Another example why foreigners should refrain from telling Americans who we should run our government when they are so ignorant about it. The President is the President of the UNITED STATES. The STATES elect the President not the PEOPLE. In fact a state legislature can decide for whom the state will cast it's electoral votes and not even have a vote of the citizens of that particular state. You don't see why we Americans could careless what you think about the way we elect our federal officials since you have no intellectual or historical basis for what you don't see.
There would have to be a runoff election and I applaud you for at least having some historical basis in your post. In fact many here want to do away with the 17th amendment which requires a vote of the citizens of the state for Senator and go back to where the state government selected the Senators since they are supposed to represent the STATES and not be political, elective, positions. That way Obamacare would never have passed with it's screwed up state mandates and cost.
Precisely why your system is stupid. I am not ignorant, you constantly shouting about it being about THE STATES doesn't matter to me, I don't care if the states or the people elect the President, I care about how you go about it. If you really want the states to vote then have them vote - 1 vote each, and have that vote be decided by the majority vote in that state - but don't weight them with the EC. The EC is effectively a popular vote 95% of the time; that's why the few times it doesn't reflect the popular vote, people don't like it - you've set a paradigm that their vote matters, when in fact it doesn't have to. The slate of electors isn't even working the way it was originally intended because you deemed it too undemocratic - yet rather than simply have a popular vote you did this half-assed democratization of the EC. None of you have ever offered an explanation as to why this stupid system needs to exist. I've offered my suggestions and the rationale behind them. Yeah, ok, the idea is endemic to your constitution - so what? It's sacred? You'll defend it just because it's from 'MERICUH? Ah, the old "It's not your country you don't know what you're talking about your argument is invalid." tactic. Sorry, but that's not a satisfactory argument. The fact that it's not my country doesn't mean I can't offer an opinion. You guys have yet to explain why things need to be this way and what is so wrong with doing it a fairer, more consistent way.
No the 2 senators per state does not change, nor does the make up of congress, even with a popular vote. Also what's stopping dizens of candidates from running now and achieving your theory?
Dozens of candidates run now. But the current system puts a premium on being able to mobilize a wide electorate that is sufficient to gain a majority at the state level. Why do you feel the popular vote should be decisive in the Presidential election but not in the composition of the Senate?
The Libertarian Party raised about $3 million last election. The New York Times estimated that Obama and Romney raised around $1 billion each. They are overwhelmingly outspent, and have to petition to get on ballots. There is also almost no coverage of third parties, because they are never considered viable. The Electoral College is not holding third parties back. Read the Federalist Papers on why the Electoral College was created. It was supposed to be a safeguard against democracy. However, I don't think it matters anymore, because the Founders never envisioned that a more undemocratic election process would be in place.
FYI, I've read the Federalist Papers and much else besides. The Electoral College was and is a safeguard against many things. On top of that the Electoral College process is very little understood, including by most US citizens. All things considered it is still the best feasable system to ensure that the elected President can have a broad mandate.
And we'all country folk, don't have-a none a them new-fangled tele-visions and all. Lawd, we-all don even have 'lectricity fer them thar radios, (Good thing I have a laptop) so we gotta ride gramma all over t' the county seat in the buggy just t' hear them politicians speak. It's a plumb hardship, 'tis. That's why we need some smert Re-Publican big city 'torney to do our votin' fer us. Thas a nacheral fact, I'm sorry, but I was born in the country and I really just can't stand you city dwellers who come out here and, apparently, expect to see barefoot kids in coveralls at the one room school. Fer Crissake, it's only 20 miles, and we have cars and tv and fire and the wheel, just like you, OK?
Yeah, kinda tyrannical, don't you think? The states that have a greater say in the election through the electoral process are the same states that have voted themselves net importers of federal tax dollars. Simple theft? Red state welfare queens? You betcha.
And what ground do you have to stand on to care about our elections and why do you believe we care what you care about them? So you are just blowing smoke then. Why? What concern is it of yours and why should we give a nono-second of consideration to what you think about it when you obviously don't know the history of our country and it's founding? If you had any knowledge of our history, the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Conventions you would know why we don't have that system. I could careless about how the EC does it they are not the United States. Yes we have, you simply cannot seem to comprehend that the STATES elect the President of the UNITED STATES not the PEOPLE in a direct election and that the system balances out the population of each state so that the larger states do not have too large a voice and the interest of the smaller states are protected. There are three entities in our government, the UNITED STATES ie the Federal Government, the STATES, and the PEOPLE.
Back at ya. You're arguing in favor of a popular vote, but the compromise comes to the same result nearly every time. Being the United States has everything to do with it. If we were the United Provinces I'd agree with you, but words have meaning. Come on mate. You of all people are better than that.
Where does the Federalist Papers mention the need to secure a broad mandate? Hamilton mentions, in Paper #68, that the election should be made by the most capable of men: "It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." Considering Hamilton referred to the people as a "great beast," I doubt his motive was securing a mandate from the people. In fact, they were so concerned about the mandate of the people that only white men who met property ownership requirements were eligible to vote. The primary goal of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." There is no denying of the undemocratic intent of the Electoral College. The system is certainly archaic. It belongs to history. That being said, I don't think abolishing it matters, or changes anything significantly. It would be a nice gesture, but the real problem is the massive amount of money that is poured into campaigns. You mentioned that a removal of the Electoral College would open the flood gates to third party participation. Unless the barriers that handicap them from competing are fixed, there is almost no chance of that happening. I mentioned the $997 million contribution advantage over the Libertarian Party by both candidates. I also mentioned that third parties must gather petitions to get on all 50 ballets, which drains what little fundraising they have. There's also the fact that the media, whose parent corporations are funding both major political parties, do not cover third party campaigns. I'm in favor of more competitive political parties, but I am highly skeptical that removing the Electoral College would have any impact. Those claiming it is the barrier to true democracy are chasing a dead end, but those supporting it as....? I don't understand why anyone still supports it.
No, really, I don't get why you're so attached to this. Since the EC basically represents the popular vote most of the time, it makes the times when it doesn't make no sense. This is the chief executive of the whole country you are talking about, it doesn't have anything to do with your states; if you want it to that's fine, but this EC compromise is just dumb, if you actually want the states to vote then go all the way. Otherwise, I really don't see why you can't have a simple popular vote. And no it doesn't seem to me like it does. I don't care whether you call it a state or a province, it's a sub-entity of a federation. I don't care that it's called a state, they aren't "states" as in sovereign nations. Better than what? You don't seem to have any real practical reason to back this convoluted monstrosity other than some kind of symbolic states-rights thing that doesn't even matter.
EVERY other elected politican is elected by the popular vote, it is illogical to do different with the Presidential elections.
Because I have an opinion on whether it's a good system or not. That doesn't make any sense given what I said right after that. What's the point of discussing anything? Exchange of ideas - you think this is a good idea and I don't and we're discussing why. Also LOL at the automatic assumption that because I don't agree with you I must be ignorant of your superior American political foundations that is so infallible that the only way I can disagree with it is to not know anything about it. You are full of yourself. Again, you're full of yourself. I am not ignorant. I know perfectly well, I'm simply not persuaded that it's a good idea. Wha....what? EC = Electoral College, the hell are you talking about? I do comprehend it, I simply don't think it's a good or most fair way to do it. That's what you don't understand - it's not that I don't understand the argument behind the EC, it's that I don't agree with it. I am not persuaded that it is the best way to elect your head of state.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution. The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government. The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. If Governor Cuomo signs, that adds 29 electoral votes, totaling 165, 61% of the way. NationalPopularVote - - - Updated - - - Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact. In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides: No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislatures existing powers under the U.S. Constitution. In short, enactment of the National Popular Vote compact has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.
