Jun 26, 2008 07:40PM GMT
Question
•
Politics - Other
Would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment making Presidents elected by popular vote?
Loading...-
raves Oct 28, 2008 01:46PM GMTI would challenge you on that 'literate' comment. Back then, an eighth grade education was the equivalent of a college education today. Our kids today don't even know the prime minister of England or what WWII was about or with whom. On the contrary, if we held ourselves to the tenets of the constitution, we wouldn't be in all of this mess! Leave the Electoral College alone.
-
raves posted Aug 27, 2008 01:53AM GMT
Answered support
Id support it, but not strongly. We are a coherent nation now, the purpose of states is more simple division of labor rather then a desire to let each state have autonomy. A popular vote makes sense (Though I would try for a runoff ballot before I put effort into the popular vote). However, I think people started thinking this because of Bush's election. Now, Bush won because of voting irregularities (Im really lazy today and don't want to search out a reference, just plug in Kathrine Harris, diebold, and Florida for a more full story) before he won because of a lack of a popular vote. Also, the vast majority of the time, the popular vote coincides with the presidential winner, so its not going to come up all that often. And lastly, once you get so close that popular vote and electoral vote differ, your talking a pretty insignificantly slim margin, probably smaller then the election itselfs margin of error. So would I change it to popular vote? Yeah...but I think its the dead fly on the windshield with a rock thrown through it. -
raves +2 posted Jun 27, 2008 04:23PM GMT
Answered oppose
I used to support getting rid of the electoral college. Having learned a bit more about what such would mean...never. It was put in place for a good reason and needs to remain there.
The Constitution may start with "We the people..." but "we the people" did not ratify it. The federal government is an agent of the States, not the people. The -States- are the agents of the people. Want your popular vote to be heard? Pay attention to your -State- elections. The federal government did not create the States, the States created the federal government. They need to remind Washington D.C. of that fact too. -
raves +2 posted Jun 27, 2008 05:38AM GMT
Answered oppose
Absolutely oppose! The United States is not a nation composed of 300 million citizens. It is a nation composed of fifty states. We are citizens of our states. Our nation is the union of our states. To do this would be a radical and dangerous shift in how our country is defined. -
raves +2 posted Jun 27, 2008 01:54AM GMT
Answered oppose
The electoral college exists for a reason. It has worked throughout history and should not be changed. If you elected a president only on the popular vote, then you would really be taking the voice away from most states and giving it to the most populated states, such as New York, Illinois, California, Florida and Texas. The electoral college actually protects you. -
raves Aug 27, 2008 02:04AM GMTI disagree for a few reason. First, electoral votes are based on the size of the state. Fewer people gets fewer votes, which it fair of course. Secondly, there is a minimum number of votes a state can have. A tiny state can have no less then 2 votes, no matter how small. I live in Vermont, and because of this, my vote counts for much, much more then your vote...and while I take some pride in that, I don't think its fair. Its like a state with 3 people gets 2 electoral votes all to themselves, while a larger state has thousands and thousands of people per vote. Thirdly, the all or nothing system makes it so the opposite half of the state doesn't get counted, no matter how close. Maine's system of splitting the votes is much more fair, but it means most candidates don't care about them, because they will have to split the pot anyways. Lastly, the disadvantage to smaller states is that no one cares. There becomes battleground states, and the 2 vote states become small potatoes. I believe it detracts from the candidates trying to speak to the needs of the American people, instead of special demographics in battleground states.
Now, I will acknowledge I'm no expert here, so I'm curious what you say are the advantage of the electoral college. Im certainly not outside the realm of b...I disagree for a few reason. First, electoral votes are based on the size of the state. Fewer people gets fewer votes, which it fair of course. Secondly, there is a minimum number of votes a state can have. A tiny state can have no less then 2 votes, no matter how small. I live in Vermont, and because of this, my vote counts for much, much more then your vote...and while I take some pride in that, I don't think its fair. Its like a state with 3 people gets 2 electoral votes all to themselves, while a larger state has thousands and thousands of people per vote. Thirdly, the all or nothing system makes it so the opposite half of the state doesn't get counted, no matter how close. Maine's system of splitting the votes is much more fair, but it means most candidates don't care about them, because they will have to split the pot anyways. Lastly, the disadvantage to smaller states is that no one cares. There becomes battleground states, and the 2 vote states become small potatoes. I believe it detracts from the candidates trying to speak to the needs of the American people, instead of special demographics in battleground states.
