Change to popular vote for president?

[This_person]

Interesting - its republicans that usually detest democrats for standing up for minority rule, or for pushing the minority issues to the majority. But if your argument against popular vote is that parts of the country with small population wouldn't 'count' than you are saying a popular vote would be a majority system.

Besides, I don't buy that argument. Popular vote is total vote. The person who voted in the middle of the country has just as much power as the person in a city. Yes, there are more people in cities, but that doesn't make each vote count less. Why shouldn't each vote count the same? Right now, a republican vote in CA doesn't count for anything. I would rather be in CA as a republican using the popular vote system - because right now it goes ALL to blue.

Interesting you phrase it this way. Republicans in CA tried to get their electoral votes broken up by congressional district, thus giving a more equal voice to every voter, but staying within the electoral college system. Democrats attacked this attempt, and strong-armed it down, because they would lose one of their strongest states (many cities, many pockets of Democrats, therefore they can "win" all of the electoral college votes even with only the slightest of victories in the state = minority voice is not heard because Democrats wouldn't allow it). Meanwhile, the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING in North Carolina, because they wanted their voice heard in an state divided much like California, only with the smallest of majority being Republican. Republicans allowed it to pass there, as it was the right thing to do.

Perhaps you misunderstand which party stands for what???

 

[This_person]

I vote no for the simple fact the electoral college saved us from 4 years of that loonbag Al Gore. That to me means it worked.

and gave us Lincoln.

 

[This_person]

Conservatives realize that everyone has an equal chance.

And that is why we are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. Using your system, California and the East Coast would be the only votes that mattered, since they have the most people.

A Republic evens that out by giving the other, less peopled, states an equal say in the voting.

Maryland (and your example of California) are examples of where the system went wrong (opinion). It should be that each Voting District gets to cast an independent vote, unfortunately for most states their vote gets lumped in with the Popular vote for that state.

What you want isnt a change to the Popular vote, you want a "Fix" to the Electoral College, giving each Voting District independence. which I think most would agree. This would also get away from Blue/Red states, since most would be purplish.

Well said.

 

[awpitt]

...every vote DOES count. It just so happens that GOP voters get beat pretty bad in Maryland. So, the GOP has plenty of work to do WITHING Maryland to change that. If we went to some other system, the GOP, or whatever party is in the minority, has no interest to work within their state to change the balance of power. Now, ones local district becomes more important and to hell with the rest of the state; viola, we become even more insular, even more separated from one another. Congressional districts become their own defacto governments for purposes of voting.

This needs some thought in my view as to if there really is all that much wrong with what we have now.

By design, a candiadte could win MD by one single vote or 50.00000001% and the Electorial results would be 10-0 or 100%. That's not an accurate reflection of the voting. At least, the Nebraska plan would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Larry Gude]

Based...

By design, a candiadte could win MD by one single vote or 50.00000001% and the Electorial results would be 10-0 or 100%. That's not an accurate reflection of the voting. At least, the Nebraska plan would be a step in the right direction.

...on what?

What is the 'right' direction?

 

[awpitt]

...on what?

What is the 'right' direction?

An accurate reflection of the vote.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

An accurate reflection of the vote.

...but Maryland, even if decided by a single vote, goes 100% for either A or B.

Would your plan make a difference in the outcome of a presidential election? have you run the numbers to see if it would have changed Gore v. Bush or Bush v. Kerry or any other election?

Would it have an effect on the outcome?

 

[awpitt]

...but Maryland, even if decided by a single vote, goes 100% for either A or B.

Would your plan make a difference in the outcome of a presidential election? have you run the numbers to see if it would have changed Gore v. Bush or Bush v. Kerry or any other election?

Would it have an effect on the outcome?

Actually, I havn't run those numbers. My goal isn't to change any elections, it's to more accurately reflect the vote. My guess is that the MD Electorial vote would be more like a 8-2 result or maybe even a 7-3 result if the 1st, 6th, and (maybe) the 2nd or 3rd go GOP. Now that wouldn't be enough to change the outcome even for the 2000 election; however, if all the states followed the Nebraska plan, now we're talking impact on an election.

 

[aps45819]

yeah, now that Hillary's conceded NObama wants the FL and Michigan votes and Delegates to count.

Friggin morons.

I thought she "stopped campaigning"

The convention will be interesting

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Actually, I havn't run those numbers. My goal isn't to change any elections, it's to more accurately reflect the vote. My guess is that the MD Electorial vote would be more like a 8-2 result or maybe even a 7-3 result if the 1st, 6th, and (maybe) the 2nd or 3rd go GOP. Now that wouldn't be enough to change the outcome even for the 2000 election; however, if all the states followed the Nebraska plan, now we're talking impact on an election.

