Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 17:55:57 GMT
It is of course none of our business how the USA elects its presidents, but supposing you were living in the country. Do you think popular votes alone should directly determine who is elected president, or would you have no qualms about your vote going to an intermediary institution?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 18:15:43 GMT
I think any sane person should support that.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,327
|
Post by mboy on Feb 27, 2016 18:17:37 GMT
Surprised to be the first "no". Without the college, the smaller states would become irrelevant as all the Campaign would be focused in turning out the electorate in California, Florida, Texas and NY. The college is necessary to maintain balance in the states.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 27, 2016 18:24:29 GMT
It matters not one jot what anyone thinks. The chances of getting a constitutional amendment through is practically zero.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 27, 2016 18:25:22 GMT
Surprised to be the first "no". Without the college, the smaller states would become irrelevant as all the Campaign would be focused in turning out the electorate in California, Florida, Texas and NY. The college is necessary to maintain balance in the states. The Federal aspect of the US government is lost on many people. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,589 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 27, 2016 18:27:11 GMT
It is of course none of our business how the USA elects its presidents, but supposing you were living in the country. Do you think popular votes alone should directly determine who is elected president, or would you have no qualms about your vote going to an intermediary institution? The Electoral College seems to me a workable way of balancing popular representation and states representation. The only change I'd make to it is to have all states use the Nebraska/Maine method (each electoral district casts one vote for a candidate plus a state-wide vote) instead of the winner-takes-all method (all the state's votes go to the one winning candidate). Edit: It also doesn't need any constitutional amendments, States chose how they chose their Electors, so States could chose to move to chosing a mixed bag of electors. |
|
|
|
Post by bolbridge on Feb 27, 2016 18:27:32 GMT
Surprised to be the first "no". Without the college, the smaller states would become irrelevant as all the Campaign would be focused in turning out the electorate in California, Florida, Texas and NY. The college is necessary to maintain balance in the states. I find it hard to reach any logical conclusion from this type of argument other than that the votes of those in densely populated areas are worth less than those in more densely populated areas. |
|
|
|
Post by bolbridge on Feb 27, 2016 18:30:29 GMT
It is of course none of our business how the USA elects its presidents, but supposing you were living in the country. Do you think popular votes alone should directly determine who is elected president, or would you have no qualms about your vote going to an intermediary institution? The Electoral College seems to me a workable way of balancing popular representation and states representation. The only change I'd make to it is to have all states use the Nebraska/Maine method (each electoral district casts one vote for a candidate plus a state-wide vote) instead of the winner-takes-all method (all the state's votes go to the one winning candidate). Smaller states are disportionately well represented by virtue of every State having two senators. I don't see how this is justified. I would make it all based on the number of members of Congress per State. Not sure about splitting by congressional district given the amount of gerrymandering that goes on. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 27, 2016 18:32:53 GMT
The Electoral College seems to me a workable way of balancing popular representation and states representation. The only change I'd make to it is to have all states use the Nebraska/Maine method (each electoral district casts one vote for a candidate plus a state-wide vote) instead of the winner-takes-all method (all the state's votes go to the one winning candidate). Smaller states are disportionately well represented by virtue of every State having two senators. I don't see how this is justified. I would make it all based on the number of members of Congress per State. Not sure about splitting by congressional district given the amount of gerrymandering that goes on. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave just a few minutes ago regarding the federal nature of the US government. |
|
|
|
Post by bolbridge on Feb 27, 2016 18:34:55 GMT
Smaller states are disportionately well represented by virtue of every State having two senators. I don't see how this is justified. I would make it all based on the number of members of Congress per State. Not sure about splitting by congressional district given the amount of gerrymandering that goes on. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave just a few minutes ago regarding the federal nature of the US government. I don't see how that justifies overrepresenting smaller States in a Presidential election? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 19:14:11 GMT
Surprised to be the first "no". Without the college, the smaller states would become irrelevant as all the Campaign would be focused in turning out the electorate in California, Florida, Texas and NY. The college is necessary to maintain balance in the states. The Federal aspect of the US government is lost on many people. Other federations with an executive presidency elect their President based on the national vote. Brazil comes to mind. Doing it would not challenge the federal aspect. Most small states are already ignored: Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, the Dakotas, Alaska, Hawaii, the New England states (except NH) etc. as they are either solidly Dem or GOP. The current system basically guarantees that almost all focus is on a handful of swing states. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 19:14:59 GMT
