The popular vote

[timchoke]

I don't want this to get lost in the Election Day thread.

As of a few minutes ago, McCain was leading (narrowly) in the popular vote.

For people that have been talking how the electoral college should be abolished and only the popular vote count, what do you think now? How's your argument from the 2000 debacle look?

Now, I realize it will probably go to Obama in the end. But what if it doesn't? Let's hear your justifications.

[open mind]

the electoral college needs a restructuring not an abolishment.

[timchoke]

I'm fine with how it is.

But that wasn't my question. People still bitch that Gore should have won, based on the popular vote. If McCain can somehow pull that, should he have won?

[Circa1628]

obama is going to win the popular vote

[timchoke]

obama is going to win the popular vote

Almost definitely. But what if he doesn't?

[OnLettingGo]

electoral college is essential. i have no faith in the popular vote. it might just be austin but when i asked around about why people were voting for obama i got the most ridiculous answers. the founding fathers were smart men. they knew their shit.

[open mind]

I'm fine with how it is.

But that wasn't my question. People still bitch that Gore should have won, based on the popular vote. If McCain can somehow pull that, should he have won?

gore should have won because he should have won.....so many votes were thrown out in florida it's shameful.

[MorningWillCome]

the electoral college needs a restructuring not an abolishment.

i am in total agreement with this statement. i was talking to my parents about this earlier tonight and there are definitely problems with the electoral college (as there will be with any system), but to abolish it completely in favor of a simple popular vote is one of the most ridiculous proposals i've ever heard. i'm always amazed when i hear people wishing for this.

[Anton Djamoos]

i am in total agreement with this statement. i was talking to my parents about this earlier tonight and there are definitely problems with the electoral college (as there will be with any system), but to abolish it completely in favor of a simple popular vote is one of the most ridiculous proposals i've ever heard. i'm always amazed when i hear people wishing for this.
How is it ridiculous?

[Protested Hero]

I agree that the popular vote should matter. Good thing Obama won that too.

[Tristan Needler]

Almost definitely. But what if he doesn't?
If he didn't then McCain should have been president.

[timchoke]

Dang, I really wanted McCain to get the popular vote. If only for the shitstorm to follow.

[cahrishurr]

Dang, I really wanted McCain to get the popular vote. If only for the shitstorm to follow.

You want wanted McCain to win the popular purely for it to cause problems?

[jbaseball44]

i am in total agreement with this statement. i was talking to my parents about this earlier tonight and there are definitely problems with the electoral college (as there will be with any system), but to abolish it completely in favor of a simple popular vote is one of the most ridiculous proposals i've ever heard. i'm always amazed when i hear people wishing for this.

Yeah how ridiculous that the guy with the most votes gets to be President.
Perfect response Ben.

[Protested Hero]

Dang, I really wanted McCain to get the popular vote. If only for the shitstorm to follow.

What.

[timchoke]

Let's be honest. Liberals still bitch that Gore should have won, based on the popular vote. And conservatives say Bush rightly won, because he controlled the electoral college.

I just reallllllly wanted to see what the sides would have said if the roles were reversed. Would the AP.net staff be whining that McCain was locked out of the presidency?

[saysmydoctor]

Proportional representation guarantees that votes matter and small states get equal representation.

With that being said, Obama is about 5+ million ahead in the popular vote.

[open mind]

Let's be honest. Liberals still bitch that Gore should have won, based on the popular vote. And conservatives say Bush rightly won, because he controlled the electoral college.

I just reallllllly wanted to see what the sides would have said if the roles were reversed. Would the AP.net staff be whining that McCain was locked out of the presidency?

i'd be saying the all or nothing structure most states still uses is outmoded and each electoral vote should get it's own piece of a state.....if we did that it would be much harder to win an election without the popular vote, and it'd still give the less populated states fair representation.....well i still say we need to do that.

[timchoke]

I'd like to see a proportional system where third parties might actually matter. Obviously, not at first, but if a proportional electoral system would reward an electoral vote or two to a third party candidate that got 2% of the vote, that'd be awesome. And then, maybe, third parties could actually gain traction.

[aoftbsten]

yea i'm pretty sure the all or nothing aspect of the electoral college needs to be changed

[Adeniz19]

obama ended up winning the popular vote by 6 points. safe to assume this thread has become irrelevant.

