Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Which System is Better?

Electoral College19%19% - 9
Popular Vote80%80% - 38
Total: 47
2008-04-22 05:13:41
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina
According to the Twelfth Amendment in the US there's a Electoral College, with 538 electors, who cast their votes for President every four years.  Each state receives a number of electors that is the sum of its senators (2) and its representatives.  For instance, a state with 3 representatives receives 5 electors.

Twelfth Amendment wrote:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
The popular vote system consists in giving each candidate one vote for every vote casted in his/her name, by every citizen in conditions to vote.  This is also known as direct system.  Pretty simple system.

Questions:
1-Which system do you support?
2-Why do you support that system?
3-What are the advantages and disadvantages of each system?
4-Is it fair this "the winner takes all the votes" system?  (a candidate winning for 1 vote margin wins all the electors from a state)
5-Does the Electoral College system allow candidates to focus their campaign on the states with more electors, and forgetting about those with less electors?
6-What significance has your vote within the Electoral College system?
2008-04-22 05:14:55
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980
/proportional representation
2008-04-22 08:45:10
chittydog
less busy
+586|7259|Kubra, Damn it!

sergeriver wrote:

1-Which system do you support? Popular vote.

2-Why do you support that system? It reflects the true wishes of the people.

3-What are the advantages and disadvantages of each system? Popular vote shows real results. I see no advantage to the Electoral College unless you consider devaluing citizens' votes as an advantage.

4-Is it fair this "the winner takes all the votes" system?  (a candidate winning for 1 vote margin wins all the electors from a state) Absolutely not.

5-Does the Electoral College system allow candidates to focus their campaign on the states with more electors, and forgetting about those with less electors? Not really, states with more electors should also have more voters.

6-What significance has your vote within the Electoral College system? Less than it would in a popular vote system. For example, I live in Texas and have voted Democrat in the last four presidential elections. In the end, my vote is absolutely meaningless. I'm sure fadedsteve has the same problem casting his votes in California.

Last edited by chittydog (2008-04-22 08:45:44)

2008-04-22 10:19:52
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6871|Chicago, IL
Questions:
1-Which system do you support?Electoral College
2-Why do you support that system?Americans are idiots
3-What are the advantages and disadvantages of each system?Electorate may not reflect the will of the people, but the will of the people may not be right (see: populist politics)
4-Is it fair this "the winner takes all the votes" system?  (a candidate winning for 1 vote margin wins all the electors from a state)No, but it prevents the spectacle that is the Democratic party's primary system
5-Does the Electoral College system allow candidates to focus their campaign on the states with more electors, and forgetting about those with less electors?yes, nobody campaigns in Delaware
6-What significance has your vote within the Electoral College system?I'm in Illinois, our elections have been rigged since 1885.
2008-04-22 10:28:41
FallenMorgan
Member
+53|6338|Glendale, CA
Popular vote > electoral vote

https://rationalwiki.com/wiki/images/5/51/PopWinnerLosesElecVote.png

Electors don't have to vote based on the polls - they can just vote because of what they think.  Switzerland, California, and others have sucessful popular vote systems.  With things such as television and the internet it's silly to say that politicians will only campaign in higher population areas.
2008-04-22 10:45:20
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7025|132 and Bush

LOL @ "super"delegates...
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-22 10:47:37
FallenMorgan
Member
+53|6338|Glendale, CA
Yeah, why the FUCK should we have people descide for us who runs the nation?  Al Gore got anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 more popular votes.  Think of how the nation would be if HE were president.
2008-04-22 11:00:19
JG1567JG
Member
+110|7012|United States of America

FallenMorgan wrote:

Yeah, why the FUCK should we have people descide for us who runs the nation?  Al Gore got anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 more popular votes.  Think of how the nation would be if HE were president.
God that is pretty scary to think about.
2008-04-22 11:12:31
chittydog
less busy
+586|7259|Kubra, Damn it!

JG1567JG wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Yeah, why the FUCK should we have people descide for us who runs the nation?  Al Gore got anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 more popular votes.  Think of how the nation would be if HE were president.
God that is pretty scary to think about.
I know, we'd have all this extra money lying around that we wouldn't have spent on Iraq. We'd may also have caught Bin Laden since we wouldn't have spent all our time fighting in the WRONG COUNTRY. We may also have an energy policy that wasn't written by Big Oil, a forestry policy that wasn't written by the lumber industry, and we'd be really bored cuz we couldn't get our chuckles from reading Bushisms or watching Lil' Bush.


I'd also like someone to explain to me (I'm looking at you Lythberg) how the electoral college protects us.
2008-04-22 11:53:26
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6869|The Land of Scott Walker

FallenMorgan wrote:

Yeah, why the FUCK should we have people descide for us who runs the nation?  Al Gore got anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 more popular votes.  Think of how the nation would be if HE were president.
Cry moar. Pretty convenient to want a different system when the guy you like loses.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-04-22 12:04:30)

2008-04-22 12:26:31
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7025|132 and Bush

Stingray24 wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Yeah, why the FUCK should we have people descide for us who runs the nation?  Al Gore got anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 more popular votes.  Think of how the nation would be if HE were president.
Cry moar. Pretty convenient to want a different system when the guy you like loses.
The argument comes from a party that will most likely decide it nominee based on Superdelegates. How is that "Democtratic". Party insider$ and elitist.. selected not elected. .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-22 12:31:45
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

Stingray24 wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Yeah, why the FUCK should we have people descide for us who runs the nation?  Al Gore got anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 more popular votes.  Think of how the nation would be if HE were president.
Cry moar. Pretty convenient to want a different system when the guy you like loses.
Maybe it's the fact the guy nobody likes won.
2008-04-22 12:58:20
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6871|Chicago, IL

sergeriver wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Yeah, why the FUCK should we have people descide for us who runs the nation?  Al Gore got anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 more popular votes.  Think of how the nation would be if HE were president.
Cry moar. Pretty convenient to want a different system when the guy you like loses.
Maybe it's the fact the guy nobody likes won.
We liked him at the time, hindsight is always 20:20, nobody can say how Al Gore would have responded (or fail to respond) to the terrorist issue, it is very possible that we would have ended up in Iraq regardless.
2008-04-22 13:20:21
Laika
Member
+75|6368
Electoral college makes little sense. There should be a popular vote system where each voter can cast one vote for as many candidates as they like. Having the ability to vote once for each candidate you like would get rid of the problem of split votes. If this were implemented, smaller parties like the Green Party would have a much better chance.

