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 07-02-2017, 05:56 PM
 
9,802 posts, read 10,042,815 times
Reputation: 5248

Advertisements

The idea of "One man one vote" seems to be having a resurgence with VP Gore and Hillary Clinton both winning more popular votes, but losing the election.

But the original 13 colonies would have never formed a country under the one man one vote policy. They were not interested in seeing all the Presidents coming from Virginia. Even so, 4 of the 5 founding fathers were from Virginia.

MEGA LARGE: Virginia
LARGE: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New York ,Maryland,South Carolina
SMALL: Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Georgia, Rhode Island, Delaware

If the original colonies wouldn't have formed a country, what makes you think a change in the constitution at this stage won't break up the country?

We've had 10 states produce a single POTUS
42 Bill Clinton Arkansas
39 Jimmy Carter Georgia
23 Benjamin Harrison Indiana
34 Dwight D. Eisenhower Kansas
12 Zachary Taylor Louisiana
38 Gerald Ford Michigan
33 Harry S. Truman Missouri
14 Franklin Pierce New Hampshire
28 Woodrow Wilson New Jersey
15 James Buchanan Pennsylvania

Four states have produced three president's apiece
31 Herbert Hoover California
37 Richard Nixon California
40 Ronald Reagan California

16 Abraham Lincoln Illinois
44 Barack Obama Illinois
18 Ulysses S. Grant Illinois

7 Andrew Jackson Tennessee
11 James K. Polk Tennessee
17 Andrew Johnson Tennessee

36 Lyndon B. Johnson Texas
41 George H. W. Bush Texas
43 George W. Bush Texas

Four states have produced 4 or more Presidents
2 John Adams Massachusetts
6 John Quincy Adams Massachusetts
30 Calvin Coolidge Massachusetts
35 John F. Kennedy Massachusetts

8 Martin Van Buren New York
13 Millard Fillmore New York
21 Chester A. Arthur New York
22 Grover Cleveland New York
24 Grover Cleveland New York
26 Theodore Roosevelt New York
32 Franklin D. Roosevelt New York
45 Donald J. Trump New York

9 William Henry Harrison Ohio
19 Rutherford B. Hayes Ohio
20 James A. Garfield Ohio
25 William McKinley Ohio
27 William Howard Taft Ohio
29 Warren G. Harding Ohio

1 George Washington Virginia
3 Thomas Jefferson Virginia
4 James Madison Virginia
5 James Monroe Virginia
10 John Tyler Virginia

Last edited by PacoMartin; 07-02-2017 at 06:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2017, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Texas
3,253 posts, read 1,713,550 times
Reputation: 3080
The United States was never meant to be a direct democracy for presidential elections. It's actually more now, than it was intended. The President and Vice President were supposed to be picked separately via the electoral college.

Quote:
Who selects the Electors? Choosing each state's Electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the voters in each state select their state's Electors by casting their ballots for President.
The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each state and varies from state to state. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential Electors at their state party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party's central committee. This happens in each state for each party by whatever rules the state party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential Electors.
Political parties often choose Electors for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be state elected officials, state party leaders, or people in the state who have a personal or political affiliation with their party's Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential Electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each state.)
The second part of the process happens on Election Day. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state's Electors. The potential Electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures and ballot formats in each state.
The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential Electors are appointed as the state's Electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the state winner receives two Electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one Elector. This system permits the Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one candidate.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg.../electors.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 10:45 PM
 
Location: WY
5,194 posts, read 3,732,498 times
Reputation: 5858
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
The idea of "One man one vote" seems to be having a resurgence
No it's not. Only people talking about it are those who didn't like the results of the past election and who continue to seek out any way possible to either nullify the 2016 result, or do their damndest to make sure that the "wrong" person doesn't get elected ever again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2017, 11:30 PM
 
3,436 posts, read 2,481,353 times
Reputation: 6625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings View Post
The United States was never meant to be a direct democracy for presidential elections.
This is exactly right. Tried to rep it but I am not sure if it took for some reason.

I completely understand that winning the popular vote and losing the election is a very hard way to lose. But the fact is that this is not a direct democracy, but a republic with weighted power. If you don't understand the difference, or don't understand the benefit, I highly encourage you to read Polybius, who first outlined the superiority of the Roman republic to Athenian Democracy.

Or just look history and the end result. The Roman Republic lasted 500 years, Athenian Democracy a couple of generations.

Or, if you don't want to learn anything, you can just take solace in the fact that Trump and Clinton ran under the same rules, and Clinton lost, because whereas Trump understood exactly what he had to do, Clinton idiotically campaigned in states that she had in the bag, ignoring competely places like Wisconsin and Michigan. It is, by the way, the same story as the 2008 primaries, when she did not understandand had no plan for winning the caucuses.

The process not only guaruntees that the candidates are paying attention to people in EVERY state, it also weeds out the dullards who simply don't understand the process at all.

Final thought: the electoral college is not going away, so the Dems should probably start listening to middle America again.

But none of this mitigates what I said: I get that it is hard to lose two elections via the electoral college in one lifetime, and I am not gloating. I would much prefer to see clean elections, and Mr. Trump has to realize that his support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Both sides have something to learn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 05:53 AM
 
9,802 posts, read 10,042,815 times
Reputation: 5248
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches View Post
But none of this mitigates what I said: I get that it is hard to lose two elections via the electoral college in one lifetime, and I am not gloating.
Elections where winner lost popular vote
1824: John Quincy Adams.
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes.
1888: Benjamin Harrison.
2000: George W. Bush.
2016: Donald Trump.

