33 replies to this topic

[Omnaka]

What do you think, should your Vote count?

Do you need to elect someone to vote for you, or are you capeable of doing this task your self?

Edited by Omnaka, 29 September 2008 - 05:51 PM.

[Omnaka]

All right who marked the last one, and are you serious?

Love Omnaka

[DieChecker]

I marked No.

I think a popular vote would be more appropriate and less subject to possible corruption. The candidate that gets the most votes wins!

I don't like that a state could vote 51% for a candidate and get all the Electoral College vote. Kansas, I think is the only state that gives percentages to the candidates. I think the whole US should do it that way.

I also like the vote by mail that we use in Oregon. Those that care will pay for a stamp and vote and those that do not care can trash it.

[Omnaka]

DieChecker on Sep 29 2008, 07:34 PM, said:

I marked No.

I think a popular vote would be more appropriate and less subject to possible corruption. The candidate that gets the most votes wins!

I don't like that a state could vote 51% for a candidate and get all the Electoral College vote. Kansas, I think is the only state that gives percentages to the candidates. I think the whole US should do it that way.

I also like the vote by mail that we use in Oregon. Those that care will pay for a stamp and vote and those that do not care can trash it.

Or you can just drop it in the balot box at city hall Or mac donnalds m Quiznoes or where ever there is one.
This year it's going to be at the liquor store, I predict.

Love Omnaka

[Guardsman Bass]

If we do a popular vote for President, it needs to be coupled with a runoff election in case no candidate gets more than 50% of the votes.

One thing to keep in mind about a Popular-Vote-For-President is that suddenly, the big urban states are going to matter a whole lot more. Small states, like North Dakota, Iowa, and so forth will probably get less attention from the campaigns, simply because it is too costly for too few votes to spend more time in those areas. You could argue that that's a good thing, since most of the population lives in certain heavily populated urban and suburban areas anyways (like the Bos-Wash Megalopolis with its 55 million people, meaning roughly 18% of the population - and the 22 million in the emerging southern California megalopolis) and this would represent their interests better, but a lot of the hinterland would be ignored in the Presidential campaign.

With one exception. This would open up an interesting fork in possibilities for a Presidential campaign. Campaigns could either Run Up The Count by focusing on some large states and the big urban areas and simply going for as much voter turn-out as possible in these areas to get a majority, or an Insurgency in which they use modern communication tools and cheap snail mail to rally as much people to vote for the candidate as possible across the country, even if they don't get a majority in every state.

[Omnaka]

I think Mcain and Obama snuck their votes in here.

Love Omnaka

[CommieX]

Remember, Clinton lost the popular vote to Bush I, but got in because of the electoral collage. The same thing happened with Gore and W.

[IrishAidan07]

CommieX on Sep 30 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

Remember, Clinton lost the popular vote to Bush I, but got in because of the electoral collage. The same thing happened with Gore and W.

Um --- what? Clinton never lost the popular vote. He didn't lose it to Bush or Dole.

1992 Election Results:

William Jefferson Clinton: 44,909,806 | 43.01%

George Bush: 39,104,550 | 37.45%

H. Ross Perot: 19,743,821 | 18.91%

Here

I'm not very good at math, but I'm pretty certain 44 is a bigger number than 39.

[Guardsman Bass]

Clinton got a plurality (the largest share of votes out of all competitors) in the popular vote, not a majority. He's not the first, either; 13 of the 34 elections in 1836-1968 were plurality winners.

Edited by Guardsman Bass, 01 October 2008 - 07:59 AM.

[Leonardo]

Guardsman Bass on Sep 29 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

If we do a popular vote for President, it needs to be coupled with a runoff election in case no candidate gets more than 50% of the votes.

The alternative for this is allowing Coalition Governments. While the operation of such Governments has been problematic in other countries that allow such systems, it would have the benefit of increasing the visibility of the minor parties, and in Coalition situations they would become important so their policies would not be able to be ignored.

[Guardsman Bass]

Leonardo on Oct 1 2008, 02:32 AM, said:

The alternative for this is allowing Coalition Governments. While the operation of such Governments has been problematic in other countries that allow such systems, it would have the benefit of increasing the visibility of the minor parties, and in Coalition situations they would become important so their policies would not be able to be ignored.

How would that work with the Presidency, though? Most of the other systems that do have coalition governments usually have weak Presidents who mainly serve as ceremonial Heads of State while the Prime Ministers (picked by the parties who form the coalition) hold all the real power. That doesn't exactly fit well in the framework of the Constitution.

[BlindMessiah]

We need the electoral college to ensure every state has a voice. It's the same reason we have the senate and not only the congress. Balance between the power of the national population and state population to prevent mob rule.

[IamsSon]

The Electoral College insures that all of the states, populous or not, have a proportional impact on the election of the President.  In a nation made up of states with specific rights and powers, this is an important process.

[Sag!ttarius]

what's an electoral "colledge" and what does it eat during winter?

[Mr Honeybadger]

BlindMessiah on Oct 1 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

We need the electoral college to ensure every state has a voice. It's the same reason we have the senate and not only the congress. Balance between the power of the national population and state population to prevent mob rule.

I agree.  It also helps prevent candidates from promising things to the populated areas of the country while thumbing their nose at rural areas.

Long live the Electoral College