Only if you support the EC because it comes out at the popular vote. Really, this is a moot point you're chasing here. It has everything to do with the states. He is the President of the United States, his is the office to/for which the states have ceded some of their power/authority. He is the President of the United States - to say that he's not the President of the United States, just of the people of the United States... is a silly word game bouncing around what is obvious. As I have already stated, the compromise as it exists exists for a reason, and for each state to have only one vote would not make sense, nor would it be possible to amend to such a manner of doing business. You don't care - I don't care that you don't care. It makes a world of difference. They were states as in sovereign nations that ceded some of their powers (such as conducting foreign diplomacy) to the federal government, they never became provinces. It makes a world of difference. Germany never became a province of the EU, mate. You're better than making silly straw men.
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes! The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. - - - Updated - - - The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended. In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes. The current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. ) It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.
After more than 10,000 statewide elections in the past two hundred years, there is no evidence of any tendency toward a massive proliferation of third-party candidates in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by the office. No such tendency has emerged in other jurisdictions, such as congressional districts or state legislative districts. There is no evidence or reason to expect the emergence of some unique new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as every other elected official in the United States. Based on historical evidence, there is far more fragmentation of the vote under the current state-by-state system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved. Under the current state-by-state system of electing the President (in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state's electoral votes), minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948 , 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidates and so much fragmentation of the vote is that a presidential candidate with no hope of winning a plurality of the votes nationwide has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for particular states where he can affect electoral votes or where he might win outright. Thus, under the current system, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond (1948 ) or George Wallace (1968 ) won electoral votes in numerous Southern states, although they had no chance of receiving the most popular votes nationwide. In addition, candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states.
If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote. Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948 ), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968 ), and Clinton (1992 and 1996). Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.
The Founders were dead for decades before state winner-take-all laws became prevalent. The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes. As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
You're defending all of this on a technicality, on your states being called states because it's they used to be sovereign. They no longer are. For all intents and purposes they are the same as a province - a sub-unit of a federation. The only difference is that your constitution has more restrictions on what the federal government can tell them to do than mine does. What they're called doesn't matter, only what they actually are. Let me explain myself here: In the Legislature, which creates the laws for the US, it is created around the idea of both regional and state representation, on the principle that neither the popular vote nor the will of the states themselves should completely trump the other in power, thus both a representative chamber and the senate exist. Indeed, there is an issue of states' power there. There is no issue of states' power with the President - he cannot create laws. He cannot tell states what to do. But he does have national and international authority. He is the head of state for all the people in the United States; as such, I think it perfectly reasonable that who becomes President should be a national decision, made by all US citizens as a collective, because this is a decision that is about the whole country, not just state or regional representation as in the legislature. Of you don't like that I am perfectly willing to accept having the states themselves vote - but don't halfass it like with the EC. The EC is inherently unfair and too subjective - the votes of people in some states basically become worth more or less than votes in other states; to me, with the matter being a national decision, I don't think that fair. I DO understand where you're coming from, I just don't care so much about the technicality of making sure it's the states that vote the President in. I know you said before you like to think of US states being like members of the EU more than provinces of Canada or Australia, but in reality that isn't how it works. Your states are very independent, to be sure, but they are really arbitrary lines of geographical power drawn on a map long ago. Trying to assign and balance power or give weight (and balance this weight) to these states to create your Electoral College based on something as arbitrary as lines on a map seems rather silly to me at least. You don't have to agree to with me, but I wish everyone here would stop talking to me as if the only way I could not agree with the existence of the EC is that I must not understand the nuances of your political structure. I do - but I'm not persuaded.
Still showing you do not understand the United States, each state has a chief executive, the UNITED STATES is where all the governments come together to form the UNITED STATES and the is their to balance all their interest as this government is based on those balances the founding fathers created. Where do you get off telling us what we should do? ROFL yes it is perfectly clear you do not know why. I would suggest you stop digging your hole. - - - Updated - - - Yes in state elections, we have no federal direct elections in this country.
