Electoral versus Popular Vote

[HashiriyaS14]

At present, John McCain is ahead slightly in the popular vote and Barack Obama leads slightly from an electoral standpoint.

In 2000, Bush won the White House via winning electorally but losing the popular vote, marking the first time this has occurred since 1888.

It may happen again this year, given how thing seem to be going. It's not a certainty, but it's a distinct possibility.

That said, what does everyone think about it? Should we continue to use the electoral system in an age wherein a direct popular vote is technologically feasible?

In an increasingly partisan society, very close Presidential votes like this will only continue to increase in frequency. This may become a regular phenomenon, regulating the popular vote to meaninglessness. Of course, it could also be argued that, since the electoral college is supposed to be set up on the basis if state population, that this occurrence of winning one yet losing the other might indicate a failure to draw up the electoral votes correctly.

Thoughts?

[srellim234]

I think it's fine the way it is and should be considered a states' rights issue. A state has the right to divide its electoral college vote between candidates. I think Nebraska is one state that already does.

Let each state determine how its own electoral delegation will vote. If they want to divvy it up, fine. If they want to vote "all or nothing", fine. Washington,D.C. should stay out of it.

[wingFeather]

marking the first time this has occurred since 1888.

I seem to recall Bill Clinton not having the majority of the popular vote.

[HashiriyaS14]

Washington,D.C. should stay out of it.

How come? Do the residents of the District of Columbia not deserve to vote for their own President like you or I?

[Marenta]

I think the Electoral system is old-fashioned and antiquated. Mainly because we now have things at our disposal to speed up the voting process.

We have phones and internet that are much faster than paper on horseback, which is what the Electoral system was designed to speed up. Since we no longer use these techniques to get our information, I believe that Electoral collage shouldn't be in service any more.

If we do continue to use it, I believe that the personnel in the Electoral College should vote by the popular vote of their state. If their state goes Dem, they go Dem, if their state goes Rep, they go Rep. I realize that this would chap the *** of those people who are voting outside of their party, but at least the Electoral College would favor the popular vote more, and would be in keeping with the desires of the American public.

[Beancooker]

As I stated in another thread in here, I believe that since we now have instant communication, electoral votes should be done away with.

[srellim234]

People are way too sensitive and nitpicky around here.

Note that I said "it's fine the way it is."

But, if you really need the terminology, the elected people on Capitol Hill and the elected person residing in the White House should stay out of it.

[HashiriyaS14]

I seem to recall Bill Clinton not having the majority of the popular vote.

You recall incorrectly.

In 1992 he won 43.0% of the Popular Vote compared to GHWB's 37.4% and Perot's 18.8%.

In 1996 he beat Dole in the popular vote 49.24% to 40.71%. His second win was a pretty decent landslide.

You might be confusing "winning the popular vote" with "winning a MAJORITY in the popular vote". You can still win (i.e. more votes than anyone else) without winning a majority, since there are always third-party candidates, write-ins, et cetera.

Srellim234: Very sorry, I honestly misunderstood what you meant by the DC comment. I get it now, and you're absolutely right, IMO.

[wingFeather]

I think the Electoral system is old-fashioned and antiquated.

[WDRacing]

"By the people, for the people"...lose the electoral system and count each vote individually. It makes no sense to me that we wouldn't have adopted this stance years ago.

The people should be the deciding factor...always. I place no amount of faith in the electoral system what so ever.

WD

[rn79870]

The people should be the deciding factor...always. I place no amount of faith in the electoral system what so ever.

WD

So you're anti-Democracy. Interesting.

[HashiriyaS14]

So you're anti-Democracy. Interesting.

That's a stretch, man.

Maybe he's just anti representative democracy, or probably not even that. A lack of faith in the electoral system just means that one doesn't believe that it adequately reflects the will of the people using it. This is a legitimate claim as we have more and more elections wherein the two produce different results.

Were you not in favor of going with the popular vote back in 2000 when Gore took it?

[WDRacing]

How does wanting the public vote tallied and applied to the next President make me anti democracy? Or are you trying to insinuate that I don't understand Democracy? The method by which we elect the officials to run this country is what is in question here. Not democracy as a whole...

If I'm for changing something in the current system, does that make me against the entire system? That is the same type of failed logic you're attempting to apply all over this forum. If someone isn't FOR something then they must be AGAINST it. Are you trying to say that Democracy is only the electoral system and NO other methods could ever be applied without the total failure of Democracy as we know it?

This topic is about whether or not you agree or disagree with the current system in place now. Lets keep it on topic shall we or am I not allowed to voice an opinion on the matter Bob?

