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.
Many persons in this presidential election might prefer to vote for a minor party candidate but are afraid to do do because they are afraid that this would lead to the election of either Clinton or Trump.
So do we need a run-off voting system that would require any candidate for national office, including Congress, to be elected by some type of run-off system which would require any candidate to achieve a majority of the vote in order to be elected, or in the case of President, in order to receive a state's electoral votes? This could be achieved by a run-off system, as in Georgia, or by an instant run-off system, in which voters would rank candidates, or by some combination of the two systems.
In an instant run-off system, the candidate with the lowest vote total in each tabulation round would be eliminated, with the eliminated candidate's votes being reassigned to each voter's second choice. This would most benefit minority parties as a voter's second or lower preference would be considered if the voter's first choice is eliminated.
This change likely would require a Constitutional amendment.
Many persons in this presidential election might prefer to vote for a minor party candidate but are afraid to do do because they are afraid that this would lead to the election of either Clinton or Trump.
So do we need a run-off voting system that would require any candidate for national office, including Congress, to be elected by some type of run-off system which would require any candidate to achieve a majority of the vote in order to be elected, or in the case of President, to receive a state's electoral votes. This could be achieved by a run-off system, as in Georgia, or by an instant run-off system, in which voters would rank candidates, or by some combination of the two systems.
We do have an electoral system that requires a majority. Our Presidents are selected by the Electoral College, and they must receive a majority of votes within the college. Failing that, they must receive a majority of state delegations in the House.
The national popular vote has nothing to do with electing our Presidents.
We do have an electoral system that requires a majority. Our Presidents are selected by the Electoral College, and they must receive a majority of votes within the college. Failing that, they must receive a majority of state delegations in the House.
The national popular vote has nothing to do with electing our Presidents.
This is a ridiculous obfuscation.
Achieving a majority of the electoral vote is far from the same as achieving a majority of the popular vote in each state (or Congressional district in those few states where electoral votes are determined by Congressional district elections) in order to win a state's electoral votes or to win an election for Congressional candidates. There also is no electoral college for Congressional candidates.
Individual voters in each state must vote for a major party candidate even if they prefer a minor party candidate, or risk not having their vote count.
Also, in each individual state, a candidate can win election, or electoral votes in the case of a Presidential candidate, without a majority of the vote.
This change likely would require a Constitutional amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
Also, in each individual state, a candidate can win election, or electoral votes in the case of a Presidential candidate, without a majority of the vote.
Individual states can control who receives their state's electoral votes. If any state wants to require a majority popular vote before awarding their electoral votes, they can do so now. No constitutional amendment required.
If you feel like changes are needed, the best place to start is with your own state.
Quote:
There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote.
...................... Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state’s popular vote, or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.
We do have an electoral system that requires a majority. Our Presidents are selected by the Electoral College, and they must receive a majority of votes within the college. Failing that, they must receive a majority of state delegations in the House.
The national popular vote has nothing to do with electing our Presidents.
The question becomes, do you want to dump the electoral college and require the winner receive a majority of the popular vote, which would require run-off elections between the top ten finishers if no one receives a majority?
It could add an extra week or two to the campaign, and additional expenses. Three of the last six elections would have required run-offs.
Achieving a majority of the electoral vote is far from the same as achieving a majority of the popular vote in each state (or Congressional district in those few states where electoral votes are determined by Congressional district elections) in order to win a state's electoral votes or to win an election for Congressional candidates. There also is no electoral college for Congressional candidates.
Individual voters in each state must vote for a major party candidate even if they prefer a minor party candidate, or risk not having their vote count.
Also, in each individual state, a candidate can win election, or electoral votes in the case of a Presidential candidate, without a majority of the vote.
No it's not.
The electoral college is the most simple way to make a republic function in presidential elections. The electoral college settles other elections as well, just as state party representatives settle things in the conventions.
A republic is a representative democracy. A direct democracy depends on the voters to decide every issue by constant voting on them all in one large place. That can only work in a very small nation, and historically, a direct democracy always becomes so contentious over time that a dictator ends up seizing the control of a nation.
A republic is much less prone to a takeover, as the representatives can be either turned out or elected into office with every election. The voting doesn't have to happen constantly, and the representatives replace that need. A few are on the job everyday instead of the entire nation.
The electoral college may be old fashioned, but it still works well as a direct reflection of the voter's intent.
The question becomes, do you want to dump the electoral college and require the winner receive a majority of the popular vote, which would require run-off elections between the top ten finishers if no one receives a majority?
It could add an extra week or two to the campaign, and additional expenses. Three of the last six elections would have required run-offs.
I think the biggest issue with our system (besides the ridiculous length of our election process) is that it never gives 3rd parties a shot at winning. Barring you you have someone like Ross Perot, who can throw a ton of money into their campaign, they are always going to have very limited exposure. So we are always stuck choosing between the same two parties who don't seem to have the best solutions out there.
Many persons in this presidential election might prefer to vote for a minor party candidate but are afraid to do do because they are afraid that this would lead to the election of either Clinton or Trump.
So do we need a run-off voting system that would require any candidate for national office, including Congress, to be elected by some type of run-off system which would require any candidate to achieve a majority of the vote in order to be elected, or in the case of President, in order to receive a state's electoral votes? This could be achieved by a run-off system, as in Georgia, or by an instant run-off system, in which voters would rank candidates, or by some combination of the two systems.
In an instant run-off system, the candidate with the lowest vote total in each tabulation round would be eliminated, with the eliminated candidate's votes being reassigned to each voter's second choice. This would most benefit minority parties as a voter's second or lower preference would be considered if the voter's first choice is eliminated.
This change likely would require a Constitutional amendment.
No, it wouldn't. The only thing the constitution talks of is what is required to become President. The actual process itself is left up in the air. You could for example consider one or two runs off before an election just like the primaries.
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.
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.
