.

Nope it was an attempt to deal with the fact that fast communication/ transport didn't exist 200 years ago and to stop stupid peasants ruining everything. Hence electors were supposed to be wise people selected by the people based on their wiseness who go to discuss and select best candidate.

I
Back onto point. The electoral college system has been sufficient enough for the last 200 years, over 50 presidential elections and it shows that the nominee has a sufficient amount of popular support (remember, Donald Trump is only around 1 million votes lower than Hillary Clinton and this shows that he does have a lot of popular support) and that the support is spread sufficiently throughout the whole country to make the governing of all states a lot easier and effective as they support the candidate.

What does support being spread across wider state lines have to do with anything? Is any state going to rebel if it votes for the president who lost?

That is the beauty of the electoral system. It is a far more democratic way to vote than the popular vote as the popular vote will be decided only by the states with major populations and therefore will not relect what the whole country believes in, or wants for that matter. If the United States did switch to the popular vote it'd be so much harder to govern the country due to the fact that a majority of states won't matter with what they choose or believe due to their relatively low populations. States like California (Democrat), New York (Democrat), Illinois (Democrat), New Jersey (Democrat), Massachusetts (Democrat) and Texas (Republican) will decide the majority of who wins the elections. And as you can see the majority of those states are democrat which will lead America into a one-party leadership, just like countries such as Cuba, North Korea and China.

Currently (based on 2012 stats) you can win presidency by having 51% support in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia.
With PV (based on 2012 stats), you can win presidency by having 80%+ support in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana.

So how does former make it easier to govern rather than latter, and if former doesn't lead to one party state what makes you think later will given latter is just superset of the former with Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana being required too?

Overall: Though I believe that the popular vote is a sufficient system, it is not good enough and democratic enough to decide who wins the elections. The United States electoral system is the best system in place in the United States for a stable and fair government, even if that is a two-party system. At least the people have a choice between two parties rather than being solely ruled by one.

Also, the Republicans are in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. So even if there was anything planned to change it, it would be almost impossible now to do so.

How is Californian citizen being worth 1/3rd of Wyoming citizen in the elections either democratic, fair or good enough?

[Everhall]

Here. This video should explain everything. It was made in 2013 so any comments about bias are really unfounded

The Video

[The New Union of American States]

In my opinion. The United States electoral college system is good enough.

As it was said before; you have to remember that the United States is NOT a true democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

Which doesn't preclude not treating Californian citizens as being electorally worth a third of Wyoming one when .

That means that the officials are elected as representatives of the people of the state that voted for them. Overall it was an attempt to limit the governments power over the citizens.

Nope it was an attempt to deal with the fact that fast communication/ transport didn't exist 200 years ago and to stop stupid peasants ruining everything. Hence electors were supposed to be wise people selected by the people based on their wiseness who go to discuss and select best candidate.

I
Back onto point. The electoral college system has been sufficient enough for the last 200 years, over 50 presidential elections and it shows that the nominee has a sufficient amount of popular support (remember, Donald Trump is only around 1 million votes lower than Hillary Clinton and this shows that he does have a lot of popular support) and that the support is spread sufficiently throughout the whole country to make the governing of all states a lot easier and effective as they support the candidate.

What does support being spread across wider state lines have to do with anything? Is any state going to rebel if it votes for the president who lost?

That is the beauty of the electoral system. It is a far more democratic way to vote than the popular vote as the popular vote will be decided only by the states with major populations and therefore will not relect what the whole country believes in, or wants for that matter. If the United States did switch to the popular vote it'd be so much harder to govern the country due to the fact that a majority of states won't matter with what they choose or believe due to their relatively low populations. States like California (Democrat), New York (Democrat), Illinois (Democrat), New Jersey (Democrat), Massachusetts (Democrat) and Texas (Republican) will decide the majority of who wins the elections. And as you can see the majority of those states are democrat which will lead America into a one-party leadership, just like countries such as Cuba, North Korea and China.

Currently (based on 2012 stats) you can win presidency by having 51% support in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia.
With PV (based on 2012 stats), you can win presidency by having 80%+ support in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana.

So how does former make it easier to govern rather than latter, and if former doesn't lead to one party state what makes you think later will given latter is just superset of the former with Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana being required too?

Overall: Though I believe that the popular vote is a sufficient system, it is not good enough and democratic enough to decide who wins the elections. The United States electoral system is the best system in place in the United States for a stable and fair government, even if that is a two-party system. At least the people have a choice between two parties rather than being solely ruled by one.