Its amazing how people on a BF2 forum can come up with a better system than the one currently in place. Why our country continues to use the electoral college is way the fuck beyond me.
2008-04-22 16:41:49
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7025|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Yeah, why the FUCK should we have people descide for us who runs the nation?  Al Gore got anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 more popular votes.  Think of how the nation would be if HE were president.
Cry moar. Pretty convenient to want a different system when the guy you like loses.
Maybe it's the fact the guy nobody likes won.
Congress is hated more... They won too.. no?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-22 17:05:44
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:


Cry moar. Pretty convenient to want a different system when the guy you like loses.
Maybe it's the fact the guy nobody likes won.
Congress is hated more... They won too.. no?
Well, if nobody likes the president and the Congress then there's something wrong with the system.
2008-04-22 17:10:07
BVC
Member
+325|7120
1-Which system do you support? Proportional representation
2-Why do you support that system? Its a fairer system, and more accurately reflects the will of the people
3-What are the advantages and disadvantages of each system? Proportional means minor parties with significant votes are represented, but means governments (often coalition governments) take longer to form.  Electoral is somewhat the reverse of this.
4-Is it fair this "the winner takes all the votes" system?  It doesn't always reflect the will of the voters
5-Does the Electoral College system allow candidates to focus their campaign on the states with more electors, and forgetting about those with less electors?  I would assume so.  I'd also assume some smaller states could have strategic value.
6-What significance has your vote within the Electoral College system?  None, if you're voting for a known minority.

Last edited by Pubic (2008-04-22 17:11:46)

2008-04-22 17:12:55
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6829|North Carolina
On the one hand, yes, the average person is an idiot.

On the other hand, the Electoral College renders the notion that we live in a democracy null and void.  We supposedly live in a democratic republic, but it's more like a plutocratic republic.

Money means more than votes, and if you really want change in our system....   well...   

"Bullets change governments far surer than votes...."

Of course, even if we did have a popular vote system, the possibility of electoral fraud is still there with companies like Diebold involved.  It goes back to that "it's not who votes that counts -- it's who counts the votes" idea.
2008-04-22 17:17:08
BVC
Member
+325|7120
General question for everybody here:

Could you argue that proportional/popular vote is the next step for democracy after the electoral college/member system?  If so, what would be the next step after proportional/popular vote?
2008-04-22 17:23:42
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6829|North Carolina

Pubic wrote:

General question for everybody here:

Could you argue that proportional/popular vote is the next step for democracy after the electoral college/member system?  If so, what would be the next step after proportional/popular vote?
IMHO, proportional representation is really the end-all be-all government.

Although....  I personally favor the idea of countries splitting into small managable units of no more than about 20 million people each, so that local representation is maximized in its accuracy.

If we look at some of the most functional countries in the world (Iceland, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Australia), they all tend to have small populations and often are culturally homogeneous for the most part (there are obvious exceptions like Australia).

Of course, human history tends to lean more in the larger government direction (with the EU being a modern example), so I figure we're more likely to see unification of governments rather than decentralization of them.  Although...  one could argue that the success of the EU has been mostly due to the preservation of sovereignty of each of its members.

Maybe a compromise of regional autonomy mixed with proportional representation is the answer....
2008-04-22 17:31:00
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7025|132 and Bush

Pubic wrote:

General question for everybody here:

Could you argue that proportional/popular vote is the next step for democracy after the electoral college/member system?  If so, what would be the next step after proportional/popular vote?
Most people haven't a clue as to why we have the electoral college. From what I've seen at least.

The nomination process is more sketchy imo. Caucus's, super delegates, and delegates (which may not vote accordingly) is sketchy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-22 17:34:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6829|North Carolina
Oh, I know why we have an Electoral College, but when you look at why it was put into place, it shows just how outdated the system is.

The primary process sucks for both parties as well.  They should just do the old school route of backroom deals for candidates.  Then, they wouldn't have to pretend we're picking each candidate.  It would be more honest that way.
2008-04-22 17:43:52
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7025|132 and Bush

The nomination process is based on the same philosophy. Tome Dashle explained on the Daily Show that it was to prevent a Stephen Colbert type from getting the parties nomination. If you think about it .. isn't it kinda up to the party to decide who they nominate anyways? So I guess I'm a little torn. Unfortunately we have a two party system (for the most part). If someone were to create a party they could nominate whoever they want without even having a primary. The party rules could be created so it intentionally disenfranchises it's members *Florida cough Michigan cough*. Technicalities .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-22 17:47:21
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6829|North Carolina
Good points, but my argument is that the elite already decide who runs anyway.  It takes so much money to run for president that only a select few with connections can run.

It almost feels like primaries are just done for the sake of formality.
2008-04-22 17:55:55
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7025|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

It almost feels like primaries are just done for the sake of formality.
Of course.

I take some solace in knowing that it usually takes a good leader to get up into the higher ranks. However we must play the cards we are dealt. No matter how crappy the hands are.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard