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.
A direct popular vote system would take even more power away from "States" as an entity, incentivizing candidates to appeal only to the biggest population centers. Candidates would hang out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston and give short shrift to smaller states.
That happens now. More time is spent in swing states, "giving short shrift to" other states.
They are not government entities but I'm not sure they are free associations of voters either. During the primaries whenever people were defending Hillary's steamrolling of Sanders or musing about having a party chosen replacement for Trump we were repeatedly reminded that the parties themselves were ultimately in charge of choosing the candidates and not the voters who purportedly associated with the parties. We were even told that primary votes were more of a formality and a favor the parties did so the voters could feel involved, but that they were not technically binding, with the democrats even going as far as to assign super delegates who would vote the way the party wanted when the voters wanted someone different.
So the people who are unhappy with their parties must freely associate otherwise.
You can look at the difference between what happened in the Democratic Party compared to what happened in the Republican Party and see some clear indications of where both processes "went wrong."
The Republican Party does this right: They work their grassroots machine very, very well. They keep the grassroots machine constantly turning for every election all the time and keep their individual voters constantly engaged, which is why they are so successful in local and state elections. Republican voters turn out for everything, not just the quadrennial presidential elections.
Because the Republican Party keeps voters at the grassroots level actively engaged all the time, the Republican national leadership was unable to push through their national-level decision for presidential candidate. For better or for worse, it was the candidate that most successfully communicated to the Republican grassroots who won, because the Republican Party had always successfully kept their grassroots engaged.
The Democratic Party does a very poor job of keeping their grassroots engaged. This may or may not be intentional. Considering how the national level ran roughshod over the Sanders campaign, it appears that the national level Democratic Party intentionally lets their grassroots machine lie fallow between quadrennial elections.
This strategy, of course, loses the mid-term elections and the state and local elections for the Democratic Party.
That happens now. More time is spent in swing states, "giving short shrift to" other states.
That only happens because one party or another is not taking care of business in those states at the grassroots level. And that's usually the Democrats.
So every four years, the local Democrats have to go "Oh my God!" and scurry to make up for not doing their jobs continually between quadrennial elections.
On the other hand, under the electoral college system, all of California's and New York's votes go to a candidate who may have only won 50.1% of those state's votes. How does that make sense?
The state makes that determination. A state chooses for itself (through state legislation) whether it will cast its electoral ballots proportionately or "all or nothing."
If the citizens of that state don't like the way their state is handling it, they must rally within their own state to change it.
Again and again, this boils down to the parties paying attention to their grassroots machine all the time, not just for quadrennial elections.
Any system you try to implement to replace the electoral college is going to be 'flawed'. When have humans ever created a perfect system? People are upset because the electoral college worked exactly as it's supposed to work, but their candidate lost. Sorry, but that's not a reason to change a system that has worked for a couple of centuries.
systems of government evolve over time. the idea that we should rigidly stick to 200 hundred year old system is silly.
systems of government evolve over time. the idea that we should rigidly stick to 200 hundred year old system is silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Why not? Why do we need to be so wedded to what went on hundreds of years ago. None of us lives as they did hundreds of years ago.
Trust me, if what happened with Gore and Hillary had happened to 2 Republican presidential candidates, the GOP would be crying to change the electoral system.
You're missing the point. Don't fix what ain't broken. You people are acting as if the fact that some candidates won the popular vote and still lost the election should not have happened. BUT THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE HAVE. We don't elect our President's by the popular vote. There's NOTHING wrong with the electoral college system.
If you want to argue that it needs to be changed because it has a "flaw", then SHOW ME THE FLAW. Because, up until now, there is no 'flaw' in the electoral college system. You just don't like the outcomes. That's not a reason to change it.
You're missing the point. Don't fix what ain't broken. You people are acting as if the fact that some candidates won the popular vote and still lost the election should not have happened. BUT THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE HAVE. We don't elect our President's by the popular vote. There's NOTHING wrong with the electoral college system.
If you want to argue that it needs to be changed because it has a "flaw", then SHOW ME THE FLAW. Because, up until now, there is no 'flaw' in the electoral college system. You just don't like the outcomes. That's not a reason to change it.
But it is broken. Twice in recent decades candidates who have gotten the most votes lost the election. That's broken.
Saying "BUT THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE HAVE" doesn't mean it's good. Do you believe that slavery was good because "THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE" HAD? Jim Crow -- good because "THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE" HAD? British colonialism was good because "THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE" HAD?
You believe that the candidate who receives the least votes should be declared the winner.
On the other hand, under the electoral college system, all of California's and New York's votes go to a candidate who may have only won 50.1% of those state's votes. How does that make sense?
This is why I suggest the candidates get that percentage of electors. If a state has 10 electors and one candidate gets 50% of the vote, another gets 40% and between three third party nominees, or gets 6%, another gets 3 and the final gets 1%, well the winner only gets 5 electoral votes, the opponent gets 4 and the third party candidate that got 6% gets 1. It keeps the power of the states with 90% intact but puts closer races in not a total defeat. In fact, it would have made the Trump battleground wins not as powerful.
FYI, I had this idea when Romney lost in 2012 as well.
This is why I suggest the candidates get that percentage of electors. If a state has 10 electors and one candidate gets 50% of the vote, another gets 40% and between three third party nominees, or gets 6%, another gets 3 and the final gets 1%, well the winner only gets 5 electoral votes, the opponent gets 4 and the third party candidate that got 6% gets 1. It keeps the power of the states with 90% intact but puts closer races in not a total defeat. In fact, it would have made the Trump battleground wins not as powerful.
FYI, I had this idea when Romney lost in 2012 as well.
A "thing" (a state) should not be more powerful than people. Sorry, at least you're thinking, but I prefer one person one vote.
The best reform would be done at the state level, by changing the winner-take-all system to one where the winner in each congressional district gets one electoral vote and the statewide winner gets two.
There would be no "safe" states, like Texas, New York, California and Illinois. Presidential candidates could pick up electoral votes in almost every state with more than two or three congressional districts. Nebraska and Maine already do this.
But the Democrats would never vote for this in the states they control, and Republicans are unlikely to do it in Florida or Texas.
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.