The election of W, 1/2 million votes behind Gore, completely undermined the Electoral College system. How can you claim to be the greatest democracy in the world and live with that result. It is not about who won, it was the Votes that mattered.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 27, 2016 19:35:47 GMT
The Federal aspect of the US government is lost on many people. Other federations with an executive presidency elect their President based on the national vote. Brazil comes to mind. Doing it would not challenge the federal aspect. Not all federations have the same emphasis on the powers and rights of states that the US does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 19:46:56 GMT
The election of W, 1/2 million votes behind Gore, completely undermined the Electoral College system. How can you claim to be the greatest democracy in the world and live with that result. It is not about who won, it was the Votes that mattered. The us presidential election is not by popular vote. It f#@king should be. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 27, 2016 19:51:01 GMT
Surprised to be the first "no". Without the college, the smaller states would become irrelevant as all the Campaign would be focused in turning out the electorate in California, Florida, Texas and NY. The college is necessary to maintain balance in the states. Under the current system, the vast majority of states, big or small, are irrelevant. It's only the handful of swing states that are remotely relevant to the outcome. And campaigns concentrate primarily on the mid-sized to large swing states. Florida and Ohio get a lot more effort in the campaign than New Hampshire does, even if you count things proportionally to the size of the states. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 27, 2016 20:06:07 GMT
The us presidential election is not by popular vote. It f#@king should be. That doesn't mean the 2000 votes would've been the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 20:09:49 GMT
It is of course none of our business how the USA elects its presidents, but supposing you were living in the country. Do you think popular votes alone should directly determine who is elected president, or would you have no qualms about your vote going to an intermediary institution? The Electoral College seems to me a workable way of balancing popular representation and states representation. The only change I'd make to it is to have all states use the Nebraska/Maine method (each electoral district casts one vote for a candidate plus a state-wide vote) instead of the winner-takes-all method (all the state's votes go to the one winning candidate). Edit: It also doesn't need any constitutional amendments, States chose how they chose their Electors, so States could chose to move to chosing a mixed bag of electors. This post is very confused |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 27, 2016 20:30:38 GMT
Surprised to be the first "no". Without the college, the smaller states would become irrelevant as all the Campaign would be focused in turning out the electorate in California, Florida, Texas and NY. The college is necessary to maintain balance in the states. This does not make sense on any single level. Without the electoral college, a vote is worth the same wherever it is, so there would be no obvious incentive to concentrating solely on the larger states in terms of general principles. And in terms of specific strategy, it would be an unbelievably moronic move, because US campaigns primarily rely upon broadcast advertising, and that is vastly more expensive in the areas you've mentioned than it is in most of the country. I'm in favour of the electoral college because I think it's a hangover from 18th century circumstances where orchestrating a national popular vote wasn't feasible. But then again, US political culture relies upon pretending that good ideas in the 18th century are still good ideas now, so if I were American I might not actually hold that view. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,327
|
Post by mboy on Feb 27, 2016 22:23:57 GMT
Other federations with an executive presidency elect their President based on the national vote. Brazil comes to mind. Doing it would not challenge the federal aspect. Not all federations have the same emphasis on the powers and rights of states that the US does. Indeed, and arguing that the USA should be more like Brazil isn't going to win many converts. In the USA or Brazil. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 22:56:29 GMT
Not all federations have the same emphasis on the powers and rights of states that the US does. Indeed, and arguing that the USA should be more like Brazil isn't going to win many converts. In the USA or Brazil. It is interesting that there are significantly more defenders of this anachronism here than when I am discussing it on American politics forums. Brazil was just an example. The US is alone in using an electoral college to elect their president. The modern presidency is not seen as an office that is supposed to be dependent on the states or a representative of them, but represent the American people as a whole. So the federalist argument isn't really whats it about for most defenders, more a practical matter and who will gain on abolishing it. There is a consistent majority of 60%+ for abolishing the electoral college when the issue is polled, and a general agreement among most experts that it could not survive a second case of the popular vote not aligning with the winner of the electoral college. When it happened in 2000 it was the first time since 1888, but it is increasingly likely with the current polarization (as the number of surplus votes in states won by a big margin goes up). The electoral college is actually an advantage for the Democrats in its present structure and population changes will increasingly make it so. So in all likelihood what we are waiting for is an election where the GOP lose the election, but win the popular vote. After that the parties would likely be willing to negotiate about a reform due to both having lost an election they feel they won - and the Democrats being a bit more willing to enact changes based on principles rather than self interest. It was bad luck that the lost election/won popular vote scenario happened first to the Democrats as the more likely reverse scenario would have given a higher possibility of a reform. |
|
