Thoughts on the popular vote vs. Electoral College

[Denny Crane]

The past several presidential election cycles, a few people I've known (barfo, Minstrel) have argued that the president should be elected by popular vote.

The obvious problem with that is that we're a republic, not a democracy, so the popular vote shouldn't be what elects the president.

Aside from that, let's see what those who favor the popular vote have to say about some questions it would raise.

First, we've had Bill Clinton elected twice without a majority of the vote. Do we allow a president to be elected by a plurality vote?

If so, the Clinton elections raise another question. What about 3rd party candidates - if you have 4 candidates to each get about 25% of the vote, the guy who gets elected has 75% of the vote not for him.

To the extreme, you have 99 candidates, 98 getting 1% and the other getting 2%. Are we really going to sit a president who got just 2% of the popular vote?

To get around this, do we set some minimum % of the vote? What would that be? 45% and Clinton doesn't get elected in 1992, even though he got 370 electoral votes.

If we do have some minimum % of the vote, do we have as many runoff elections as needed to satisfy the minimum % of the vote requirement? It's not looking so democratic anymore, nor does it satisfy the constitutional requirement that the national elections be held everywhere on the same day.

Consider the past election. If McCain and Obama had tied or neither got the required minimum %, would it be proper to have a 2nd vote knowing the senate was decided at 60 democrats and the house with a democratic majority?

Like it or not, the electoral college has proven its value time and time again. The 1992 election is the obvious one, where Clinton won a convincing electoral college victory with a plurality of the vote.

 

[Natebishop3]

The popular vote is killing Oregon. Personally I think our state NEEDS an electoral college.

 

[barfo]

The past several presidential election cycles, a few people I've known (barfo, Minstrel) have argued that the president should be elected by popular vote.

The obvious problem with that is that we're a republic, not a democracy, so the popular vote shouldn't be what elects the president.

That doesn't seem like a very compelling argument against it.

Aside from that, let's see what those who favor the popular vote have to say about some questions it would raise.

First, we've had Bill Clinton elected twice without a majority of the vote. Do we allow a president to be elected by a plurality vote?

Why not? We do now.

If so, the Clinton elections raise another question. What about 3rd party candidates - if you have 4 candidates to each get about 25% of the vote, the guy who gets elected has 75% of the vote not for him.

So? With the electoral college, one guy still gets elected with 75% of the vote not for him.

To the extreme, you have 99 candidates, 98 getting 1% and the other getting 2%. Are we really going to sit a president who got just 2% of the popular vote?

The only other choice is to seat one of the guys who got 1%. Is that better somehow?

To get around this, do we set some minimum % of the vote? What would that be? 45% and Clinton doesn't get elected in 1992, even though he got 370 electoral votes.

No, most votes wins.

If we do have some minimum % of the vote, do we have as many runoff elections as needed to satisfy the minimum % of the vote requirement? It's not looking so democratic anymore, nor does it satisfy the constitutional requirement that the national elections be held everywhere on the same day.

No, most votes wins. And I don't think that would violate the same-day requirement anyway - a runoff election is a different election than the original election.

Consider the past election. If McCain and Obama had tied or neither got the required minimum %, would it be proper to have a 2nd vote knowing the senate was decided at 60 democrats and the house with a democratic majority?

No, but there would be no need to, either.

Like it or not, the electoral college has proven its value time and time again. The 1992 election is the obvious one, where Clinton won a convincing electoral college victory with a plurality of the vote.

Why is it important to turn a plurality win into a "convincing" victory? But if it is, we could just say that the guy who won a plurality, his votes are counted 100 times. Then the winner would always have a "convincing" victory.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

barfo,

In the 4 candidate case, no president is seated without getting the 270+ electoral votes. If there is no winner, it goes to the House of Representatives to choose the president.

As for the rest of your non-answers, they're.... non-answers.

 

[barfo]

barfo,

In the 4 candidate case, no president is seated without getting the 270+ electoral votes. If there is no winner, it goes to the House of Representatives to choose the president.

Yes, I understand that. My point was, he still has 25% of the popular vote, no matter what the electoral vote comes out.

As for the rest of your non-answers, they're.... non-answers.

Because your arguments were non-arguments. I laid out how it should work: the guy with the most votes wins. If you don't like that, that's cool.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Well, there's really no argument against the electoral vote being best for the US Presidency. Denny laid out a short and good enough argument to support it. There are other good reasons, but it's a moot point.

I want to comment on Natebishop3's idea of a state have an electoral vote.