Also, the Republicans are in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. So even if there was anything planned to change it, it would be almost impossible now to do so.

How is Californian citizen being worth 1/3rd of Wyoming citizen in the elections either democratic, fair or good enough?

How much time did you just spend on that? Long-winded much?

[Great Nepal]

Which doesn't preclude not treating Californian citizens as being electorally worth a third of Wyoming one when .


Nope it was an attempt to deal with the fact that fast communication/ transport didn't exist 200 years ago and to stop stupid peasants ruining everything. Hence electors were supposed to be wise people selected by the people based on their wiseness who go to discuss and select best candidate.



What does support being spread across wider state lines have to do with anything? Is any state going to rebel if it votes for the president who lost?


Currently (based on 2012 stats) you can win presidency by having 51% support in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia.
With PV (based on 2012 stats), you can win presidency by having 80%+ support in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana.

So how does former make it easier to govern rather than latter, and if former doesn't lead to one party state what makes you think later will given latter is just superset of the former with Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana being required too?



How is Californian citizen being worth 1/3rd of Wyoming citizen in the elections either democratic, fair or good enough?

How much time did you just spend on that? Long-winded much?

If you lack attention span to read ~10ish lines; I don't think problem is Long-windedness.

[The New Union of American States]

How much time did you just spend on that? Long-winded much?

If you lack attention span to read ~10ish lines; I don't think problem is Long-windedness.

I lack the patience for redundancies.

[Big Jim P]

I have done some thinking, which is why I came to this conclusion:

So you changed your mind? Good job.

No, I haven't changed my mind. Duh.

[The New Union of American States]

So you changed your mind? Good job.

No, I haven't changed my mind. Duh.

And you don't see any incongruencies with anything you've written?

[Forsher]

Including, say, the UK?

Functionally, yes.

Which is why that definition is bunk.

And probably why literally the only people I know who use it are (a) foreign and (b) on the internet.

Back onto point. The electoral college system has been sufficient enough for the last 200 years, over 50 presidential elections and it shows that the nominee has a sufficient amount of popular support (remember, Donald Trump is only around 1 million votes lower than Hillary Clinton and this shows that he does have a lot of popular support) and that the support is spread sufficiently throughout the whole country to make the governing of all states a lot easier and effective as they support the candidate.

The US is a democracy. This doesn't mean it's a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy. You seem to think this is what a republic is. Anyway, because the US is a stable and functioning democracy you can assume, for free, that the outcome of the election will be respected by elements of the government. That is, the scale of the support doesn't really matter operationally. (It is, based on the length of this thread, clearly philosophically important.)

That is the beauty of the electoral system. It is a far more democratic way to vote than the popular vote as the popular vote will be decided only by the states with major populations and therefore will not relect what the whole country believes in, or wants for that matter. If the United States did switch to the popular vote it'd be so much harder to govern the country due to the fact that a majority of states won't matter with what they choose or believe due to their relatively low populations. States like California (Democrat), New York (Democrat), Illinois (Democrat), New Jersey (Democrat), Massachusetts (Democrat) and Texas (Republican) will decide the majority of who wins the elections. And as you can see the majority of those states are democrat which will lead America into a one-party leadership, just like countries such as Cuba, North Korea and China.

A lot of people say this. All the explanations I've read have a different conclusion. What is your explanation?

Overall: Though I believe that the popular vote is a sufficient system, it is not good enough and democratic enough to decide who wins the elections. The United States electoral system is the best system in place in the United States for a stable and fair government, even if that is a two-party system. At least the people have a choice between two parties rather than being solely ruled by one.

Also, the Republicans are in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. So even if there was anything planned to change it, it would be almost impossible now to do so.

Maybe. Trump is not a fan of the Electoral College. On the other hand, Republican politicians often aren't fans of Trump.

In an interview on Sunday with the 60 Minutes programme Mr Trump complained about the electoral college system, in which each state is worth a different number of votes, saying that he preferred the popular vote method.

He said that he has "respect" for the electoral college system "but I would rather see it where you went with simple votes".

It's just a Thing to him.* And I have to say, good for him for having this view. (Note, he also believes that he could win, if he tried, a popular vote. I think this would be harder, but it's not impossible.)

*Actually, this article would suggest that maybe he's a bit more two-faced but whatever. On the other hand, he may juts have not noticed this stat: "Two-thirds (273 out of 399) of campaign events in the 2016 election were held in only six states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan)."

[Alvecia]

Here. This video should explain everything. It was made in 2013 so any comments about bias are really unfounded

The Video

That's an interesting video.