Are you in favor of switching to popular vote system..

[Dancing Fire]

instead of the electoral college system?
I am in favor of switching to popular vote system, b/c I'd live in Ca. and my vote will not count if I decided to vote Republican.

 

[kenny]

Yes.
Our electoral system is bullsh!t!

It is unfair to the voters.
It is unfair to the candidates.

 

[Laila619]

Without a doubt, YES!!!

 

[Queenie60]

Completely agree. I too, live in California and never feel that my vote counts. I still go to the polls and vote. Popular vote would be great.

 

[missy]

Yes. It would be a much more fair voting system.

 

[ksinger]

No. The electoral college is the only real constitutional protection - short of perhaps impeachment, and we’ve all seen how effective that is for actually getting rid of someone - against the rise of a Hitler. It's part of why it was put in place. I think momhappy mentioned that someone like Hitler couldn’t happen here because of protections built into the constitution, well the electoral college is it. It is the last line of defense against a population that is woefully ignorant of its own past, of how government has worked, and currently works and is no less prone to making emotional decisions than they were in 1800.

People who just see it from a “my vote doesn’t count” standpoint, need to dig into a few history books so they understand what exactly they are asking for, meaning what problems the founders saw the electoral college mitigating, and what problems we might encounter if we get rid of it. Some thought experiments beyond "my vote" doesn't count (which is not true really) need to be done to see what might happen if the college should be abolished. Just off the top of my head, there are some serious administrative issues - since states decide who votes in their states, who is going to determine who votes in presidential elections when the election of local electors is no longer in play? And are we all thrilled with losing the tiny bit of protection for the concerns of the states in the center of the country, for the concerns of the ever-increasing populations along the coasts? There are issues here people, practical, and huge constitutional ones, and I'm not seeing that anyone here is any deeper than "I want my vote to count directly make it happen that way."

And then of course, there is that pesky problem of getting ANY constitutional change pushed through in the current environment. Keep dreaming folks.

 

[asscherisme]

Yes!! Whenever my kids have gotten old enough to understand how the electoral process works, the first thing they realize is it doesn't make sense!

The 2000 elections is a good example of how messed up the system is. Gore won the popular vote, Bush ended up in office. His brother presiding over the state in questions as governor (Florida).

 

[msop04]

Yes.

 

[kenny]

And are we all thrilled with losing the tiny bit of protection for the concerns of the states in the center of the country, for the concerns of the ever-increasing populations along the coasts?

You mean America has states between the oceans?
Who knew?

 

[Maria D]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

The way it works now, all states except for Maine and Nebraska have a winner-take-all system for electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska have a way to split it, but only account for 8 votes out of 538 total. In order to win the election a candidate currently has to have a majority of the votes (270).

If we are to switch to a popular vote system, would you still require a majority? If yes, what if the outcome ends up being 42% Ind, 29% Dem, 26% Repub, 3% other (as given by a 2015 Gallup poll on how US voters identify), then what? Would you institute ranked choice voting? Have a re-vote?

If not a majority, will it just be whoever gets the most votes? Will there be rules for narrowing out the field? How would that work? Would you still have primaries for the major parties? What about other parties - is there a limit to how many candidates could be placed on the November ballot?

The campaigning process would certainly be different. Candidates need not bother making a stop in states like mine. Actually, states wouldn't merit consideration at all - campaigning would be focused on the large cities.

 

[kenny]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

Voters vote.
Votes are counted.
Candidate with the most votes wins.

 

[Maria D]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

Voters vote.
Votes are counted.
Candidate with the most votes wins.

So Kenny's answer is no. Anyone else?

 

[kenny]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

Voters vote.
Votes are counted.
Candidate with the most votes wins.

So Kenny's answer is no. Anyone else?

Huh?

That's how it would work.

I answered your question.
If you had a different question in mind, ask that question.

 

[kenny]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

Voters vote.
Votes are counted.
Candidate with the most votes wins.

So Kenny's answer is no. Anyone else?

Huh?

That's how it would work.

I answered your question.
If you had a different question in mind, ask that question.

Ohhh, you said elaborate.
Okay, here goes.