That thought had never occurred to me. But the more I think about it the more it makes sense. A governor, like a US President, is the representative head over all the people- not just their party. Or maybe for US Senators as well. Right now, eastern Oregon, the majority of the coast, southern Oregon has no voice in the US Senate- only Multnomah and a few other counties. They lost their representative when Smith lost to Merkley (who, I might add, is the key person behind a movement to strip rights away from the minority party in the US Senate by strongly curtailing the use of a filibuster. Another uber liberal trying to silence critics.) Right now, democrats in Oregon have to pander to Multnomah county. Wouldn't it be nice if they had to take into consideration eastern Oregon's concerns, southern Oregon's concerns, the coast... I think we'd get some well rounded political leadership if we had state electoral voting. Right now, it's simply who can "out liberal" their opponent to win election. And if people living outside Multnomah county get royally screwed in the process, so what.

Natebishop3, baby, this has the makings of a good ballot initiative.

Oh yeah, a rep for natebishop3.

 

[barfo]

Natebishop3, baby, this has the makings of a good ballot initiative.

Which Multnomah County would vote down.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Which Multnomah County would vote down.

barfo

[sigh] Thanks for raining on my parade.

 

[barfo]

[sigh] Thanks for raining on my parade.

When you are parading for something other than one-man, one-vote, it's hard to keep the rain off. Why should some people's votes count more than others?

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

When you are parading for something other than one-man, one-vote, it's hard to keep the rain off. Why should some people's votes count more than others?

barfo

Because it benefits the good for all.

 

[barfo]

Because it benefits the good for all.

Maybe we should just have a King, then. Screw this democracy stuff. A King will look out for all his subjects.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

It would never get passed BECAUSE of Portland and BECAUSE of Multnomah County, but an electoral college would benefit the ENTIRE state and not just one city.

 

[barfo]

It would never get passed BECAUSE of Portland and BECAUSE of Multnomah County, but an electoral college would benefit the ENTIRE state and not just one city.

How do you figure it would benefit the entire state? Geographically? Should acreage vote? 1 acre-1 vote?

barfo

 

[barfo]

It would never get passed BECAUSE of Portland and BECAUSE of Multnomah County, but an electoral college would benefit the ENTIRE state and not just one city.

What's special about that cattle rancher out in Harney County that his vote should count more than mine?

If we are going to give extra votes to the geographically challenged, how about other minorities? Should blacks get more votes, since there are fewer of them in Oregon? Gays? People with one leg? Red-haired women with D cups?

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

How do you figure it would benefit the entire state? Geographically? Should acreage vote? 1 acre-1 vote?

barfo

How about when people from Portland vote on things that have nothing to do with them, nor do they have any knowledge of? You think one city should control the fate of the entire state?

 

[Natebishop3]

What's special about that cattle rancher out in Harney County that his vote should count more than mine?

If we are going to give extra votes to the geographically challenged, how about other minorities? Should blacks get more votes, since there are fewer of them in Oregon? Gays? People with one leg? Red-haired women with D cups?

barfo

His vote should count more than yours when voting on issues like trapping to prevent predators from killing his livestock. Yes.

 

[hasoos]

Well, there's really no argument against the electoral vote being best for the US Presidency. Denny laid out a short and good enough argument to support it. There are other good reasons, but it's a moot point.

I want to comment on Natebishop3's idea of a state have an electoral vote.

That thought had never occurred to me. But the more I think about it the more it makes sense. A governor, like a US President, is the representative head over all the people- not just their party. Or maybe for US Senators as well. Right now, eastern Oregon, the majority of the coast, southern Oregon has no voice in the US Senate- only Multnomah and a few other counties. They lost their representative when Smith lost to Merkley (who, I might add, is the key person behind a movement to strip rights away from the minority party in the US Senate by strongly curtailing the use of a filibuster. Another uber liberal trying to silence critics.) Right now, democrats in Oregon have to pander to Multnomah county. Wouldn't it be nice if they had to take into consideration eastern Oregon's concerns, southern Oregon's concerns, the coast... I think we'd get some well rounded political leadership if we had state electoral voting. Right now, it's simply who can "out liberal" their opponent to win election. And if people living outside Multnomah county get royally screwed in the process, so what.

Natebishop3, baby, this has the makings of a good ballot initiative.

Oh yeah, a rep for natebishop3.

Have they really? Or have they just voted for a losing canidate every time? There is a difference you know.

 

[mook]

His vote should count more than yours when voting on issues like trapping to prevent predators from killing his livestock. Yes.

But if he believes the earth began 6000 years ago because his preacher tells him so, should his vote count more than a scientist with a PHD in biology at Portland State in regards to whether we teach evolution in our schools?