[gusta0117]

i think the electoral vote should be done with, or figure out a more fair system.

i know it goes by population per state, but california getting 55? that is way too much. that is more than 1/5 of the 270 needed to win


and to the post above, the HBO movie Recount was interesting on covering the 2000 election and how gore should have won.

[QuikTrig]

i think the electoral vote should be done with, or figure out a more fair system.

i know it goes by population per state, but california getting 55? that is way too much. that is more than 1/5 of the 270 needed to win


and to the post above, the HBO movie Recount was interesting on covering the 2000 election and how gore should have won.

california getting too much? if anything, wyoming and alaska are getting too much. if your going to argue to abolish the college, at least do it correctly.

[jbaseball44]

Let's be honest. Liberals still bitch that Gore should have won, based on the popular vote. And conservatives say Bush rightly won, because he controlled the electoral college.

I just reallllllly wanted to see what the sides would have said if the roles were reversed. Would the AP.net staff be whining that McCain was locked out of the presidency?
That is not why Liberals bitch that Gore should have won, they bitch because Gore won Florida but George Bush committed massive voter fraud (as Ben said) that blocked tons of African Americans from voting

[xshady121]

How is it ridiculous?

It's unconstitutional.
It infringes upon states rights.
It violates the original agreements states made when joining the union.
It weakens smaller states
You would need a national recount rather than one area.

[xshady121]

I'd like to see a proportional system where third parties might actually matter. Obviously, not at first, but if a proportional electoral system would reward an electoral vote or two to a third party candidate that got 2% of the vote, that'd be awesome. And then, maybe, third parties could actually gain traction.

In a proportional system, the pop vote loser could still win the presidency.

Why fix a "flawed" system, if you get another flawed system?

[xshady121]

i'd be saying the all or nothing structure most states still uses is outmoded and each electoral vote should get it's own piece of a state.....if we did that it would be much harder to win an election without the popular vote, and it'd still give the less populated states fair representation.....well i still say we need to do that.

Using that logic, it's still pretty hard to win an election now (without the popular vote). The popular vote winner has only failed to win 3 times in 225+ years.

[open mind]

Using that logic, it's still pretty hard to win an election now (without the popular vote). The popular vote winner has only failed to win 3 times in 225+ years.

it should be harder.

[Tristan Needler]

In a proportional system, the pop vote loser could still win the presidency.

Why fix a "flawed" system, if you get another flawed system?
What is flawed about every individual having an equal say in their leader?

[nfgrocker16]

I'm fine with how it is.

But that wasn't my question. People still bitch that Gore should have won, based on the popular vote. If McCain can somehow pull that, should he have won?

Gore did win until Bush brought the election to the Supreme Court. No where in the constitution does it state that the Supreme Court can or should decide a presidential election.

It was bogus and stolen.

[nfgrocker16]

What is flawed about every individual having an equal say in their leader?

We technically do have an equal say in our leader, just portioned off based on population. I think the electoral college works for the most part. There are things that should be considered, possibly having more states like Nebraska who are allowed to split electoral votes.

[nfgrocker16]

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_evpvdisagree.html

Good article on the fact that only 4 times in our history has the popular vote not been in sync with the president elect. Gore's loss in 2000 is not included.

[hoss pinkerton]

I'd like to see a proportional system where third parties might actually matter. Obviously, not at first, but if a proportional electoral system would reward an electoral vote or two to a third party candidate that got 2% of the vote, that'd be awesome. And then, maybe, third parties could actually gain traction.

The whole reason a party that is not a big tent party cannot matter in our Political system is due to Duverger's Law. The whole problem begins with the House of representatives. In a plurality elections system with single-member districts, only two parties can emerge. If we had multiple member districts, competition would be encouraged amongst multiple parties, parties that could focus on more individual issues instead of a very broad amount of issues. If smaller parties mattered in congress, they would certainly matter more to the presidential election due to the fact that most people vote more for the party of the candidate and less the candidate themselves. We are the only country in the world who uses this election system and have the least amount of competing political parties. Until single-member districts are a thing of the past, two party competition will exist.

