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

[Everhall]

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.

Anything new to you that you heard?

[Alvecia]

That's an interesting video.

Anything new to you that you heard?

Nothing to add, but it does prompt some thought.
Perhaps as a stepping stone the first reform could be to remove the "winner takes all" function. See how that changes the process.

[Everhall]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

I am admitting defeat. I'm just saying that the system should be change to represent the views of all the people not just a few in swing states. TBH its those few states that decide the election, which you complain will be the same for large states. Hypocritical

[The New Union of American States]

Anything new to you that you heard?

Nothing to add, but it does prompt some thought.
Perhaps as a stepping stone the first reform could be to remove the "winner takes all" function. See how that changes the process.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what you think because the EC is not going to be abolished.

[Everhall]

And why bring up this topic yet again? Desperate leftists can't accept a defeat and will complain about the fault of any system. Learn to admit defeat like Clinton did.

Not to mention I didn't like having the College before the Election. This just reinforces my argument

[The New Union of American States]

Not to mention I didn't like having the College before the Election. This just reinforces my argument

What a lame joke.

[Alvecia]

Nothing to add, but it does prompt some thought.
Perhaps as a stepping stone the first reform could be to remove the "winner takes all" function. See how that changes the process.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what you think because the EC is not going to be abolished.

People were saying Trump wasn't going to be President.
I guess just saying something doesn't make it true.

[Everhall]

Nothing to add, but it does prompt some thought.
Perhaps as a stepping stone the first reform could be to remove the "winner takes all" function. See how that changes the process.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what you think because the EC is not going to be abolished.

It does matter. Just because it isn't going away doesn't mean that you and your voice disappear.

[Everhall]

Not to mention I didn't like having the College before the Election. This just reinforces my argument

What a lame joke.

What's the joke? I'm telling the truth about this.

[The New Union of American States]

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what you think because the EC is not going to be abolished.

People were saying Trump wasn't going to be President.
I guess just saying something doesn't make it true.

You can find examples throughout US history in which the polls, the pundits, the odds turned out to be wrong. Look at the Reagan. Nobody thought he would win. And then he did. The Electoral College has never been seriously threatened in the history of the US. The Democrats won't even touch it. And Trump certainly won't.

[Alvecia]

People were saying Trump wasn't going to be President.
I guess just saying something doesn't make it true.

You can find examples throughout US history in which the polls, the pundits, the odds turned out to be wrong. Look at the Reagan. Nobody thought he would win. And then he did. The Electoral College has never been seriously threatened in the history of the US.

Nothing changes until it does

[The New Union of American States]

You can find examples throughout US history in which the polls, the pundits, the odds turned out to be wrong. Look at the Reagan. Nobody thought he would win. And then he did. The Electoral College has never been seriously threatened in the history of the US.

Nothing changes until it does

That's a benign argument at best.

[The New Union of American States]

Nothing changes until it does

That's a benign argument at best.

Furthermore, there was plenty of evidence to suggest that Trump was much more competitive than the media ever tended to claim.

[Everhall]

People were saying Trump wasn't going to be President.
I guess just saying something doesn't make it true.

You can find examples throughout US history in which the polls, the pundits, the odds turned out to be wrong. Look at the Reagan. Nobody thought he would win. And then he did. The Electoral College has never been seriously threatened in the history of the US. The Democrats won't even touch it. And Trump certainly won't.

That's because in the 80s the last time it happened was a century ago. Now it's happened two times in 16 years. Adding all the mistakes of the electoral college that's a mistake rate of 7%. May seem small, but would you really accept a sport were there was a 7% chance the winner would lose? Not likely. And seeing how electing a president is a lot more important than a sport I don't like that chance.

[Alvecia]

Nothing changes until it does

That's a benign argument at best.

Gentle, kind, and not harmful? You're probably right. But so am I. Saying "This will not happen" is an unsupported statement. It could happen, and with enough support, it will happen. But ideally we should be trying to figure out what we want to change to before we actively start the change.

[The New Union of American States]

You can find examples throughout US history in which the polls, the pundits, the odds turned out to be wrong. Look at the Reagan. Nobody thought he would win. And then he did. The Electoral College has never been seriously threatened in the history of the US. The Democrats won't even touch it. And Trump certainly won't.