If we're going to disproportionately favor one group over the rest, I'd favor smart people. When you fill out your ballot, you have to answer some questions about our world (name three branches of government, is our national debt more or less than $100 billion, does the earth revolve around the sun or the sun around the earth, put Afghanistan on a map). The better your score, the more votes you get.

Anyway, I thought Denny's initial post was kind of silly.

"We can't vote for a president because it's a republic." Well that's like saying, "We can't paint a black car red because it's a black car." It's ridiculously circular. We can't cut a tree down because we don't cut trees. We can't eat a taco because we don't eat tacos.

We vote for a president using a republican (electoral college) system, so we can't use a democratic system (direct vote). Never mind that we used to vote for senators using a republican system and moved to direct voting. His initial argument is, "We can't do X because it is not the same as Y."

Much of his other arguments focus on having too many presidential candidates. lol. That is likely to ever be a problem in this country? Every presidential election I've ever heard of has at most three contenders and a bunch of throw-away-your-vote guys. I see nothing that will likely change in the event of direct election.

 

[barfo]

How about when people from Portland vote on things that have nothing to do with them, nor do they have any knowledge of? You think one city should control the fate of the entire state?

You seem very concerned about geography. Do you think white people should control the fate of the entire state? They do, you know. And straight people, they totally dominate the vote. Even though they know nothing of gay issues, which have nothing to do with them. [True to the same extent that your geography-based claim is, for sure. Not true in an absolute sense.]

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

You seem very concerned about geography. Do you think white people should control the fate of the entire state? They do, you know. And straight people, they totally dominate the vote. Even though they know nothing of gay issues, which have nothing to do with them. [True to the same extent that your geography-based claim is, for sure. Not true in an absolute sense.]

barfo

Worried about geography? Well, I AM a geography major, so I guess that would make sense

I'm talking about political issues that affect the state as a whole, not just the small chunk of land that is known as the Portland Metropolitan area. Why should the city of Portland, who has very few people who have ever farmed or ranched in their lives, control legislation in regards to farming and ranching? It makes no sense.

Or, as you pointed out, why should straight people control whether gays are allowed to marry? I'm glad you brought that up. That's a very good point. The majority of the people voting on something they don't understand.

There's a reason why the Anti-Federalists wanted an electoral college in the first place, so that the larger states, with the vastly larger population, couldn't control the destiny of the smaller states. Look at the map of Oregon and how the gubernatorial vote played out.... 90% of the geographic state voted for Dudley. Only like three counties voted for Kitzhaber, but those three counties included Multnomah county.

In an electoral college your vote would be worth just as much as anyone elses.... in Multnomah County. And Multnomah County would be worth one vote. The United States is a republic... not a democracy, but Oregon is being run by mob rule. That's not what this country was founded on.

 

[maxiep]

I used to be for getting rid of the Electoral College, but I've changed my stance on the issue. Right now, candidates have to campaign in all 50 states. If it were based on the popular vote, our President would be elected by the coasts and the major cities. You think they'd really campaign hard in Iowa and New Hampshire? They'd spend the vast majority of their time in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, DC, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.

The above being said, I would, however, be in favor of changing the way the Electoral College is tabulated. I wouldn't mind seeing each Congressional District selecting a candidate and rather than the entire state going to the overall winner of the state, each Congressional District gets to vote for who won their district. The Senators will then vote for who won the majority of their Congressional districts. If it's a tie, then the Senators vote for the overall winner of the state by popular vote.

It would mean that California wouldn't be blown off by the Republican and Texas wouldn't be blown off by the Democrat because there would be electoral votes at play. It's the swing states that drive the election--Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.--because a few votes can dramatically tip the scales in terms of the Electoral College.

 

[Natebishop3]

I used to be for getting rid of the Electoral College, but I've changed my stance on the issue. Right now, candidates have to campaign in all 50 states. If it were based on the popular vote, our President would be elected by the coasts and the major cities. You think they'd really campaign hard in Iowa and New Hampshire? They'd spend the vast majority of their time in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, DC, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.

The above being said, I would, however, be in favor of changing the way the Electoral College is tabulated. I wouldn't mind seeing each Congressional District selecting a candidate and rather than the entire state going to the overall winner of the state, each Congressional District gets to vote for who won their district. The Senators will then vote for who won the majority of their Congressional districts. If it's a tie, then the Senators vote for the overall winner of the state by popular vote.

It would mean that California wouldn't be blown off by the Republican and Texas wouldn't be blown off by the Democrat because there would be electoral votes at play. It's the swing states that drive the election--Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.--because a few votes can dramatically tip the scales in terms of the Electoral College.

