What's wrong with elections based off of the Popular Vote?

The Popular Vote is the will of the people, not the Electoral College. The concern held by some is it will only count those voting in the major cities on the coasts. I doubt that to be the case. That somehow California, New York, and Illinois would determine elections. If people really want Donald Trump, then it should be up to the Popular Vote to show that to be true, not who scores 270 points first. If people really want Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, let the numbers speak for themselves.

In off-years like 2018, we already (sort of) declare winners by the Popular Vote. We count ballots turned in, dismiss those that don't meet guidelines, whomever the Democrat or Republican is with the most votes wins. The Popular Vote is a more accurate representation of how America votes than the Electoral College. I can understand why Republicans would want to keep the Electoral College. They have the entire South to themselves, plus the Great Plains, take Wyoming, Arizona and Montana, plus Texas and Alaska. Democrats could literally take both the east and west coasts, take Ohio and Michigan, and still lose because of how the Electoral College is set up.

The Electoral College gives Republicans, not Democrats, a sure advantage every time.

The Popular Vote is the right way to do elections, every time. Had we done it that way in 2000, Gore would've had a clear number instead of mindlessly demanding recounts in Florida. The numbers would've been in. I invite Republicans to consider electing presidents off the Popular Vote due to the fact it is the will of the people, and if the Popular Vote truly reflects favoring the Republicans, then people of this country really want Republicans running Washington.

 

America's founders knew what they were doing, the Constitution is an enduring document and is as relevant now as when written. Your argument has been made many times and has some merit but at the end of the day the Electoral College still makes more sense than the popular vote. In light of the evidence of vast election tinkering in the last decade or so the EC is much more reliable. The fact that mountains would have to be moved to change things this conversation is moot. Until someone develops a bulletproof method of securing elections it's likely the EC will remain. Besides losing an election doesn't qualify as a good reason to amend the Constitution and is kinda childish when you think about it.

 

In theory, without the Electorial College, just one state could become so populated that it alone could elect the president. Does it sound like good "representation" for one state to overrule 49 other states? The Electorial College is so wise, thanks to the Founding Fathers, that it's above the mental capacity of some.

 

You are free to elect state and local government officials using a popular vote. As for the federal government, the constitution grants it so little intrastate authority that it really shouldn't matter who is President.

All those wonderful things that you find particularly endearing concerning government authority can still be accomplished via your own government, and people in other states are free to follow a different path. If it really matters who is in the white house during peacetime, then it has definitely outgrown any usefulness and the union needs to be dissolved immediately.

Personally, I think it should have never been conceived. It was nothing more than a stupid treaty between the states to begin with, and has long ago become all that it was supposed to prevent. The UK has their brexit, and we need our fedexit.

 

Popular vote means mostly of the country is meaningless because candidates will simply pander to the cities. We see that already with the democrats.

The electoral college needs updated, but popular vote is just a bad idea.

 

The reason is simple. If popular vote was used, the candidate and then whoever is elected president would cater to the vast majority at the expense of the minority because the minority would no longer have enough votes or power to make a difference. An electoral college requires that they consider everyone,whether they have a lot of voting power or very little voting power. The electoral college is a compromise and like most compromises, it has its weaknesses. Why pay any attention at all to North Dakota when California has over fifty times the voting power?

 

Popular vote: Democrat running would never venture outside of California, NY or Illinois. Republican never venture outside of Texas or Florida. The rest of the country just sits around to see what those states decide. Great idea!
Electoral College: Still a reason to give a crap about people from other states.

 

With the electoral college and the two senate vote per state we wind up with the minority running our country,it makes a mockery of our claim of democracy.

 

Simply put, tyranny of the majority. This isn't a majority ruled country. You want that move to Saudi Arabia.

 

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

The electoral college was designed in the 18th century due to limitations of the time. Has little purpose now, but changing the constitution is very difficult.

 

So get two thirds Congress and two thirds States to agree and you'll have your way.

I wish you luck.

 

Lots of problems. For one majority rule never works out well. It becomes the death of democracy. It would have to be 2/3 vote total to win and most often no one would win. Second, if there is a run off it would have to be redone in every county in every state of the Union. Untenable.

 

What limitations?

If there really are limitations that time has eliminated, then as Hoosier8 points out, you'll have no problems amending the constitution.

If you were to try and shill your idea to other states, how would you do it? The OP certainly doesn't since it just talks about total population and ignores the interests of the various states. So what's the pitch?

 

Some, particularly Alexander Hamilton didn't believe politicians were well known enough for the general population to know the candidates and make reasoned decisions. A rather elitist mentality really.

Admittedly, changing the electoral college is a major undertaking. Republicans in no way would change the current system since they have no confidence in winning a popular election. In the current two party system Democrats would need to have a massive majority to change the system, but by this time the Republican party would be dead. A third party coming into play would make the change possible if this was on their agenda.

The pitch would revolve around making every person's vote matter. Due to the electoral college; the Republican voter in California, or the Democratic voter in Alabama is effectively irrelevant. Instead, a collection of un-elected partisan bureaucrats make the decision for your state, mimicking a sort of feudalistic society. Empower the independent voter to decide the course of their nation rather than giving authority to middlemen dictating if you voted correctly or not. The president serves all people of the United States of America, every citizen should be allowed their fair weight on an election.

 

Why do Trump fans regard states as people? Using your example that state would have the majority of the people living in it. The majority of the people would decide who the next President is. Do you have a problem with that?

Take a close look at the Electoral College. The number of electors a state has is determined by the population of the states. When you do the math, a farmer in Montana gets 1 1/2 times the vote of a teacher or doctor in California.

Is that fair?

 

The electoral college was a product if a nation where the only means o0f communication was direct word of mouth or print media it took weeks for information to travel a few hundred miles.Today we have instant communication with all states learning everything a candidate does within seconds of them doing it.Today the college and the senate are giving the minority the rule.The tail is wagging the dog.

 

Keep in mind that when the Framers wrote the Constitution, the U.S. still hadn't licked the Indian problem yet and about 1/2 of one percent of Americans were educated. The Framers were reluctant to turn the decision of the President over to a bunch of uneducated farmers struggling to survive.

Things have changed since then. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at the Electoral College when the Democrats control the White House and the legislature. Thanks to Trump, that time could be coming soon. .

 

...because California would determine the election every single time.

Our founding fathers were smart, thank God.

 

Sorry, but we still don't know enough about the candidates to make reasoned decisions. For example, I'd known about Trump seemingly all of my life. He's been in the ring at Tyson fights back when I was still in high school. I still don't know him, but I do know that states are what you have to convince.

And no, dismissing states, which is what you are doing, is not good enough. A californian's vote means nothing to me, nor does a New Yorker's vote.

Sorry, but just not good enough.

 

Righties are SCARED TO DEATH of a national popular vote (a.k.a. a truly level playing field), Balto.

Just HILARIOUS watching the pathetic hacks spin like tops trying to defend the antiquated, rigged electoral college system...

 

Left-wingers are SCARED TO DEATH of the electoral college (a.k.a. a truly level playing field).

Just HILARIOUS watching the pathetic hacks spin like tops trying to defend the rigged popular vote system.

 

A national popular vote is like KRYPTONITE for frightened little righties.

They're SCARED TO DEATH of it...

LMAO

 

The electoral college vote is like KRYPTONITE for frightened little lefties.

They're SCARED TO DEATH of it...

LMAO

 

The popular vote is the will of California, New York, Chicago and a few other cities.
The electoral college ensures that all Americans are represented.

 

We do not have a democracy we have a republic