That's because in the 80s the last time it happened was a century ago. Now it's happened two times in 16 years. Adding all the mistakes of the electoral college that's a mistake rate of 7%. May seem small, but would you really accept a sport were there was a 7% chance the winner would lose? Not likely. And seeing how electing a president is a lot more important than a sport I don't like that chance.

In a post-general election interview, Bernie Sanders, of all people, refused to say that it should be abolished. I'm telling you: it's a pipe dream. At best, you could hope for the numbers to be tweaked a bit, which could happen. I wouldn't even necessarily oppose that, depending upon how it was done. I do, however, oppose unrealistic and, frankly, unfair positions on issues.

[Novus Niciae]

A popular vote should be seriously considered for the next election, but the current election results should stand since campaigning for a popular vote uses very different campaign strategies, and they would have to concentrate more on large population centers rather than on "battleground states" that have a disproportional number of electoral college votes.

[Alvecia]

A popular vote should be seriously considered for the next election, but the current election results should stand since campaigning for a popular vote uses very different campaign strategies, and they would have to concentrate more on large population centers rather than on "battleground states" that have a disproportional number of electoral college votes.

Popular vote might be a bit too much all in one go imo.

[Big Jim P]

A popular vote should be seriously considered for the next election, but the current election results should stand since campaigning for a popular vote uses very different campaign strategies, and they would have to concentrate more on large population centers rather than on "battleground states" that have a disproportional number of electoral college votes.

Even if the people managed to change the rules, it wouldn't apply to this election anyway.

[Valrifell]

A popular vote should be seriously considered for the next election, but the current election results should stand since campaigning for a popular vote uses very different campaign strategies, and they would have to concentrate more on large population centers rather than on "battleground states" that have a disproportional number of electoral college votes.

Even if the people managed to change the rules, it wouldn't apply to this election anyway.

It's almost as if people are genuine in their disdain for the EC.

Imagine that!

[Narland]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did.

The Presidency is not determined by an unbound popularity contest, nor should it be. It is by the vote of State residents (and for reason DC) for their districts to determine for whom their State should vote for the president. The EC does exactly what it was supposed to do--allow States' Electors to select the Executive. In this capacity the President is to be the Ambassador-At-Large of the Several States to the rest of the World

This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.

During the Constitutional convention the EC was intended to be integrated into the Senate or be the Cabinet and to ratify treaties. The EC was quickly forgotten to more important matters--like keeping the convention from breaking up. But again, it does what it was supposed to do and it does well.

The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc.

Of course it is undemocratic--the Executive by definition is undemocratic--it is a lone man (or lone woman) exercising monarchical authority (and in the case of the US greatly restricted, limited, and bound monarchical authority in obeisance to to the Constitution, and compliance to the Congress, and the Supreme Court for all the checks and balances to keep him from mischief).

The Presidency was set up as a monarchy with electors--such as had Poland, Lithuania, etc and vaguely as had the Roman Republic according to some. The Judiciary was set up as an oligarchy, and the only intended democratic organ of government was to be the House of Representatives. Even the Senate was originally intended to represent the States.

I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.

The abusive tendency of one form is checked and balanced by the other two. This is inherent in our Republic, and in case the concept was missed, it was put into the Constitution, that every State (including the State of the United States--that is the Seat of Government for the US--currently Washington DC) shall insure a republican (little r--not the GOP) form of government. i,e., not a democracy.

When monarchy goes bad, it is easy to isolate the corruption but not so easy for the People to shout, "Off with his/her head!" There are exceptions but usually after a long train of abuses. When oligarchy goes bad, it is is harder to find the corruption but easier for the People to shout, "Off with their heads!" When democracy goes bad the corruption is pervasive and it is very easy for everyone to shout for everyone else's head except their own. Not everything democratic is good. When Democracy goes bad it goes bad for everyone and there is no place to hide.

Democracy is not more or less fair than any other form of governance. It has its strengths and weaknesses. Its greatest strength is deliberation, consensus and community--when it is right it is very right but when it is wrong it is very wrong. Its greatest weaknesses is the tyranny of the majority against a minority.

What do you guys think?

I think the EC is fine the way it is. It could use some tweaking. Each State is responsible for how they do this.

[Everhall]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did.