People eat dinner and go to the bathroom if necessary.

Later they get into their car.
Then they fasten their seat belts.
The driver puts the key into the ignition to drive to the polling place.
All passengers start a DVD while the driver texts his friend to tell him what he ate for dinner, glancing up occasionally to see what he's about to run into.

They might need to get gas first.
This depends how much gas they have and how far they must drive.
Upon arrival at the polling place they park their car, unbuckle their seat belts and ...

Shall I go on, or is that enough elaboration?

 

[Laila619]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

Voters vote.
Votes are counted.
Candidate with the most votes wins.

So Kenny's answer is no. Anyone else?

It really should be that simple though. What Kenny said is exactly how it should work IMO.

 

[kenny]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

Voters vote.
Votes are counted.
Candidate with the most votes wins.

So Kenny's answer is no. Anyone else?

It really should be that simple though. What Kenny said is exactly how it should work IMO.

It's not like our chaste and pure, check and balancie, gobbltiegookie primary system has prevented stupid scumbags from becoming president.

 

[Dancing Fire]

If not a majority, will it just be whoever gets the most votes?

Yes, for the primaries and Nov, then every vote will count.

 

[Maria D]

If not a majority, will it just be whoever gets the most votes?

Yes, for the primaries and Nov, then every vote will count.

Thanks DF. My other questions were: Will there be rules for narrowing out the field? How would that work? What about other parties - is there a limit to how many candidates could be placed on the November ballot?

OK, so with primaries, we would have one Dem and one Repub. What would be a good way to select an independent candidate, as we don't have primaries and conventions for that now. Would you want a limit to how many "independent" candidates there would be on the ballot. I put independent in quotes because I envision that with this system there would be incentive for other parties to run candidates. In Maine for example, the Green Independent Party runs candidates for local elections that sometimes win. Maybe the Tea Party would split from the Republicans and run their own presidential candidate.

If there's no limit and we ended up with as many candidates on the ballot as there were candidates at the first Republican debate, and a majority was not needed, it's feasible that the next president could win with 11% of the popular vote. Actually, they DID narrow the field for the first debate - to the top 10 according to the polls at the time. Maybe that's what we could do, let the polls decide who gets on the ballot? Which polls should we follow?

Personally, I can't imagine that a system that would allow the leader to be someone that 89% of the population did NOT choose could possibly be a good one. So, after careful thought I'd say - nope, not in favor of a simple switch to "every vote counts."

When I lived in Canada I thought the parliamentary system had some distinct advantages though.

 

[Maria D]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

Voters vote.
Votes are counted.
Candidate with the most votes wins.

So Kenny's answer is no. Anyone else?

Huh?

That's how it would work.

I answered your question.
If you had a different question in mind, ask that question.

I asked a *lot* of questions actually! Are you one of those people that only reads the first sentence of emails by any chance?

 

[asscherisme]

I have another suggestion:

No campaigning or debates until January of election year. Make the entire country have their primary on the same day In June. Then the winner of each party square off in November. 5 months between primary and general election. Entire campaign and election process less than one year. Primary not spread out of months and months. and elections not spread over years and years. Simplify it. It would cost far less money and be quicker and simpler.

 

[Dancing Fire]

If not a majority, will it just be whoever gets the most votes?

Yes, for the primaries and Nov, then every vote will count.

Thanks DF. My other questions were: Will there be rules for narrowing out the field? How would that work? What about other parties - is there a limit to how many candidates could be placed on the November ballot?

The primaries will narrow the field. i.e .....Trump (R), Clinton (D), Sander (I) .The candidate with the most # of votes in Nov. will be the next POTUS.

 

[kenny]

Would those of you who want to switch to popular vote care to elaborate on how it would work?

Voters vote.
Votes are counted.
Candidate with the most votes wins.

So Kenny's answer is no. Anyone else?

It really should be that simple though. What Kenny said is exactly how it should work IMO.

But complexity facilitates corruption, just like our tax code.

 

[AnnaH]

Absolutely not. It's not in the best interest of our country to allow NY and CA alone to choose each president.
However, Kenny, I do agree with your other post that we need to reform the primary system. All states should vote on the same day.