U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-01-2012, 06:38 AM
 
7,645 posts, read 4,104,904 times
Reputation: 2919

Advertisements

The Federalist saw the potential for problems in majority - what I believe Hamilton described majority rule as mob - rule. Which is why we established the United States as a Republic, not a Democracy. The concept is representational, not majority rule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2012, 07:58 AM
 
5,527 posts, read 8,800,928 times
Reputation: 1860
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
In some cases you ae right, but if we did this in a general election we would have the candidates only campaigning in the larger states. The little guys would never see them. It has been talked about for years, but has down sides as well. I don't think there is a really fair way. I would like to see primaries revert to only allowing a person to vote by the party they belong to, but that isn't the way in many states. Let's stop cross over voting (Mi was a perfect example) and let's do away with winner take all.
That would matter if it was 1776 but this is 2012. Technology removes campaigning geographical boundaries so when campaigning in Michigan people will see and hear about it anyways. Besides, it's not like when they go to California every Californian is at a campaign event.

The two party system is the problem in the first place. People only vote party not country. Dump that, take the popular vote and #1 gets POTUS and #2 gets VPOTUS.

Our laws are passed using the "popular" vote right? Do the same with our leaders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 08:12 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,542 posts, read 17,819,327 times
Reputation: 3681
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
In some cases you ae right, but if we did this in a general election we would have the candidates only campaigning in the larger states. The little guys would never see them. It has been talked about for years, but has down sides as well. I don't think there is a really fair way. I would like to see primaries revert to only allowing a person to vote by the party they belong to, but that isn't the way in many states. Let's stop cross over voting (Mi was a perfect example) and let's do away with winner take all.
if popular vote decided Pennsylvania delegates, a candidate would really only need to campaign in Philly and Pittsburg and maybe Scranton/Lehigh Valley area. The rest of the state could be completely ignored. I get both sides of the argument really. I like the "1st choice, 2nd choice" voting methods, but I doubt we'd ever try it here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 08:36 AM
 
Location: NC
1,673 posts, read 1,487,636 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluv00 View Post
I am not a Romney fan. Nor Santorum or anyone other than the views of the artist formerly known as Ron Paul (some things have changed since 2007) but this is why the popular vote should be the ONLY way to win:



The man lost in a popular landslide but TIED in delegates. In sports terms that's like a sports team losing a game yet it not effect their ranking, league standings or even effect their chances of getting to the playoffs.

Why vote if the less popular candidate has a chance to win? WTF is up with this?

Oh yeah........DUMP THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!
Primaries are not run nor governed by the government. The actual parties set up those rules state by state. You do know there are even delegates assigned that are never even chosen by the voters (unaffiliated delegates...chosen by the establishement. It was a big deal in 2008 with the Dems if you remember.)

As for the electoral college vs popular vote. Well that has been a hot topic since Bush vs Gore
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,596 posts, read 79,920,399 times
Reputation: 38963
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
if popular vote decided Pennsylvania delegates, a candidate would really only need to campaign in Philly and Pittsburg and maybe Scranton/Lehigh Valley area. The rest of the state could be completely ignored. I get both sides of the argument really. I like the "1st choice, 2nd choice" voting methods, but I doubt we'd ever try it here.
I understand this and I don't think anyone has an asnwer. Either way, the smaller areas and states get overlooked. That is why, at least in primaries I like the delegate split based on % of the votes. In the general election I just don't know what the answer is. Someone mentioned this is a problem with the 2 party system: we have several parites, if they would work more from the local election base and eventually reach to the federal level we might have a 3rd or even 4th party that would be strong enough to win.

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 08:53 AM
 
7,645 posts, read 4,104,904 times
Reputation: 2919
It is not about geographic boundaries. And technology does not change the potential for mob rule, via democracy or popular vote if you will, that the founding fathers had valid and validated conerns about. Those old geezers! Hardly, they were very literate men - Jay, Hamilton and Madison - well versed in the many different theories and practice of government over the centurys. Nihil novi, as in Ecc 1:9

But, I'm speaking more of our Republican form of governement, and not the individual political party's primary election rules. Only because I sense that you advocate popular vote as the way to go in all of our elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluv00 View Post
That would matter if it was 1776 but this is 2012. Technology removes campaigning geographical boundaries so when campaigning in Michigan people will see and hear about it anyways. Besides, it's not like when they go to California every Californian is at a campaign event.