And that's precisely why the electoral college was enacted in the first place. The smaller states were afraid that their votes would mean less. They were worried they would be controlled by the bigger states.

 

[barfo]

Worried about geography? Well, I AM a geography major, so I guess that would make sense

Indeed, that would explain it!

I'm talking about political issues that affect the state as a whole, not just the small chunk of land that is known as the Portland Metropolitan area. Why should the city of Portland, who has very few people who have ever farmed or ranched in their lives, control legislation in regards to farming and ranching? It makes no sense.

Or, as you pointed out, why should straight people control whether gays are allowed to marry? I'm glad you brought that up. That's a very good point. The majority of the people voting on something they don't understand.

The only way to avoid that is to abolish the vote.

There's a reason why the Anti-Federalists wanted an electoral college in the first place, so that the larger states, with the vastly larger population, couldn't control the destiny of the smaller states. Look at the map of Oregon and how the gubernatorial vote played out.... 90% of the geographic state voted for Dudley. Only like three counties voted for Kitzhaber, but those three counties included Multnomah county.

Seven counties, actually, not three. But again, acreage doesn't vote. Sagebrush and rabbits don't yet have the vote. People vote.

In an electoral college your vote would be worth just as much as anyone elses.... in Multnomah County. And Multnomah County would be worth one vote. The United States is a republic... not a democracy, but Oregon is being run by mob rule. That's not what this country was founded on.

The reason for the electoral college compromise was that the states were orginally independent. The counties in Oregon never were independent.

barfo

 

[mook]

I think we should be able to vote for a favorite candidate and a second place candidate. So you could vote for Nader or Ron Paul with your primary vote, then Gore or McCain with your secondary vote. Or vice versa.

It'd allow you to vote without worrying about throwing away your vote. In the event nobody has a majority, you have a second vote with just the two top vote-getters.

Just do away with the primary system.

 

[barfo]

I used to be for getting rid of the Electoral College, but I've changed my stance on the issue. Right now, candidates have to campaign in all 50 states. If it were based on the popular vote, our President would be elected by the coasts and the major cities. You think they'd really campaign hard in Iowa and New Hampshire? They'd spend the vast majority of their time in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, DC, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.

The above being said, I would, however, be in favor of changing the way the Electoral College is tabulated. I wouldn't mind seeing each Congressional District selecting a candidate and rather than the entire state going to the overall winner of the state, each Congressional District gets to vote for who won their district. The Senators will then vote for who won the majority of their Congressional districts. If it's a tie, then the Senators vote for the overall winner of the state by popular vote.

It would mean that California wouldn't be blown off by the Republican and Texas wouldn't be blown off by the Democrat because there would be electoral votes at play. It's the swing states that drive the election--Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.--because a few votes can dramatically tip the scales in terms of the Electoral College.

I misread this the first time. I'm not sure this helps that much. Why wouldn't Texas still be blown off by the Democrat? The vast majority of congressional districts in Texas are reliably red.

What I'd like to see is the electors in each state allocated in proportion to the popular vote.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Indeed, that would explain it!



The only way to avoid that is to abolish the vote.



Seven counties, actually, not three. But again, acreage doesn't vote. Sagebrush and rabbits don't yet have the vote. People vote.



The reason for the electoral college compromise was that the states were orginally independent. The counties in Oregon never were independent.

barfo

But they COULD be!

 

[Minstrel]

I used to be for getting rid of the Electoral College, but I've changed my stance on the issue. Right now, candidates have to campaign in all 50 states. If it were based on the popular vote, our President would be elected by the coasts and the major cities. You think they'd really campaign hard in Iowa and New Hampshire? They'd spend the vast majority of their time in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, DC, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.

Why is it bad that they'd spend the majority of time campaigning where more people are? Shouldn't they be making their case to the most people, rather than the largest tracts of land?

A representative democracy means politicians are representing people, not land. It makes perfect sense that more people are more relevant than less people. I don't see why there should be an artificial reason to go campaign to less people. Yes, those people count too...in proportion to their population. The whole "1 person, 1 vote" thing.

 

[Paxil]

First, we've had Bill Clinton elected twice without a majority of the vote.

Please explain where you are coming up with this... because the only pres in recent history to be elected despite popular vote was Bush in 2000.

 

[Minstrel]

Please explain where you are coming up with this... because the only pres in recent history to be elected despite popular vote was Bush in 2000.

He means that Clinton didn't get over 50%...he got a plurality, which is more votes than the other guy but under 50% of the total.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm not very politically savvy, but to me, it seems the only logical way is the popular vote. Why should a country with 5,000 people in it count the same as a county with 500,000 people in it? That just seems ridiculous.