Popular vote or electoral college?

Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Popular vote or electoral college?

2012-09-14 20:52:23

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5824

November is right around the corner so now is as good of a time as any to debate whether we should continue to have an electoral college or move to a straight popular vote.

In the electoral college each state has a certain number of votes that goes to the candidate that receives the majority of votes in that state. Once you reach a certain number of electoral college votes you win the election.

Only three times in U.S. history has a candidate lost the popular vote but won the election. Most recent and controversially was the 2000 election the saw George Bush become President.

I don't have any sour grapes about Bush getting elected. I have defended him a few times here. Despite that I think it would have made more sense if the guy who had the majority of support by the U.S. citizens had become president.

It really bothers me that outcomes like this is possible.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/PopWinnerLosesElecVote.png

I also don't like the fact that a few swing states are given much more election importance than the states with the largest population centers. Those happen to be democrat states. I also don't like the fact that small populations of people in places like the Midwest have to be pandered to by presidential nominees.

I don't worship at the alter of the Constitution, and I think it is a living document that can be changed. I also don't give a rats ass about the "intent" of the late 18th century "founding fathers". New century, new world, etc. So I am pretty strongly in favor of moving to popular vote system like most of the rest of the world uses.

2012-09-14 21:34:15

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

electoral colleges are pretty retarded imo

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-09-14 21:35:45

Mutantbear: Semi Constructive Criticism; +1,431|6204|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
electoral colleges are pretty retarded imo

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

2012-09-14 21:44:05

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|6956|Riva, MD

Mutantbear wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
electoral colleges are pretty retarded imo

2012-09-14 22:05:48

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7013|Noizyland

Don't they basically exist as a fall-back in case people elect an unsuitable candidate? Seems a pretty minuscule risk when most of the population votes for whichever person the Democrats or Republicans put up every time.

It doesn't seem like a solid system, look at the 1988 election when despite getting 45.7% of the popular vote, Michael Dukakis got just 20.67% of the electoral votes. Or in 1984 when Walter Mondale got a pretty poor 40.6% of the popular vote but just 2.24% of the electoral vote. Both still lost but it shows how poor the electoral college is as a representation of how the population votes. And it's not so much a problem given that it's a system of determining who wins, if Mondale loses with 40.6% or 2.24% he still gets nothing. But the problems arise when things get close, look no further than the 2000 election where Al Gore got over half a million more individual votes than George W Bush and still lost.

It is pretty dumb also in that it gives a few states a huge amount of power, while others are sort of just there to sort of make up the numbers. I'm honestly surprised it's not more of an issue in the US.

I don't know much about it though to be honest, maybe someone else can explain it.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2012-09-14 22:22:16

Mutantbear: Semi Constructive Criticism; +1,431|6204|London, England

the electoral college is outdated. originally it was a fine system since the united states in its early years was just a collection of states and not very homogenized. The people knew very little about presidential candidates so the government felt it was better to have electors of the states making the decision rather than the ill informed people.

It was a decent system back then but it needs to change

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

2012-09-15 01:18:04

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6953|US

With its set-up based on congressional delegations, it gives less populous states a bigger say. If you went to a strict majority rule, candidates would only have to please the residents of a few major cities. That presents problems, in its own way. What happens to the people outside major population centers who suddenly "don't matter?"

2012-09-15 01:33:23

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5713|Ventura, California

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Electoral College a system in place to ensure equality in voting? For example, a farming community is going to be much smaller than an urban community and the urban one will win in a popular vote system. This could, depending on the person voted into office, majorly screw over the farmers who we count on for food.

That's what I'm assuming it's in place for. To equalize votes between different financial classes and types of communities. I like the concept but I'm not sure if the theory works in practice. Perhaps somebody more informed on the matter can explain it to me.

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2012-09-15 01:40:17

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6953|US

That's part of it. Less populous states didn't want to be constantly overruled by the more populous ones. We compromised with the House being based on population, and the Senate being equal between each state. The Electoral College system is largely an extension of that compromise.