The Presidency is not determined by an unbound popularity contest, nor should it be. It is by the vote of State residents (and for reason DC) for their districts to determine for whom their State should vote for the president. The EC does exactly what it was supposed to do--allow States' Electors to select the Executive. In this capacity the President is to be the Ambassador-At-Large of the Several States to the rest of the World

This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.

During the Constitutional convention the EC was intended to be integrated into the Senate or be the Cabinet and to ratify treaties. The EC was quickly forgotten to more important matters--like keeping the convention from breaking up. But again, it does what it was supposed to do and it does well.

The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc.

Of course it is undemocratic--the Executive by definition is undemocratic--it is a lone man (or lone woman) exercising monarchical authority (and in the case of the US greatly restricted, limited, and bound monarchical authority in obeisance to to the Constitution, and compliance to the Congress, and the Supreme Court for all the checks and balances to keep him from mischief.

The Presidency was set up as a monarchy with electors--such as had Poland, Lithuania, etc and vaguely as had the Roman Republic according to some. The Judiciary was set up as an oligarchy, and the only intended democratic organ of government was to be the House of Representatives. Even the Senate was originally intended to represent the States.

I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.

The abusive tendency of one form is checked and balanced by the other two. This is inherent in our Republic, and in case the concept was missed, it was put into the Constitution, that every State (including the State of the United States--that is the Seat of Government for the US--currently Washington DC) shall insure a republican (little r--not the GOP) form of government. i,e., not a democracy.

When monarchy goes bad, it is easy to isolate the corruption but not so easy for the People to shout, "Off with his/her head!" There are exceptions but usually after a long train of abuses. When oligarchy goes bad, it is is harder to find the corruption but easier for the People to shout, "Off with their heads!" When democracy goes bad the corruption is pervasive and it is very easy for everyone to shout for everyone else's head except their own. Not everything democratic is good. When Democracy goes bad it goes bad for everyone and there is no place to hide.

Democracy is not more or less fair than any other form of governance. It has its strengths and weaknesses. Its greatest strength is deliberation, consensus and community--when it is right it is very right but when it is wrong it is very wrong. Its greatest weaknesses is the tyranny of the majority against a minority for the slightest pretense

What do you guys think?

I think the EC is fine the way it is. It could use some tweaking. Each State is responsible for how they do this.

Is a tyranny of a majority better? It's like one sheep deciding what's for dinner for two wolfs. The Wolves would die, it's worse than the so call tyranny of the majority

[Narland]

The Presidency is not determined by an unbound popularity contest, nor should it be. It is by the vote of State residents (and for reason DC) for their districts to determine for whom their State should vote for the president. The EC does exactly what it was supposed to do--allow States' Electors to select the Executive. In this capacity the President is to be the Ambassador-At-Large of the Several States to the rest of the WorldDuring the Constitutional convention the EC was intended to be integrated into the Senate or be the Cabinet and to ratify treaties. The EC was quickly forgotten to more important matters--like keeping the convention from breaking up. But again, it does what it was supposed to do and it does well.Of course it is undemocratic--the Executive by definition is undemocratic--it is a lone man (or lone woman) exercising monarchical authority (and in the case of the US greatly restricted, limited, and bound monarchical authority in obeisance to to the Constitution, and compliance to the Congress, and the Supreme Court for all the checks and balances to keep him from mischief.

The Presidency was set up as a monarchy with electors--such as had Poland, Lithuania, etc and vaguely as had the Roman Republic according to some. The Judiciary was set up as an oligarchy, and the only intended democratic organ of government was to be the House of Representatives. Even the Senate was originally intended to represent the States. The abusive tendency of one form is checked and balanced by the other two. This is inherent in our Republic, and in case the concept was missed, it was put into the Constitution, that every State (including the State of the United States--that is the Seat of Government for the US--currently Washington DC) shall insure a republican (little r--not the GOP) form of government. i,e., not a democracy.

When monarchy goes bad, it is easy to isolate the corruption but not so easy for the People to shout, "Off with his/her head!" There are exceptions but usually after a long train of abuses. When oligarchy goes bad, it is is harder to find the corruption but easier for the People to shout, "Off with their heads!" When democracy goes bad the corruption is pervasive and it is very easy for everyone to shout for everyone else's head except their own. Not everything democratic is good. When Democracy goes bad it goes bad for everyone and there is no place to hide.