Now, I will acknowledge I'm no expert here, so I'm curious what you say are the advantage of the electoral college. Im certainly not outside the realm of being convincable otherwise. Of course you do seem to be from Florida, so I'm not sure I can trust you on the subject of fair voting...
I am COMPLETELY only teasing in the above comment :)(less) -
raves +2 posted Jun 27, 2008 01:25AM GMT
Answered oppose
I used to think that a popular vote should rule,,,,then when I realized that not all people vote for the issues, it became clear that the electoral college is a good thing! Some will argue that the electoral college may not always vote on the issues, but the chances there are a lot smaller! -
raves Sep 20, 2008 06:47AM GMT (edited)Where the hell you get those figures? It is well publicized that Gore won the popular vote. I don't even have to ask. Go to a legitimate unbiased site to get facts. Try the Census Bureau, an government site with unbiased government statistics. By the way, it was Bush Gore in 2000. Kerry was the Democratic candidate in 2004. So I'll just say you're trying to compare apples and oranges... then decided to have a banana for breakfast.
If you take the states with the most electoral votes in order, CA 55, TX 34, NY 31, FL 27, IL 21, PA 21, OH 20, MI 17, GA 15, NC 15 and NJ 15 for a total of 271 (270 needed for election), that's 11 states. Yes, together they are the most populous but, take away a couple of larger numbers, add more smaller, do the math and you can see for yourself how a 'shell game' can be played. Plus, not all states have a winner take all rule. Some have a proportion rule where the electoral votes are split by percentage of the popular vote. Then there are a few states that allow complete independence. The electoral voters can vote as they please. I want not just my vote but everyone's vote to count as they cast it. Not how some electoral voter that I had nothing to with in appointing voting for me. Do you know who your electoral representative is? I would be wi...Where the hell you get those figures? It is well publicized that Gore won the popular vote. I don't even have to ask. Go to a legitimate unbiased site to get facts. Try the Census Bureau, an government site with unbiased government statistics. By the way, it was Bush Gore in 2000. Kerry was the Democratic candidate in 2004. So I'll just say you're trying to compare apples and oranges... then decided to have a banana for breakfast.
If you take the states with the most electoral votes in order, CA 55, TX 34, NY 31, FL 27, IL 21, PA 21, OH 20, MI 17, GA 15, NC 15 and NJ 15 for a total of 271 (270 needed for election), that's 11 states. Yes, together they are the most populous but, take away a couple of larger numbers, add more smaller, do the math and you can see for yourself how a 'shell game' can be played. Plus, not all states have a winner take all rule. Some have a proportion rule where the electoral votes are split by percentage of the popular vote. Then there are a few states that allow complete independence. The electoral voters can vote as they please. I want not just my vote but everyone's vote to count as they cast it. Not how some electoral voter that I had nothing to with in appointing voting for me. Do you know who your electoral representative is? I would be willing to bet you don't. Don't go look it up... answer now. Can you? We should get rid of that antiquated system. It's only happened four times including the 2000 elections but, you can have a situation where the looser of the popular vote actually becomes president. Even once is one time too many... the will of the people is not truly served. It's the will of a select few and a select few that the people really have nothing to do with even if for the most part they do act according the popular vote. I want my vote to be directly counted, not through the vote of someone I have no clue about who he/she is, if they vote the way I cast my vote.(less) -
raves +2 posted Jun 26, 2008 07:50PM GMT
Answered support
But the problem is when its left up to several millions of people then there will have to be some margin of error. What would the margin be? if it was a close race would someone win with one more vote than the other with let say 80million votes? Just in the candidate race, out of the 48million voters the two candidates were around 200,000 apart, thats a pretty small %.. -
raves +2
![Chris [Ninja]™](http://images.sodahead.com/images/profiles/0/0/0/2/9/6/7/8/4/profiles_n3311696390390541354_5742_109876_media_small.jpeg)
Answered oppose
Completely oppose. I'm not okay with New York and California choosing all of our presidents.