The best argument for using popular vote for presidential race.

J

Joe Capitalist

Racism is a disease
Voter fraud.

With a presidential race using the popular vote, it would be virtually impossible to rig an election. In most presidential races, typically one candidate receives over a million votes more than the other. To put together a scheme to flip over a million votes would take such a effort and so many people, it would not go unnoticed.

With the Electoral college, Republican voters in strong-leaning blue states like California and NY are disenfranchised. They get no representation for their vote. Same with Dem voters in Alabama and Mississippi. There's no denying that. 100% of the support for those states goes to the opposing party. That's not right.
Also, right now, these about 5-7 swing states that could 'swing' either way and determine an election. Trump went after these states to try to 'flip' them his way and win. Well, what if the number of swing States gets down to one or two. It would be a lot easier to 'influence' the 'swing' states a candidates way.

The Electoral system was put in place back in the 1800s so candidates wouldn't only campaign in urban, highly-populated areas but would go to the low-populated rural areas as well. But with mass communications, that's not the case anymore.
Presidential candidates can campaign anywhere and everywhere using TV, radio, newspaper, online media and reach everybody in the country.

The Electoral system is obsolete. It has to go. It no longer represents the people's choice.

Comments?

Electoral vs popular vote:
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

A Gallup poll in January 2013 found that a vast majority of Americans (63%) would prefer to do away with the electoral college for presidential elections.
 
Last edited:
The electoral college exists to give smaller states a voice in the election.

Wyoming has far different interests then California does but with a popular vote you will essentially have the five most populous states deciding every election meaning their needs are going to be met first.

Candidates will no longer pay attention to states with low populations or hear their concerns, they will be focusing on the states with the most people meaning only those states are going to get their issues addressed.

All of our states are considered equal in power and the electoral college helps to ensure that.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The electoral college exists to give smaller states a voice in the election.

Wyoming has far different interests then California does but with a popular vote you will essentially have the five most populous states deciding every election meaning their needs are going to be met first.

Candidates will no longer pay attention to states with low populations or hear their concerns, they will be focusing on the states with the most people meaning only those states are going to get their issues addressed.

All of our states are considered equal in power and the electoral college helps to ensure that.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

If the popular vote in California is 51% dem and 49% rep then 100% of their electoral votes go to Washington.
If the popular vote in Wyoming is 98% rep and 2% dem then 100% of their electoral votes go to Washington.

So you see, the Electoral vote does what you say, not the popular vote. All you have to do is win the popular vote (51%) in the state to get 100% of the support. That's how the five most populous states decide elections. Not by popular vote.
With the Electoral vote, a candidate can win the Presidential Election by only winning the 14 biggest electoral states. Does that sound fair to you?

Every election is run by popular vote. Every one. Except the presidential election. Doesn't make sense.

If you can't comprehend that, then I can't help you.
 
The electoral college cannot be viewed as an autonomous facet of our government.
It is part and parcel of our federal system.

I'm not particularly fond of the government form with at which our founders arrived.
It is, by design, the most inefficient in the history of world governments.

It is what we've got, however,
and as long as we're opposed to tearing it all up and starting over,
the electoral college is an integral part of it.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Wrong.

If the popular vote in California is 51% dem and 49% rep then 100% of their electoral votes go to Washington.
If the popular vote in Wyoming is 98% rep and 2% dem then 100% of their electoral votes go to Washington.

So you see, the Electoral vote does what you say, not the popular vote. All you have to do is win the popular vote (51%) in the state to get 100% of the support. That's how the five most populous states decide elections. Not by popular vote.
With the Electoral vote, a candidate can win the Presidential Election by only winning the 14 biggest electoral states. Does that sound fair to you?

Every election is run by popular vote. Every one. Except the presidential election. Doesn't make sense.

If you can't comprehend that, then I can't help you.
Click to expand...


Electors are awarded based on popular vote.

It's essentially the same thing but allows smaller states to have a more equal say in the election.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Electors are awarded based on popular vote.

It's essentially the same thing but allows smaller states to have a more equal say in the election.
Click to expand...

Why should less people get more say? That's not equal.

In Wyoming, if 51% of their voters voted Republican, all of their electoral votes and representation go to Washington. That's is NOT A VALID REPRESENTATION to their actual population.
In a democracy, All Men are Created Equal, thus all voices are heard equally.