[szh]

So you're anti-Democracy. Interesting.

He is talking about the Electoral College system, not the concept of abandoning elections in general. Many other countries do just fine by counting the total popular vote and electing their leaders.

FWIW, popular vote count would have helped Gore be the POTUS when he ran ...

Z

[srellim234]

I still say it's a states' rights issue. If the majority of the people in your state feel the way you do, they will vote in a statewide election to change their electoral vote allocation to reflect the popular vote and split it up. A few states have already adopted that stance.

If a different state chooses to continue with an "all or nothing" electoral allocation, that is their choice. The federal government should stay out of it at this point.

If all states go to a split allocation, that's ok. It still should be each individual state's choice.

[HashiriyaS14]

I still say it's a states' rights issue. If the majority of the people in your state feel the way you do, they will vote in a statewide election to change their electoral vote allocation to reflect the popular vote and split it up. A few states have already adopted that stance.

If a different state chooses to continue with an "all or nothing" electoral allocation, that is their choice. The federal government should stay out of it at this point.

If all states go to a split allocation, that's ok. It still should be each individual state's choice.

I agree with this, generally.

I am somewhat unclear on what advantage the states might be able to glean from retaining the electoral college, however. Does Ohio somehow palpably benefit from the fact that the rural southeastern corner of the state is "the decider" in so many Presidential elections?

I'm not for abandoning the system, but I do like to hear every argument for it's continued existence when it does, at first view, appear a bit redundant.

[Jimefam]

It exist because neither party wants to change it. It makes campaigning easier. 40 of the 50 states neither candidate gives a F*** about because they are not in play. They focus on the ten or so states that can swing an election and thats it. If they had to campaign nationwide it would require alot more effort on their part and more money. NOT going to happen.

[szh]

It exist because neither party wants to change it.

That is true.

It makes campaigning easier. 40 of the 50 states neither candidate gives a F*** about because they are not in play. They focus on the ten or so states that can swing an election and thats it. If they had to campaign nationwide it would require alot more effort on their part and more money. NOT going to happen.

Hmmm ... I think the requirement to campaign in every state becomes meaningful. Yeah, there is not enough money to do it all - I agree. But, that is no biggie really. Because I think hat we could do with less campaign spending! Keep it targetted to national ads and lots of debates!

This year, the totals are going to be close to or over $1 Billion dollars - the most in history - by just the two final candidates alone. What a sheer waste!

Z

[Jimefam]

yeah i agree with it to. Would love to see the candidates really trying to earn everyones vote. I'm just saying that it isn't in the interest of either party so dont expect change anytime soon.

[szh]

I'm just saying that it isn't in the interest of either party so dont expect change anytime soon.

Agreed with that ... ... unfortunate.

Z

[rn79870]

How does wanting the public vote tallied and applied to the next President make me anti democracy? Or are you trying to insinuate that I don't understand Democracy? The method by which we elect the officials to run this country is what is in question here. Not democracy as a whole...

Settle down. You're the one who posted...

The people should be the deciding factor...always. I place no amount of faith in the electoral system what so ever.

I assume people who "place no amount of faith in the electoral system what so ever" are against that system. It just so happens that that system you have no faith in is called a democracy. That's why I asked.You might believe in a Revolutionary or a Totalitarian or a Oligarchy or a Plutocracy basis for government. You're certainly entitled to your beliefs.I was just exploring the issue.

[srellim234]

If all states go to split allocation then yes, it does appear redundant. It does, however, offer the opportunity for states to return to an "all or nothing" allocation if the electoral college is retained, at least for the foreseeable future. Maybe, just maybe, there is some drawback that none of us has anticipated. An unknown consequence that may surprise us. I'm open to that possibility.

As for throwing the the rest of the states in play, I don't believe that will happen, either. Just as we currently know which counties in toss-up states to focus a campaign on, it just shifts that focus. Certain areas, possibly whole states will still be totally ignored by the campaigns. The odds are very good that a New Hampshire or Alaska or North Dakota will be totally ignored, because even if it's a toss-up state it may not have enough residents to bother with. Orange County, CA will still be predominately Republican and the Democrat won't bother too much to campaign there. Likewise the Republican isn't going to bother with San Francisco.

Let the states decide.

[szh]

I assume people who "place no amount of faith in the electoral system what so ever" are against that system. It just so happens that that system you have no faith in is called a democracy. That's why I asked.

Did you miss this perhaps:

He is talking about the Electoral College system, not the concept of abandoning elections in general.