2012-09-15 02:06:44

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Electoral College a system in place to ensure equality in voting? For example, a farming community is going to be much smaller than an urban community and the urban one will win in a popular vote system. This could, depending on the person voted into office, majorly screw over the farmers who we count on for food.

That's what I'm assuming it's in place for. To equalize votes between different financial classes and types of communities. I like the concept but I'm not sure if the theory works in practice. Perhaps somebody more informed on the matter can explain it to me.

so fair for some people where their votes don't mean shit.

2012-09-15 02:21:08

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Electoral College a system in place to ensure equality in voting? For example, a farming community is going to be much smaller than an urban community and the urban one will win in a popular vote system. This could, depending on the person voted into office, majorly screw over the farmers who we count on for food.

That's what I'm assuming it's in place for. To equalize votes between different financial classes and types of communities. I like the concept but I'm not sure if the theory works in practice. Perhaps somebody more informed on the matter can explain it to me.

Your vote isn't any more or less important that a farmers vote.

And if the electoral college were to work like the above, why would you need it for a presidential race, in which the winner will govern over everybody? Why does a smaller town need greater representation when they'll be represented anyway by the POTUS?

And again, how is an electoral college representative when not every body even votes? Should the electoral college give better representation to a small town that has voter turn out off 100% with 250 people over a large town that has voter turnout of 50% but 500 people?

2012-09-15 02:41:17

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6929|Tampa Bay Florida

Democrats in Texas, Republicans in New York might as well not vote.

I think it's essentially creating a second class of voters through the state system. I don't think the founders really intended for it to become what it is today.

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-09-15 02:43:19)

2012-09-15 03:16:28

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Proportional representation and rolling elections.

And do away with the whole Presidency thing, its retarded.

Fuck Israel

2012-09-15 04:30:41

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Proportional representation has its own range of problems, tbh, such as over-representation of extremist minorities for a start. Plus it encourages the kind of "shady backroom dealing" that many people find somewhat objectionable.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-09-15 05:50:29

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6920|Disaster Free Zone

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Electoral College a system in place to ensure equality in voting? For example, a farming community is going to be much smaller than an urban community and the urban one will win in a popular vote system. This could, depending on the person voted into office, majorly screw over the farmers who we count on for food.

That's what I'm assuming it's in place for. To equalize votes between different financial classes and types of communities. I like the concept but I'm not sure if the theory works in practice. Perhaps somebody more informed on the matter can explain it to me.

If you want that to work you need to divide the country up into 538 equally populous areas (boundaries will have to be redraw periodically) and give each area 1 seat, rather then the 'state' thing you have now.

2012-09-15 06:54:40

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7011|PNW

I think the electoral college should stay in place. Without it, there's pretty much no reason any presidential candidate would campaign anywhere but the most populous cities and regions. Move to popular vote and you change a lot of states into "fuck you you don't have a say." They would all have to merge into one superstate to have any sort of impact.

Not to say that the electoral college shouldn't be tweaked here and there...

Mutantbear wrote:
the electoral college is outdated. originally it was a fine system since the united states in its early years was just a collection of states and not very homogenized. The people knew very little about presidential candidates so the government felt it was better to have electors of the states making the decision rather than the ill informed people.

It was a decent system back then but it needs to change

Ill-informed people are still voting for presidents.

2012-09-15 07:24:44

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Would that still happen if you moved to a parliamentary system? (ie. where the legislative and the executive are linked)

Last edited by Spark (2012-09-15 07:24:52)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-09-15 07:48:57

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

RAIMIUS wrote:
That's part of it. Less populous states didn't want to be constantly overruled by the more populous ones. We compromised with the House being based on population, and the Senate being equal between each state. The Electoral College system is largely an extension of that compromise.