If you can't understand that, you never will.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Why should less people get more say? That's not equal.

In Wyoming, if 51% of their voters voted Republican, all of their electoral votes and representation go to Washington. That's is NOT A VALID REPRESENTATION to their actual population.
In a democracy, All Men are Created Equal, thus all voices are heard equally.

If you can't understand that, you never will.
Click to expand...

Because states are equal.

We are a union of states, not individuals.

Part of the deal of getting the states to ratify the constitution was that they would have equal say in the presidential election, that was a major sticking point for many states.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Voter fraud.

With a presidential race using the popular vote, it would be virtually impossible to rig an election. In most presidential races, typically one candidate receives over a million votes more than the other. To put together a scheme to flip over a million votes would take such a effort and so many people, it would not go unnoticed.

With the Electoral college, Republican voters in strong-leaning blue states like California and NY are disenfranchised. They get no representation for their vote. Same with Dem voters in Alabama and Mississippi. There's no denying that. 100% of the support for those states goes to the opposing party. That's not right.
Also, right now, these about 5-7 swing states that could 'swing' either way and determine an election. Trump went after these states to try to 'flip' them his way and win. Well, what if the number of swing States gets down to one or two. It would be a lot easier to 'influence' the 'swing' states a candidates way.

The Electoral system was put in place back in the 1800s so candidates wouldn't only campaign in urban, highly-populated areas but would go to the low-populated rural areas as well. But with mass communications, that's not the case anymore.
Presidential candidates can campaign anywhere and everywhere using TV, radio, newspaper, online media and reach everybody in the country.

The Electoral system is obsolete. It has to go. It no longer represents the people's choice.

Comments?

Electoral vs popular vote:
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

A Gallup poll in January 2013 found that a vast majority of Americans (63%) would prefer to do away with the electoral college for presidential elections.
Click to expand...

even California doesn't divide its electoral votes based upon the popular vote....
 
Anyways this debate doesn't matter because to overturn the constitution you need 2/3 of the states to vote for it and the smaller states will never give up that power.

It's a moot discussion as it should be.

Delaware is just as important as California is.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Why should less people get more say? .
Click to expand...

they do not......there are two votes per state and an equal number of votes based on a per population.......California gets two votes plus 55 based on their population (even though a large number of those they count as population are not people who can vote and some are even here illegally......The same thing is true of Wyoming, which gets two votes, plus 1 based on their population....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I know......that's why I said that.....
Click to expand...

California has 55 electoral votes, Delaware has 3 so it is completely representative of the population but those small states can add up meaning that politicians must also pay attention to them because you can't win by just focusing on the bigger states.

That is why we have the electoral college.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Doesn't make sense.

.
Click to expand...

and yet it does......that was the way it was intentionally set up when the US was created and it has worked as intended in every presidential election since.......you don't need to change the law......you just need to win elections by presenting a platform supported by the majority of people in a sufficient number of states.....two is not enough.....
 
BidenPresident said:
The Electoral College is contrary to the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It should not matter what state you live in.
Click to expand...

People don't elect the president, the states do, that was determined when they wrote the constitution.

That is something people do not understand and it is core to our foundation as a nation.

People in small states have as much right to representation in the election as those in large states.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Because states are equal.

We are a union of states, not individuals.

Part of the deal of getting the states to ratify the constitution was that they would have equal say in the presidential election, that was a major sticking point for many states.
Click to expand...

But they are NOT equal. Electoral votes are proportional to population.
California has 55 and Wyoming has 3. I hope you're smart enough to realize that 55 does not equal 3 so stop saying states have equal representation if you want to stop sounding stupid.

And why do you think Maine and Nevada divide their electoral votes? It provides for more proportional representation.
As it should be.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
But they are NOT equal. Electoral votes are proportional to population.
California has 55 and Wyoming has 3. I hope you're smart enough to realize that 55 does not equal 3 so stop saying states have equal representation if you want to stop sounding stupid.

And why do you think Maine and Nevada divide their electoral votes? It provides for more proportional representation.
As it should be.
Click to expand...

No they are not.

They are equal to the number of representatives a state has in congress with the senate and the house, it has nothing to do with population.

You are an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top