The two party system is the problem in the first place. People only vote party not country. Dump that, take the popular vote and #1 gets POTUS and #2 gets VPOTUS.

Our laws are passed using the "popular" vote right? Do the same with our leaders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 09:16 AM
 
5,527 posts, read 8,800,928 times
Reputation: 1860
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather View Post
It is not about geographic boundaries. And technology does not change the potential for mob rule, via democracy or popular vote if you will, that the founding fathers had valid and validated conerns about. Those old geezers! Hardly, they were very literate men - Jay, Hamilton and Madison - well versed in the many different theories and practice of government over the centurys. Nihil novi, as in Ecc 1:9

But, I'm speaking more of our Republican form of governement, and not the individual political party's primary election rules. Only because I sense that you advocate popular vote as the way to go in all of our elections.
I know. That was in reference to the "smaller states would be ignored" comment.

With the electoral college in place doesn't it make it easier for campaigning politicians to focus on fewer areas to "corrupt"? In other words, they focus on voter fraud, bribery and vote tampering in the states with the most electors?

I guess regardless there can/will be corruption in voting. Today's politicians have completely destroyed the credibility of our government and something big needs to be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 10:04 AM
 
7,645 posts, read 4,104,904 times
Reputation: 2919
In answer to your question posed - bolded - theoretically it is possible that your premise is correct. I'm not an Electoral College expert, so there may be more to it, then my simplistic take.

Again, these were smart guys who really got it, when it came to different forms of governement, their respective strengths and weakness, safeguards and dangers. I believe they chose the best form of government, in an imperfect world.

Corruption and influence from a few was one of the arguments used to support the ratification of the 17th Amendment, that changed the way Senators were chosen. Originally, Senators were appointed by the states. The idea being that better balance between the federal government and the states would be achieved by the States' interest being represented by their appointed Senators. Whereas, the House of Representatives were always elected by the people to represent the peoples' interest.

It may be one of the reasons unfunded mandates like medicaid and nclb, and now aca seem to have grown. Since the passage of the 17th Amendment the states no longer have direct representation through the State's Senators in the Federal governement. The states who receive the mandate from the Federal governement have little to no control on how they can administer the various mandates. Much less can they decide how to spend their local resources (read this as tax revenues).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluv00 View Post
I know. That was in reference to the "smaller states would be ignored" comment.

With the electoral college in place doesn't it make it easier for campaigning politicians to focus on fewer areas to "corrupt"? In other words, they focus on voter fraud, bribery and vote tampering in the states with the most electors?

I guess regardless there can/will be corruption in voting. Today's politicians have completely destroyed the credibility of our government and something big needs to be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 10:20 AM
 
5,527 posts, read 8,800,928 times
Reputation: 1860
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather View Post
In answer to your question posed - bolded - theoretically it is possible that your premise is correct. I'm not an Electoral College expert, so there may be more to it, then my simplistic take.

Again, these were smart guys who really got it, when it came to different forms of governement, their respective strengths and weakness, safeguards and dangers. I believe they chose the best form of government, in an imperfect world.

Corruption and influence from a few was one of the arguments used to support the ratification of the 17th Amendment, that changed the way Senators were chosen. Originally, Senators were appointed by the states. The idea being that better balance between the federal government and the states would be achieved by the States' interest being represented by their appointed Senators. Whereas, the House of Representatives were always elected by the people to represent the peoples' interest.

It may be one of the reasons unfunded mandates like medicaid and nclb, and now aca seem to have grown. Since the passage of the 17th Amendment the states no longer have direct representation through the State's Senators in the Federal governement. The states who receive the mandate from the Federal governement have little to no control on how they can administer the various mandates. Much less can they decide how to spend their local resources (read this as tax revenues).
Today we have smart guys in office who don't get it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2012, 12:39 PM
 
8,758 posts, read 8,656,356 times
Reputation: 1422
If this nomination process were based on popular vote, it would basically be over. Here is the popular vote so far:


Mitt Romney: 1,811,625 votes or 40.19%
Rick Santorum: 1,070,521 votes or 23.75%
Newt Gingrich: 977,999 votes or 21.70%
Ron Paul: 493,383 votes or 10.95%




I don't think that includes WY.

Last edited by dixiegirl7; 03-01-2012 at 02:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top