[Adeniz19]

We technically do have an equal say in our leader, just portioned off based on population. I think the electoral college works for the most part. There are things that should be considered, possibly having more states like Nebraska who are allowed to split electoral votes.
this would be the best option. have representatives vote based on their district and senators vote on state results

[xshady121]

What is flawed about every individual having an equal say in their leader?

The fact that the loser of the popular vote could still win the Presidency under proportional vote.

When the main argument against the electoral college is "the pop vote winner can lose" , there is no reason to support another system where the popular vote winner can STILL lose.

[xshady121]

this would be the best option. have representatives vote based on their district and senators vote on state results

The dstrict plan leads to gerrymandering.

[Machu505]

this would be the best option. have representatives vote based on their district and senators vote on state results

I like that idea, but I don't want the senators and congressmen to actually be the voters. I think the voters should be appointed by the parties so they vote really based on the results of their district.

[Adeniz19]

The dstrict plan leads to gerrymandering.and it doesn't now?

[xshady121]

and it doesn't now?

No it doesn't, considering we don't elect our president based on districts.

[xshady121]

I like that idea, but I don't want the senators and congressmen to actually be the voters. I think the voters should be appointed by the parties so they vote really based on the results of their district.

A district plan would eliminate electors, thus whoever wins the district wins the vote. You would still need 270 to win.

[Adeniz19]

No it doesn't, considering we don't elect our president based on districts.
we elect our congressman based on districts. you don't think there is any form of gerrymandering now?

[xshady121]

we elect our congressman based on districts. you don't think there is any form of gerrymandering now?

I never said there wasn't gerrymandering now. Perhaps you should check your comprehension skills. I said there wasn't in regards to the presidency, which is true because we vote with an electoral college. However were we to switch to a district plan, subjecting our votes for president to districts would be ridiculous. It would be a gerrymandering shit show to secure the white house for their party. It would be even more un-democratic than the electoral college is now.

edit: read up on it before you try to defend such a backwards idea in which you know nothing about. http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#district

[Tristan Needler]

The fact that the loser of the popular vote could still win the Presidency under proportional vote.

When the main argument against the electoral college is "the pop vote winner can lose" , there is no reason to support another system where the popular vote winner can STILL lose.
I know, that's what I mean. Why not get rid of the electoral college all together?

I'm not sure why state's rights matter so much in a federal election.

[saysmydoctor]

State's right should matter in a federal election. We have proportionalized state representation in federal legislation.

If all states did what Nebraska and Maine did, it would be easy.

[xshady121]

I know, that's what I mean. Why not get rid of the electoral college all together?

I'm not sure why state's rights matter so much in a federal election.

States rights matter because the actual election process is up to the states. that was one of the reasons for bush v. gore, and why nebraska can have a district/electoral college hybrid.

A direct national popular vote would be too expensive, and arguably less democratic than we have now.

[xshady121]

State's right should matter in a federal election. We have proportionalized state representation in federal legislation.

If all states did what Nebraska and Maine did, it would be easy.

Yeah, easy to gerrymander and steal elections.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, easy to gerrymander and steal elections.
Who said it has to be divided by district lines? It simply has to be split by the popular vote of the state.

[Adeniz19]

I never said there wasn't gerrymandering now. Perhaps you should check your comprehension skills. I said there wasn't in regards to the presidency, which is true because we vote with an electoral college. However were we to switch to a district plan, subjecting our votes for president to districts would be ridiculous. It would be a gerrymandering shit show to secure the white house for their party. It would be even more un-democratic than the electoral college is now.

edit: read up on it before you try to defend such a backwards idea in which you know nothing about. http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#districtbut the way it is now, some areas of states aren't fairly represented. for example, i live in CA, so we're pretty much going to go democratic every single time. however, the district i live in voted McCain by a 10+ margin. I'm sure it is like this in plenty of other states. i'm not really sure there is a 100% fair way of going about this.

[xshady121]

Who said it has to be divided by district lines? It simply has to be split by the popular vote of the state.

You cited Nebraska as an example. Nebraska is split via congressional districts, then the statewide popular vote winner gets the 2 "bonus" votes.

[saysmydoctor]

You cited Nebraska as an example. Nebraska is split via congressional districts, then the statewide popular vote winner gets the 2 "bonus" votes.
I cited Nebraska as an example of the electoral votes being split, not how they were split.

[xshady121]

I cited Nebraska as an example of the electoral votes being split, not how they were split.

