NationStates Jolt Archive

This is in regards to those who disagree with the Electorial College.

The popular vote is decided by who wins the most states. Using the popular vote in America is not fair. One elective might win in 27 states, but what if those states have fewer voters? You would be allowing the population of Alaska to over-rule the population of New York.

The original system was to elect by the "popular vote".

A long time ago supporters of Andrew Jackson went to work on state levels to get the vote extended to the common man. They also got most states to allow the Electors to be elected by the popular vote.

Before this idea went into effect, an Elector was elected by the House.

This eventually was reformed by holding a National Convention to nominate a candidate, and the idea was borrowed from the Anti-Mason Party.

Today, the overwhelming majority of the delegates to both party conventions are chosen by the Presidential Primary.

It is this long and drawn out primary system that has made the U.S. Presidential contest the longest and most confusing in the Western World.

You really don't understand either the electoral system or the idea of a popular vote, if I'm reading your post correctly. If the number of states a candidate won made any difference at all, Bush would win handily right now. Bush won something like 31 states in 2000, but only won by a handful of electoral votes. Gore won the popular vote, but won fewer states. It's actually possible to win the Presidency by only winning something like 13 states, because those states have enough electoral votes to get you to 271.

Surely the popular vote would simply be whoever got most votes from individual citizens - thus the most democratic system.

You really don't understand either the electoral system or the idea of a popular vote, if I'm reading your post correctly. If the number of states a candidate won made any difference at all, Bush would win handily right now. Bush won something like 31 states in 2000, but only won by a handful of electoral votes. Gore won the popular vote, but won fewer states. It's actually possible to win the Presidency by only winning something like 13 states, because those states have enough electoral votes to get you to 271.

Yeah, 11 states. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia.

Surely the popular vote would simply be whoever got most votes from individual citizens - thus the most democratic system.
That assumes that you view the U.S. more as a single, sovereign state, and less as a union of 50 states with some common laws and a common foreign policy.
The Founding Fathers viewed it more as the latter (well, 13 to start with, but you get the idea), thus the Electoral College, as well as all the restrictions on Federal power, the 2nd amendment, etc.

It's actually possible to win the Presidency by only winning something like 13 states, because those states have enough electoral votes to get you to 271.

i think its 11 states now.

ca 55
ny 34
tx 31
fl 27
il 21
pa 21
oh 20
mi 17
nj 15
ga 15
nc 15

= 271

Surely the popular vote would simply be whoever got most votes from individual citizens - thus the most democratic system.
Wrong. A plurality neither guarantees a majority for the elected candidate or that the candidate elected is, overall, the most preferred candidate.

Yeah, I was going from memory on the 13 state scenario, just like I was going from memory on how many states Bush won last time around. I know it was more than half, but that most of them were lower population states. Gore won the high population states, except for Texas, Ohio, and Florida (which he lost 5-4).

Wrong. A plurality neither guarantees a majority for the elected candidate or that the candidate elected is, overall, the most preferred candidate.

which is why electing a single winner through any sort of plurality winner-take-all system is utterly retarded. if you are going to have single-winner races, they damn well better be be run on some sort of approval or preference voting system. like the condorcet method, for example.

which is why electing a single winner through any sort of plurality winner-take-all system is utterly retarded. if you are going to have single-winner races, they damn well better be be run on some sort of approval or preference voting system. like the condorcet method, for example.
I'd agree with that. I believe those methods, while not perfect (no system is), are improved over simple plurality.

If you want a true majority vote, it is nowhere to even be found. Hardly 50% of registered voting population even bothers to vote. Presidents are elected by numbers of somewhere around 20-25% overall. Now isn't that sad? That in my mind is the biggest issue. I think part of it is the winner take all system and the other part is media coverage on candidates. It dulls their positions and sensationalizes everything they say and do. It is completely against third party candidates.

Wrong. A plurality neither guarantees a majority for the elected candidate or that the candidate elected is, overall, the most preferred candidate.
Well, electoral votes alone are no guarantee of the preferred candidate.

At least under a popular vote my vote would actually count for something.

Let's at least hope that the next president isn't chosen by the Supreme Court. It would be pretty sad.

Wasn't the electoral college made so that the 3/5ths Compromise* would apply to elections too?

*Counted 3/5ths of a state's slave population towards legislation, representation, and taxes.

Surely the popular vote would simply be whoever got most votes from individual citizens - thus the most democratic system.

Most democratic to those who get represented which could be as few as 7 states. Sounds like a crappy system to me. In the electoral system candidates are forced to move around the country and get support of other states, such as Iowa, Ohio, etc.

Let's at least hope that the next president isn't chosen by the Supreme Court. It would be pretty sad.
Last time I checked Gore's suit to the Supreme Court was denied. They wouldn't get involved and I thank them for that.

Last time I checked Gore's suit to the Supreme Court was denied. They wouldn't get involved and I thank them for that.

Courts in general. Let the people decide and tell the circling lawyers to back off.

Wasn't the electoral college made so that the 3/5ths Compromise* would apply to elections too?

*Counted 3/5ths of a state's slave population towards legislation, representation, and taxes.

yup

Most democratic to those who get represented which could be as few as 7 states. Sounds like a crappy system to me. In the electoral system candidates are forced to move around the country and get support of other states, such as Iowa, Ohio, etc.

objectively false. you can see this from both a theoretical standpoint and a historical one. in order to win an election outright by popular vote in just a tiny number of states, you would have to appeal to the same people that candidates care about now (those in the big states) and have all of them vote for you. every single voter in ca, ny, tx, fl, il, pa, oh, and mi would have to unanimously vote for you. which is ridiculously unlikely - unlike now where just a plurality of the voters in those states is enough to get you 83% of the way to the presidency.

and in the historical context, if the electoral college makes sure that candidates go to the small states, then how come nobody actually bothers to go to them during the campaign?

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108420

"How frequently do presidential candidates visit small states these days? Not very. In his recent book, Why the Electoral College is Bad For America, George C. Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A&M, tabulated all the visits by presidential candidates during the 2000 election. Edwards found that among the seven states with the fewest possible electoral votes (three), only Delaware got a visit. Eleven of the 17 smallest states received no presidential-candidate visits at all. Edwards found a similar pattern when he tabulated visits that year by vice-presidential candidates."

any democratic system is going to be biased towards places with large populations. but the electoral college makes the small states inconsequential. the electoral college gives an even greater advantage to the big states than that which they would have anyways. the small states get the shaft.

check out the other thread:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368553

Most democratic to those who get represented which could be as few as 7 states. Sounds like a crappy system to me. In the electoral system candidates are forced to move around the country and get support of other states, such as Iowa, Ohio, etc.

With the electoral college, someone can get more votes than any other candidate, and yet lose the election to someone with fewer votes. Sounds like a crappy system to me.

With the electoral college, moving from South Dakota to New York effectively more than halves your power to select your President. Sounds like a crappy system to me.

What you don't seem to get is that the states aren't uniform beings - (representative) liberal democracy is about equal political power and freedom between individuals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the UK FPTP system isn't also flawed, and I'm not saying that a simple majority vote is better than voting with multiple preferences etc. I'm just saying that a democratic system needs to reflect the people's wishes, and as long as the guy with fewer votes can win, your system doesn't do that.