Democracy is not more or less fair than any other form of governance. It has its strengths and weaknesses. Its greatest strength is deliberation, consensus and community--when it is right it is very right but when it is wrong it is very wrong. Its greatest weaknesses is the tyranny of the majority against a minority for the slightest pretenseI think the EC is fine the way it is. It could use some tweaking. Each State is responsible for how they do this.

Is a tyranny of a majority better? It's like one sheep deciding what's for dinner for two wolfs. The Wolves would die, it's worse than the so call tyranny of the majority

I think you may have missed the point. Tyranny is never good, regardless of what form of abuse it takes, whether democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. I did not bring up the adag about wolves and sheep because it is not part of my point. Besides, wolves dying is taking the analogy past its break down point--the point being to illustrate the tyranny of the majority over the opinions of the minority. .

The points of my post are:
The EC does what it is supposed to do.
The presidency was modeled after a monarch with electors.
We have separation of powers that limit democracy to the Congress.
Democracy is not more or less good than any other form of governance.
When democracy is good it can be very good.
When democracy is bad it is utterly so.
My opinion is that I like the EC how it is.

[Spirit of Hope]

Is a tyranny of a majority better? It's like one sheep deciding what's for dinner for two wolfs. The Wolves would die, it's worse than the so call tyranny of the majority

I think you may have missed the point. Tyranny is never good, regardless of what form of abuse it takes, whether democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. I did not bring up the adag about wolves and sheep because it is not part of my point. Besides, wolves dying is taking the analogy past its break down point--the point being to illustrate the tyranny of the majority over the opinions of the minority. .

The points of my post are:
The EC does what it is supposed to do.
The presidency was modeled after a monarch with electors.
We have separation of powers that limit democracy to the Congress.
Democracy is not more or less good than any other form of governance.
When democracy is good it can be very good.
When democracy is bad it is utterly so.
My opinion is that I like the EC how it is.

The EC is a complete failure at what it was intended to be.
That is unarguable.
The historical facts are that the EC was supposed to be electors, true, but they were supposed to make an independent decision on who to vote for when they gathered to choose the president.
This is obviously not how it works, it in fact was broken within the first five elections. Electors pledged themselves to a Presidential candidate almost immediately, which eliminated there purpose as independent voters making informed decisions. Modernly this is even worse because a number of states have laws to enforce the electors pledge. Elector are in addition chosen so as to make their switching vote extremely unlikely.
Thus we have, effectively, a plurality system with some funky rules in place. Not electors choosing a king.

Additionally the EC was chosen for a variety of reasons, the largest being the difficulty in holding a popular vote (especially with the different franchise rules across the many states) and slave states wanting to gain even more power based on their slave population (which count for the electoral college, but wouldn't have counted for a popular vote scheme). The original idea was that the President would be chosen by Congress itself, much like a prime minister, but it was decided that this would give congress to much power, so instead they turned to the people of the US.

A popular vote system, or many of it's derivatives, for president does not make the President some form of direct democracy. It in fact will change nothing about his power, and will change very little about the election, it will simply mean the presidential candidates no longer spend most of their time and money in a limited number of states. But instead have to campaign everywhere.

The Electoral College as it currently stands is so broken a person could win with less than 30% of the vote.

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

[Animarnia]

Yes. No. Kind of?

If you went purely Popular Vote, you'd basically be weighing the system heavily in favour of the most heavily populated states which, also tend to be the most Blue like California, and New York. But clearly the Electoral college system is also bad because it heavily weighs the election on a number of key "Swing States" and if Candidate A gets more votes He or she gets ALL the Points. so. maybe meeting in the middle is the best option? Keep the College but divide the electoral votes based on the percentage of the vote that candidate got in that state. So if Candidate A gets 47% and Candidate B gets 46%, then the points are divided evenly between the, or if Candidate A gets 80% and Candidate b gets 20% of the votes then Candidate A gets the lions share but Candidate B still gets something. that way you get Republicans in California who feel like there vote is heard and likewise Democrats in Texas get to have there voice known too.

Also I think Voting should be mandatory. people fought and died for your right to vote. People all over the world are still fighting and dying for their right to vote and so many people throw there votes away. Even if you go down to your local polling station and right "They're all dickheads!" that is an abstention - that still counts, that counts more than a non-vote because took the effort to go and do that. While we're at it, open up the concourses and the primaries to the electorate so the people can pick the candidates they want to run rather than being chosen just by the party faithful.