Then how would you propose they split it?

[Adeniz19]

Who said it has to be divided by district lines? It simply has to be split by the popular vote of the state.

Then how would you propose they split it?...

[saysmydoctor]

I don't like repeating myself. For someone who lectures about reading comprehension, I get the impression you are skimming.

[xshady121]

but the way it is now, some areas of states aren't fairly represented. for example, i live in CA, so we're pretty much going to go democratic every single time. however, the district i live in voted McCain by a 10+ margin. I'm sure it is like this in plenty of other states. i'm not really sure there is a 100% fair way of going about this.

Most large states are evenly split (or in the case of Oregon , completely against the decision of the state) . A plan like you are proposing would make states like california and new york not worthy of campaigning in, as they might only net a total of 1 or 2 votes in each direction (example 20 to the rep and 22 to the dem for a total of +2 for the dems)... This could lead into even more campaign spending, and finance laws are a whole nother topic

[xshady121]

I don't like repeating myself. For someone who lectures about reading comprehension, I get the impression you are skimming.

So you're proposing strictly nationwide popular vote?

[saysmydoctor]

So you're proposing strictly nationwide popular vote?
No. Read what I fucking posted, dumbass.

[patrickhowell]

I know, that's what I mean. Why not get rid of the electoral college all together?

I'm not sure why state's rights matter so much in a federal election.

it's because we are federation of fifty sovereign states

[xshady121]

No. Read what I fucking posted, dumbass.

"It simply has to be split by the popular vote of the state."


You threw me off when you said "all states should do like Nebraska", when in fact, Nebraska's don't even resemble a Proportional Allocation. Under a Proportional System, larger states influence would be severely diminished (like the argument I made before) and the loser of the popular vote can STILL win. Once again, why fix something if the new thing you implement still has the same flaw of the other?

[Adeniz19]

Most large states are evenly split (or in the case of Oregon , completely against the decision of the state) . A plan like you are proposing would make states like california and new york not worthy of campaigning in, as they might only net a total of 1 or 2 votes in each direction (example 20 to the rep and 22 to the dem for a total of +2 for the dems)... This could lead into even more campaign spending, and finance laws are a whole nother topicCA and NY are already not worthy to campaign in. At least this way it would make certain swing districts more apealling to campaign in and not tunnel the election into 5 or so states. It wouldn't lead to more campaign spending. Candidates would just have to reevaluate where they spend.

[saysmydoctor]

"It simply has to be split by the popular vote of the state."


You threw me off when you said "all states should do like Nebraska", when in fact, Nebraska's don't even resemble a Proportional Allocation. Under a Proportional System, larger states influence would be severely diminished (like the argument I made before) and the loser of the popular vote can STILL win. Once again, why fix something if the new thing you implement still has the same flaw of the other?
How do you figure that would happen? That doesn't make any sense. If you win the popular vote in a particular, you get a proportional amount of the electoral votes. It does diminishes the larger states influence which is vastly different than the current system.

[Tristan Needler]

States rights matter because the actual election process is up to the states. that was one of the reasons for bush v. gore, and why nebraska can have a district/electoral college hybrid.

A direct national popular vote would be too expensive, and arguably less democratic than we have now.Why would it be more expensive? I don't know why it would cost more than it does now. And how would it be less democratic?

I just don't know why the US feels their states rights are so important. It's a different country than it was when it was formed.

it's because we are federation of fifty sovereign statesIn writing, but in reality not so much anymore. That's in large part due to the fact that most states didn't even really want to be part of a single nation. That's not the case anymore, what with all the chants of "USA, USA!" and all. I don't think many people put their state before their country any more, unless it's in a situation that personally benefits them.

[xshady121]

How do you figure that would happen? That doesn't make any sense. If you win the popular vote in a particular, you get a proportional amount of the electoral votes. It does diminishes the larger states influence which is vastly different than the current system.

How can the loser win? It's math. The national popular vote winner could still lose.

[saysmydoctor]

How can the loser win? It's math. The national popular vote winner could still lose.
It's math, exactly, and you have none to backup this theory. If you are getting enough of the popular vote to get more electoral votes, I think it's easy to realize you are winning the popular vote.