Last time the two elections were only 12 years apart instead of 16 years. The 1876 and 1888 elections were far more contentious than the 2000 and 2016 elections.

The 1888 election was still before secret ballots, and a blatant vote selling scheme was uncovered in Indiana that gave Benjamin Harris the state.

Indiana did not have enough electoral college votes to determine the election, but a similar scheme was suspected in New York City. NY state did have enough electoral college votes to determine the outcome.

1888 results in New York State
635,965 Grover Cleveland
650,338 Benjamin Harrison- WINNER

1888 results in Indiana
261,013 Grover Cleveland
263,361 Benjamin Harrison- WINNER

1888 results in Illinois
348,351 Grover Cleveland
370,475 Benjamin Harrison- WINNER

1892 results in New York State
654,868 Grover Cleveland- WINNER
609,350 Benjamin Harrison

1892 results in Indiana
262,740 Grover Cleveland- WINNER
255,615 Benjamin Harrison

1892 results in Illinois
426,281 Grover Cleveland- WINNER
399,288 Benjamin Harrison

Last edited by PacoMartin; 07-03-2017 at 06:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 06:57 AM
 
9,186 posts, read 4,234,955 times
Reputation: 10988
Quote:
Originally Posted by juneaubound View Post
No it's not. Only people talking about it are those who didn't like the results of the past election and who continue to seek out any way possible to either nullify the 2016 result, or do their damndest to make sure that the "wrong" person doesn't get elected ever again.
Exactly

I remember when the (D's) were pontificating about Hillary winning the Electoral College(EC), but losing the popular vote.
It was speculated that Trumps popularity might carry the popular vote, but his lack of organization (i.e. "ground game") was inferior to Hillary's. Thus the strategists were saying all that mattered was the EC.
They were right of course, the EC has been with us since our founding, with no need to change it.
Our Founding Fathers (FF) had never intended for us to be a democracy, and actually feared that form of government because of potential mob rule, with no protection for the minority viewpoint. Instead they gave us a Constitutional Republic, with capitalism as it's engine.
Based on how we became the most free, wealthy, and powerful nation this earth has ever known, I find it hard to believe any educated/rational people have their objections to it.

This is a great video that is not long, and explains why we have and need the EC;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy3lNi0jXMA

----

With that said, I am not sure that is exactly what the OP is driving at, as they seem to also be focusing on where our potus's have hailed from, as one of those aspects.



`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 07:36 AM
 
9,802 posts, read 10,042,815 times
Reputation: 5248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
Exactly

With that said, I am not sure that is exactly what the OP is driving at, as they seem to also be focusing on where our potus's have hailed from, as one of those aspects.
`
The fact that presidents came from 18 different states is a partial testament of the effectiveness of the decision not to go with "one man one vote" elections.

But the main point was that the 13 colonies would never have agreed to unify into one country without this power sharing agreement. The war of independence was fought by a coalition of militias.

It seems just as likely that the country would break up if a constitutional amendment was passed to change this power structure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:45 AM
 
9,186 posts, read 4,234,955 times
Reputation: 10988
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post
The fact that presidents came from 18 different states is a partial testament of the effectiveness of the decision not to go with "one man one vote" elections.

But the main point was that the 13 colonies would never have agreed to unify into one country without this power sharing agreement. The war of independence was fought by a coalition of militias.

It seems just as likely that the country would break up if a constitutional amendment was passed to change this power structure.
I am not sure that where a president hails from originally makes much of a difference. We have had both liberals and conservatives come from the same state before.
However the FF's certainly did not want the most populace states to solely decide who would be president, nor have a stranglehold on the government. Hence the Senate that equally has two Representatives for each state, no matter the size/population.

In regard to a challenge to the EC, I do not think it will ever occur. The smaller states would balk at the idea that a candidate could cater to the desires of 3-5 states and win based on their large population base alone. Thus it would spell doom for our republic if it ever were to happen.
Lets face it, the values, needs, and issues of NYC, are not those faced in Denver/Tampa etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Atlanta metro (Cobb County)
1,525 posts, read 724,049 times
Reputation: 1619
In the event of a national popular vote, a good question is what sort of margin would trigger a national recount? If the result was within 0.1% or so, both parties would be scrambling all across the country to not only ensure ballots were counted thoroughly, but also dispute the status of provisional and mail-in votes. This would also be tricky given that voting requirements are not exactly the same nationwide, and voting methods and hours certainly vary a great deal between states.

The one item I'd like to have changed in the current electoral voting system is to prevent states from splitting their votes. Only Maine and Nebraska do so currently, and being very low population states it has little impact. But many larger states have extremely partisan district lines (more so Republican this decade, but there are some favoring Democrats as well). Congressional districts' only purpose is for apportioning seats in the House of Representatives, and have no other jurisdictional relevance, unlike states as a whole. Each state should be required to vote as a whole for the candidate of their choice, as 48 (plus DC) do already. The 2016 election proved that Republicans absolutely can win states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, so hopefully that will put to rest any talk of apportioning electoral votes by district.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:54 AM
 
4,414 posts, read 3,346,523 times
Reputation: 2321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
Lets face it, the values, needs, and issues of NYC, are not those faced in Denver/Tampa etc.
Which shouldn't factor into electing the one office that executes laws for all of America.

Something needs to be done to fix the EC. It has effectively made the votes of most American's meaningless. A Democratic voter in Mississippi has as much impact on a presidential as a Republican in Vermont. And that is none at all. In fact, unless you live in Ohio, Virginia, PA, Florida or Wisconsin you might as well not even vote for President because your vote simply doesn't make a difference int eh outcome.

Heck, even Donald trump thinks that EC is bad. Well, he used to...
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 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