Democracy and Democratic elections in many other countries, without an Electoral College system, works just fine.

Z

[96Qowner]

Well, I see that I'm in the minority on this subject. I had thought, after the absolute fiasco of the Democratic primary race, that people would begin to see the wisdom in exaggerating political advantage. Because the Democrats decided it would be best to allocate delegates proportionally, neither candidate could gain enough of an advantage to win decisively. It was NOT better than winner-take-all.

It's counter intuitive, I know. It would seem wise to elect national candidates by direct vote. But in the past 232 years, only twice? have the two results differed - not exactly a problem. The principle is that we are a Republic - a Union - of 50 individual States, and I like it that way. It's part of what makes this country so great - you can find some place in America that suits you. We've lost enough State's rights as it is.

Each State has a vote for President, proportional to their representation in Congress - one for each Representative and one for each Senator. THEY then vote on our behalf. It works just fine, with rare exception. Don't be too quick to discount it.

Exaggerating political advantage has its good points.

[rn79870]

The electoral college exists, as Hamilton explained in his Federalist Papers, because the founding fathers believed a tyrant could manipulate elections. Today we call those tyrants political campaign managers. Hamilton believed that the American people were too ignorant of the issues to fully understand who was better suited to answer these issues. I'd say that that hasn't changed. Ask anyone why they are voting the way they are and they studder and choke and come up with something like "he was a pow" logic.

And there was a belief that the electoral college helped give the smaller stated a say in the outcome of the election.

Hamilton penned in the Federalist Papers the reasons...It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

[szh]

Ask anyone why they are voting the way they are and they studder and choke and come up with something like "he was a pow" logic.

Or that "he is the first black" or that "she is the first woman" or "I only vote for the Democrat candidate" logic.

(Snide remarks cut both ways - can we all be above that for a change?)

The electoral college exists, as Hamilton explained in his Federalist Papers, because the founding fathers believed a tyrant could manipulate elections. Today we call those tyrants political campaign managers. Hamilton believed that the American people were too ignorant of the issues to fully understand who was better suited to answer these issues.

Hamilton penned in the Federalist Papers the reasons...It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

So ... why bother having us vote in elections at all? Let the Electoral college decide the outcome! Since they are apparently the only intelligent people capable of making this decision.

In the day and age of uneducated, unwashed masses, this might have made sense. Women didn't vote then either!

But, in today's modern world, where every person's vote should count directly, this is an archiasm that needs to be punted. Uneducated, unintelligent, women voters (just kidding!) ... or not, statistics are clear enough to make it work out right using a popular vote system!

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

That might have made sense in an era when popular voting might have taken too long to tabulate - maybe even months! And, prone to local cheating. The uncertainty of the office holder would lead to potential chaos.

However, in today's modern day society, when votes can be counted quickly enough to determine the outcome within 24 hours (even in the Gore-Bush situation since Florida did not affect the popular vote outcome), this old premise from Hamilton simply "does not wash", as they used to say.

Z

[Marenta]

In the day and age of uneducated, unwashed masses, this might have made sense. Women didn't vote then either!

But, in today's modern world, where every person's vote should count directly, this is an archiasm that needs to be punted. Uneducated, unintelligent, women voters (just kidding!) ... or not, statistics are clear enough to make it work out right using a popular vote system!

omgwtfbbqhaxnato!!!

My problem is that the Electoral College overrides the American public. Just because I'm in a state that elects a sleazy creep into office, I'm supposed to trust that he has my best interests in mind when he puts in his word for whichever candidate in November? My tushie he does, and you best believe that no matter how "un-informed" the masses might still be, we have a whole hell of a lot of national coverage, so that those who do vote are "informed" on the topics at hand.

[96Qowner]

The majority of your fellow citizen in your State determine who your State votes for. I don't recall any example of an elector who went against his State's vote and made a difference in the electoral college.

Majority still rules, just in this case it's the majority of each State, NOT the total aggregated vote.

[rn79870]

omgwtfbbqhaxnato!!!

My problem is that the Electoral College overrides the American public. Just because I'm in a state that elects a sleazy creep into office, I'm supposed to trust that he has my best interests in mind when he puts in his word for whichever candidate in November? My tushie he does, and you best believe that no matter how "un-informed" the masses might still be, we have a whole hell of a lot of national coverage, so that those who do vote are "informed" on the topics at hand.

You're in a state where the popular vote elects the winner, not an electorial vote. So, we now have proof that there are faults in both systems.

[rn79870]

Whoa Z, the EC votes the will of the people, not their own will. Other than missing that point...