Should the candidates not campaign where the people are? The setup now is a farce and disenfranchises tens of millions of people. My vote in New York doesn't matter. No matter which way I cast it, unless Reagan runs again, my state will vote (D). National politics should not be about swing states

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-09-15 07:59:17

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6929|Tampa Bay Florida

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Move to popular vote and you change a lot of states into "fuck you you don't have a say."

I would agree with your point, but the fact is that right now you are excluding more people then you would without it. A pile of rocks in Wyoming does not deserve more political representation than a major metropolitan area.

In other words, I think right now we are over-representing AS WELL AS under-representing different parts of the country arbitrarily. Maybe back in the 19th century it was about urban vs. rural politics, but the fact today is that we have become relatively culturally homogeneous as well as more suburban. The "white flight" and urban sprawl of the 21st century has created a situation equalizing the difference.

I also happen to believe the primary goal of the electoral college is to entrench the two parties in order to keep out smaller third parties. Maybe it's just a conspiracy, but if we had popular voting for POTUS someone like Ron Paul would all of a sudden become a much more viable candidate.

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-09-15 07:59:51)

2012-09-15 08:09:23

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6932

It always seemed bizarre that there was basically no hope for a third party being elected.

2012-09-15 08:12:33

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6830

Here is a more lengthy discussion of the differences between a (direct) Democracy and a (representative) Republic.

A direct Democracy is "majority rule" at best, "mob rule" at worst.
A representative Republic is "Rule of law" at best, "tyranny of the ruling class" at worst.

Or, a Democracy is two wolves and a pig voting on dinner, a Republic is a farmer putting a fence between the two.
(Communism would be a horse, two pigs, and ten chickens, each given the same daily ration of chicken feed to live on)

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

If you read the James Madison quote above, he pretty much describes how to ruin a Republic; If you allow a small group of people to monopolize the government, you disenfranchise the people. The same reason we have term limits for the Presidency, and the reason we should have term limits for Congress

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-09-15 08:33:02)

2012-09-15 08:16:05

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5941|College Park, MD

I don't see how they're necessarily any fairer. Rhode Island has way less electoral college votes than California. The election is basically decided by the Left Coast, New York, Texas, Florida and some swing states.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2012-09-15 08:48:08

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6830

The point of having both the House of Representatives and Congress is to balance the country's needs.

The House of Representative is based on raw population count, favoring urban centers.
Congress is based on 2 representatives per state, favoring rural populations.

If the urban industrial centers decide everything (i.e. direct democracy), you'll end up with policies bad for the rural farm/plantation areas, and vice versa.
By having two competing houses, the intent is to equitably balance the needs of the whole country.

Both houses have to pass laws; to get both houses to agree on legislation, the idea is that the legislation has to be "fair".

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-09-15 08:49:19)

2012-09-15 08:51:38

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5824

rdx-fx wrote:
Here is a more lengthy discussion of the differences between a (direct) Democracy and a (representative) Republic.

A direct Democracy is "majority rule" at best, "mob rule" at worst.
A representative Republic is "Rule of law" at best, "tyranny of the ruling class" at worst.

Or, a Democracy is two wolves and a pig voting on dinner, a Republic is a farmer putting a fence between the two.
(Communism would be a horse, two pigs, and ten chickens, each given the same daily ration of chicken feed to live on)

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

If you read the James Madison quote above, he pretty much describes how to ruin a Republic; If you allow a small group of people to monopolize the government, you disenfranchise the people. The same reason we have term limits for the Presidency, and the reason we should have term limits for Congress

I have not a fucking clue what this has to do with the OP

2012-09-15 09:45:47

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6830

Macbeth wrote:
I have not a fucking clue what this has to do with the OP

You haven't a fucking clue how "popular vote or electoral college?" relates to Direct Democracy versus Representative Republic?

You cannot see how the quote "A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." by Henry David Thoreau, relates to your original post?

Yes, I am inclined to believe your claim

Macbeth wrote:
I have not a fucking clue[...]

Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Popular vote or electoral college?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Popular vote or electoral college?

Cybargs wrote:

Mutantbear wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Mutantbear wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Board footer