[Adeniz19]

How can the loser win? It's math. The national popular vote winner could still lose.What the hell are you even talking about now? hahaha

[saysmydoctor]

I wish I could pull math out of my ass.

[xshady121]

CA and NY are already not worthy to campaign in. At least this way it would make certain swing districts more apealling to campaign in and not tunnel the election into 5 or so states. It wouldn't lead to more campaign spending. Candidates would just have to reevaluate where they spend.

Republicans don't currently campaign in California or New York or any of the Northeast for that matter. Now they would have to , when New York district wise is fairly split. Candidates would spend more to campaign in more states. And especially with Obama proving you now have to campaign in caucuses, presidential elections are about to become even more expensive then they were this year. However, I don't want to argue campaign finances and delve further in, so lets try and stick to the electoral college plans

[saysmydoctor]

You brought up gerrymandering which is the House districting bullshit. I'm convinced you don't what you are talking about.

[xshady121]

It's math, exactly, and you have none to backup this theory. If you are getting enough of the popular vote to get more electoral votes, I think it's easy to realize you are winning the popular vote.

You're talking about the Proportional Plan, where each states electoral votes are given out on a proportionate basis equal to its popular vote, correct?

Example: state 10 votes

dem - 60 % vote
rep- 40% vote

Dems would get 6 , reps 4

correct?

[xshady121]

You brought up gerrymandering which is the House districting bullshit. I'm convinced you don't what you are talking about.

Yes, because you mentioned Nebraska (which is done by districting) and adeniz brought up districting before you got here.

[saysmydoctor]

Also, everyone here is acting as if the electoral college is ensuring state's rights. It's real purpose is to make sure the upper class are the ones really electing the president, not the commoners.

[xshady121]

I'm not going to do hypothetical election results under a Proportional Plan, so...

http://www.mrbaker.org/The%20Electoral%20College.html

[saysmydoctor]

The electoral college is a hindrance on growth. It neutralizes the validity of a third party, favors less populous states, creates battleground states, ignores the minority voice entirely, discourages voting participation, and encourages the class stratification today. It needs to be fixed. Fact.

[xshady121]

The electoral college is a hindrance on growth. It neutralizes the validity of a third party, favors less populous states, creates battleground states, ignores the minority voice entirely, discourages voting participation, and encourages the class stratification today. It needs to be fixed. Fact.

No argument here. The only problem is any other proposed option has too many flaws to be worth trying to implement it.

[xshady121]

What the hell are you even talking about now? hahaha

Your talking district plan, saymydoctor is talking proportional representation

your saying candidate wins a district--> that vote goes directly to his electoral total.

Your plan ensures that the pop vote winner wins.

[Adeniz19]

Your talking district plan, saymydoctor is talking proportional representation

your saying candidate wins a district--> that vote goes directly to his electoral total.

Your plan ensures that the pop vote winner wins.
and how is that a bad thing?

[xshady121]

and how is that a bad thing?

In a district proposal? Gerrymandering. The party in power in the redistricting years has an unfair advantage in the upcoming election.

[Adeniz19]

In a district proposal? Gerrymandering. The party in power in the redistricting years has an unfair advantage in the upcoming election.:hitself:

and you say i need better comprehension skills?

[xshady121]

:hitself:

and you say i need better comprehension skills?

Unless you were talking about how is cutting out the electors a bad thing. Which it isn't, but not at the expense of losing your vote via gerrymandering

[Jason Tate]

I do not want a direct democracy based upon popular vote. It'll lead to people only campaigning by population - and I still don't trust the majority of the populace.

[MorningWillCome]

I do not want a direct democracy based upon popular vote. It'll lead to people only campaigning by population - and I still don't trust the majority of the populace.

exactly.
everyone in here started freaking out when i said that i thought it was a bad idea to elect a president based strictly upon popular vote, but a candidate would only have to campaign in a few of the most heavily populated states to become president of the entire country.
i'm not saying i love the way it works now, because i don't. i'm just saying i'm not a fan of the idea of a direct popular vote.

[mattybobviously]

I can't believe I'm showing up in a thread to support xshady121

[xshady121]

I can't believe I'm showing up in a thread to support xshady121

Yeah, I'm not this complete conservative asshat Lauren would paint me as. I make valid arguments from time to time, if people just read farther than the Reagan avatar.