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)
View Poll Results: The Electoral College DO AWAY and go popular vote
yes 12 57.14%
no 9 42.86%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-30-2006, 10:07 PM
 
9 posts, read 16,498 times
Reputation: 14

Advertisements

The Electoral College is it time for popular vote?
The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

The founding fathers had the foresight to know that things will change and made provisions for the constitution to be changed as well. Is it time again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2006, 11:16 PM
 
9 posts, read 16,498 times
Reputation: 14
the thing is popular vote darn near ensures the end of the 2 party system
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2006, 12:22 PM
 
Location: In exile, plotting my coup
2,408 posts, read 13,349,253 times
Reputation: 1792
The Electoral College is an outdated archaic relic implemented during a time when our nation was a loose confederation of states in an effort to increase cohesion and inclusion amongst the individual states in our political process, so as to not risk a mutiny of sorts with one state seceding from the Union out of perceived lack of power and influence. This is no longer the case as we are a strong nation, not a loosely-knit confederation of states. In a democracy, it makes sense that the candidate who gets the most number of votes, WINS. It's plain and simple. The current system is unfair to New York Republicans and to Utah Democrats among others who live in solidly blue/red states and have no incentive to go out and vote. Why should your vote essentially be thrown out because you happen to live in a state where your view does not predominate? We should be putting the person in office who receives the most number of votes, not the person who has the greatest geographic distribution of voters.

I don't see the system disappearing anytime soon however unfortunately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2006, 08:21 PM
 
Location: NC
1,250 posts, read 2,312,146 times
Reputation: 584
Why would people from dinky meaningless states like mine even bother to vote? I forgot the exact #'s It sounds like this THe 10 biggest cities combined hold more than half of the countries population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2006, 10:32 PM
 
919 posts, read 1,702,078 times
Reputation: 478
Bush won the most popular votes, for those that think it was rigged remember the machines came from venezsuala.the prez hates bush?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2006, 06:40 PM
 
Location: N.H.
1,022 posts, read 3,195,799 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
Bush won the most popular votes, for those that think it was rigged remember the machines came from venezsuala.the prez hates bush?
Well ya but it had to be rigged. Because the dems just don't loose. That's why they don't want you, to have to prove who you are before you vote. They can't sneak ppl that shouldn't be allowed to vote in if that happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2006, 09:15 AM
 
9 posts, read 16,498 times
Reputation: 14
If we had a popular vote Gore would have won the first round with Bush. But no matter. Popular vote would make every persons vote count even the one's from dinky states. I also believe it could bring about a chance for a third party member to actually win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2006, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
944 posts, read 3,629,614 times
Reputation: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by citi-zen View Post
If we had a popular vote Gore would have won the first round with Bush. But no matter. Popular vote would make every persons vote count even the one's from dinky states. I also believe it could bring about a chance for a third party member to actually win.
This simple argument is so straight-forward that it helps me decide to vote in your poll against keeping the electoral college system. But I'm going to refrain from pulling the lever on your poll because I want to read more counter-arguments.

Pure democracy is scary. We might still have slavery if we had a pure democracy. That's just one of many examples of the fear I have of the masses. I believe in elitist, representative government. We're a republic, not a democracy. And I'm saying this as a libertarian leftist. I don't want Big Brother to be empowered by the fearful masses, and I fear that the masses will vote for Big Brother to be more powerful if given the opportunity. To me, the most important thing standing between us and a totalitarian government is NOT our vote, it's the courts. Without the Supreme Court, we'd be much closer to fascism. Conservatives, love your activist judges. They're protecting YOU, too!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2006, 02:54 PM
 
597 posts, read 1,818,131 times
Reputation: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by citi-zen View Post
If we had a popular vote Gore would have won the first round with Bush. But no matter. Popular vote would make every persons vote count even the one's from dinky states. I also believe it could bring about a chance for a third party member to actually win.
I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. There is an underlying brilliance in the electoral college scheme, so let me explain. Do you realize that by going with popular vote, our country would become a 1 party system? I say this because large metropolitan areas are heavily controlled by 1 party--democrats (this could be good or bad depending on your political persuasion). The population in the large cities across the US would have ultimate control over essentially any major election, so forget about politicians worrying about what happens in Kansas, they'd all be concerned about LA & NYC. The electoral college is essentially like congress, each state getting a number of representatives (albeit based on population), so that all states get some representation. IMO it's not perfect, but it's better than allowing a 1 party system to control America for the rest of our lives, because frankly that is scary no matter which party you're for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2006, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
944 posts, read 3,629,614 times
Reputation: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdizzle View Post
Do you realize that by going with popular vote, our country would become a 1 party system? I say this because large metropolitan areas are heavily controlled by 1 party--democrats (this could be good or bad depending on your political persuasion). The population in the large cities across the US would have ultimate control over essentially any major election, so forget about politicians worrying about what happens in Kansas, they'd all be concerned about LA & NYC.
I've heard a different version of this argument but you've framed it in a way that makes me question its validity.

No nation on earth with direct democratic elections is quite like the picture you paint. In the scenario you envision, individual humans would continue to vote and think as they currently do. But that's not what would happen. Differentiation of ideas (competing memes) will always occur, and even if your scenario played out as you predict for the first such election, it would correct itself quickly by virtue of the diversity of minds and the proliferation of memes.

Sparsely inhabited places already have more than their fair share of power through the senate. Wyoming and Vermont, for example, have as many senators as California and Texas. Do we really need more weight placed on the votes of the scattered and those who live in micro-states? They're doing just fine in the senate and don't need the electoral college as additional help. You just made my mind up for me, I'm voting in this poll to eliminate the system!
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. The time now is 11:08 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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