...so, you want to trample states rights and institute a mandatory, national election system for a reason you haven't even explored as to the actual affect on elections, eh?

 

[awpitt]

...so, you want to trample states rights and institute a mandatory, national election system for a reason you haven't even explored as to the actual affect on elections, eh?

No.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

No.

...I mean, you want a more accurate reflection, yet this is a state issue and you have no practical reason to go to an apportioned format other than a perception that it is, somehow, maybe, a more accurate reflection of the will of the people. Typically, there are two choices. That's it. As far as I can tell, the will of the people has been reflected for over 200 years now.

 

[awpitt]

...a perception that it is, somehow, maybe, a more accurate reflection of the will of the people.

Not a perception, it would be.

 

[Larry Gude]

Help me...

Not a perception, it would be.

...here. We already have post election break downs, ad nauseum. We know all about the county maps and the red and the blue and the purple. Marylanders already know that the state is dominated, politically, by the middle of the state. Most population centers nationwide are more blue than red, including those in red states.

If it's not going to change the elections and we already know, just walk me through how this would make you happy. Maybe it's a great idea. I'm just not seeing it.

 

[awpitt]

...here. We already have post election break downs, ad nauseum. We know all about the county maps and the red and the blue and the purple. Marylanders already know that the state is dominated, politically, by the middle of the state. Most population centers nationwide are more blue than red, including those in red states.

If it's not going to change the elections and we already know, just walk me through how this would make you happy. Maybe it's a great idea. I'm just not seeing it.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking for accuracy. I want whatever does the electing to accurately reflect the people. In 92, Clinton got 43% of the popular vote yet the Electoral College says he got 68% of the vote. That wasn't a good reflection. The GOP used a winner take all system in their primaries and John McCain rapped things up pretty quickly by the delegate count but everyone know that GOPers were more divided on who they wanted. I don't like the idea of system designed to have a popular vote trumped by 538 people no one has a clue about. The Electoral College as it stands has flaws and there's no harm in correcting those flaws. Just because its been around forever doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit from some revisions. Actually, if states would adopt the Nebraska plan, no changes to the Electoral College would be needed.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's a flawed...

The GOP used a winner take all system in their primaries and John McCain rapped things up pretty quickly by the delegate count but everyone know that GOPers were more divided on who they wanted.

...premise. The GOP does it's primaries like it does in order to PREVENT some long drawn out thing. Better to get on with it and get it over. There is a recognition that no process will be perfect and, at the end of the day, there is no need for perfection. It is just a president and anyone who is being honest and mature about it recognizes that Clinton, McCain, Obama, Hillary, Gore, whomever, it's not the end of the world. It's not brain surgery.

Democrats, however, tend to act like this stuff is life and death.

It's not.

 

[awpitt]

...premise. The GOP does it's primaries like it does in order to PREVENT some long drawn out thing. Better to get on with it and get it over. There is a recognition that no process will be perfect and, at the end of the day, there is no need for perfection. It is just a president and anyone who is being honest and mature about it recognizes that Clinton, McCain, Obama, Hillary, Gore, whomever, it's not the end of the world. It's not brain surgery.

Democrats, however, tend to act like this stuff is life and death.

It's not.

Actually, when Ronald Reagan left office, he said one of his post-presidency efforts was going to be to either reform or eliminate the Electoral College. He was never able to follow through because of his illness.

 

[Larry Gude]

Thank...

Actually, when Ronald Reagan left office, he said one of his post-presidency efforts was going to be to either reform or eliminate the Electoral College. He was never able to follow through because of his illness.

...God for that.

The founders knew, if nothing else, that passion usually makes bad decisions. To that end, the devised the ground rules, our three branches for instance, that tended towards more deliberate consideration.

Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan used as the basis for discussions called for the Executive to be elected by the Legislature.[8] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election.[9] However, a committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the Office of the President.[10] Though some delegates preferred popular election, the committee's proposal was approved, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[11]

In the Federalist Papers No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. The Congress would have two houses, one state-based (Senate) and the other population-based (House of Representatives) in character, while the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes, giving some electoral power to the states and some to the people in general. Both the Congress and the President would be elected by mixed state-based and population-based means.[12]

I like it.

 

[jetmonkey]

No.

 

[awpitt]

...God for that.

The founders knew, if nothing else, that passion usually makes bad decisions. To that end, the devised the ground rules, our three branches for instance, that tended towards more deliberate consideration.

Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I like it.

There were a lot of different proposals that were floated around before the Constitution was finalized. It's amazing they were able to finish the thing. I'd like to chat more, this is an interesting subject, but I've got to do final preps for our trip tomorrow. Gotta head out for DCA at O-dark-30.