Abolish the popular vote ! (1 Viewer)

[soap box]

I am not attacking any member, and I won’t name them. But I was amazed by what they wrote.

I can paraphrase what the member posted about presidential electoral politics,

People in the US erroneously believe that they, and not the State legislatures, elect the President.

….the only way to rectify this problem is by eliminating the popular vote for President completely.

The member was also saying that we might simply not vote for president at all. This member is correct that the state legislature is the body that determines the state EC slate. He is claiming that we don’t need people to actually go to polls, punch a ballot and vote for president. Please let us know if you agree or not.

If you are thinking that people can vote and it amounts to a straw poll, nonbinding survey, that's the first choice. If you think people are mistaken about how presidential votes are counted and they need to know, that's the second choice.
If you are thinking that The state legislature should be able to decide, but that they will never choose to override the popular vote, that's not the question here since that's a different opinionated hypothetical.
Thanks, I am just wondering if this has legs among DP members.

 

[The Mark]

Sounds like the person you're paraphrasing was trying to make a point about how we do not currently have a popular vote to elect the president.

They just want to make that overt and painfully clear, so people don't misunderstand reality.

 

[Josie]

I am not attacking any member, and I won’t name them. But I was amazed by what they wrote.

I can paraphrase what the member posted about presidential electoral politics,

People in the US erroneously believe that they, and not the State legislatures, elect the President.

….the only way to rectify this problem is by eliminating the popular vote for President completely.

The member was also saying that we might simply not vote for president at all. This member is correct that the state legislature is the body that determines the state EC slate. He is claiming that we don’t need people to actually go to polls, punch a ballot and vote for president. Please let us know if you agree or not.

If you are thinking that people can vote and it amounts to a straw poll, nonbinding survey, that's the first choice. If you think people are mistaken about how presidential votes are counted and they need to know, that's the second choice.
If you are thinking that The state legislature should be able to decide, but that they will never choose to override the popular vote, that's not the question here since that's a different opinionated hypothetical.
Thanks, I am just wondering if this has legs among DP members.

Why not post the actual quote instead of paraphrasing?

 

[MamboDervish]

Abolish the popular vote !​

Uh .... no! Quite the contrary, we have to find ways to further empower the popular vote. Representation in D.C. is grotesquely disproportionate to the popular vote, and the last thing we should be thinking about is distorting it even further, because that certainly doesn't serve the best interests of the country. The only thing turning our elections over to state legislators will do is make it absolutely impossible for any independent, non-aligned or third party candidate to ever achieve office.

With no outside challengers to the status quo, why even have two parties? We could just have a one-party system like the old Soviet Union.

 

[soap box]

Why not post the actual quote instead of paraphrasing?

I don't want someone tracing him down, or trying to find out which screenname, the member has a few others who agree with him. It just doesn't seem mannerly to point a finger at someone when my question is more broad than one individual. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just would like to know how many others might agree with him.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

I am not attacking any member, and I won’t name them. But I was amazed by what they wrote.

I can paraphrase what the member posted about presidential electoral politics,

People in the US erroneously believe that they, and not the State legislatures, elect the President.

….the only way to rectify this problem is by eliminating the popular vote for President completely.

The member was also saying that we might simply not vote for president at all. This member is correct that the state legislature is the body that determines the state EC slate. He is claiming that we don’t need people to actually go to polls, punch a ballot and vote for president. Please let us know if you agree or not.

If you are thinking that people can vote and it amounts to a straw poll, nonbinding survey, that's the first choice. If you think people are mistaken about how presidential votes are counted and they need to know, that's the second choice.
If you are thinking that The state legislature should be able to decide, but that they will never choose to override the popular vote, that's not the question here since that's a different opinionated hypothetical.
Thanks, I am just wondering if this has legs among DP members.

Time to eradicate the electoral college. We cannot have legislatures deciding to throw out their citizens votes.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Well I suggest before anyone pushes too hard to abolish 200+ years of history of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote that you do a serious study of the purpose of the electoral college and the ramifications of abolishing it.

But do so please without your rose-colored glasses on and do your best to suspend whatever biases you currently have that are prompting such abject foolishness.

 

[CaughtInThe]

every election we have people vote and then tally up the results and the one with the most votes wins. except our most important election.

and the only reason it's that way is because some guys were battling about power and influence and shit in the 1700/1800s and created a system out of thin air.



that's it. that's the entire problem.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I am not attacking any member, and I won’t name them. But I was amazed by what they wrote.

I can paraphrase what the member posted about presidential electoral politics,

People in the US erroneously believe that they, and not the State legislatures, elect the President.

….the only way to rectify this problem is by eliminating the popular vote for President completely.

The member was also saying that we might simply not vote for president at all. This member is correct that the state legislature is the body that determines the state EC slate. He is claiming that we don’t need people to actually go to polls, punch a ballot and vote for president. Please let us know if you agree or not.

If you are thinking that people can vote and it amounts to a straw poll, nonbinding survey, that's the first choice. If you think people are mistaken about how presidential votes are counted and they need to know, that's the second choice.
If you are thinking that The state legislature should be able to decide, but that they will never choose to override the popular vote, that's not the question here since that's a different opinionated hypothetical.
Thanks, I am just wondering if this has legs among DP members.

The "Republicans" are opposed to eliminating the current "Electoral College" system because they control more states.

The "Democrats" are in favor of eliminating the current "Electoral College" system because they have more voters.

However, BOTH parties would be quite happy to see the Electors chosen solely by the respective party big-wigs PROVIDED that their party was the one that got to appoint the most electors.

Quite frankly, having a direct election for an office which combines "Head of State" and "Head of Government" is a recipe for ending up with a government that is in "permanent election mode" as well as in "permanent gridlock" especially when there are only two political parties and where neither of them

can absolutely count on more than ⅓ of the voters supporting them. In fact, if those "Independents" were actually independent and only voted for the "Independent Party" candidate NEITHER the "Republicans" nor the "Democrats" would be a political force to be reckoned in American politics. (Mind you, if that were to happen in 2022, the House of Representatives would be total chaos and the Senate would be a bustling market where the votes of both the "Republicans" and the "Democrats" would be up for bids.

 

[The Mark]

The "Republicans" are opposed to eliminating the current "Electoral College" system because they control more states.

The "Democrats" are in favor of eliminating the current "Electoral College" system because they have more voters.

However, BOTH parties would be quite happy to see the Electors chosen solely by the respective party big-wigs PROVIDED that their party was the one that got to appoint the most electors.

Quite frankly, having a direct election for an office which combines "Head of State" and "Head of Government" is a recipe for ending up with a government that is in "permanent election mode" as well as in "permanent gridlock" especially when there are only two political parties and where neither of them

View attachment 67380113​

can absolutely count on more than ⅓ of the voters supporting them. In fact, if those "Independents" were actually independent and only voted for the "Independent Party" candidate NEITHER the "Republicans" nor the "Democrats" would be a political force to be reckoned in American politics. (Mind you, if that were to happen in 2022, the House of Representatives would be total chaos and the Senate would be a bustling market where the votes of both the "Republicans" and the "Democrats" would be up for bids.

Personal anecdote: I registered as a Democrat so I could get a say in at least one of the main party primaries for my state, and they're the closest to my personal positions. If PA had open primaries or some other system I probably would still be registered independent.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Yes, of course, the American people should be able to vote, and the legislature should NOT be able to reject anyone's vote.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well I suggest before anyone pushes too hard to abolish 200+ years of history of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote that you do a serious study of the purpose of the electoral college and the ramifications of abolishing it.

But do so please without your rose-colored glasses on and do your best to suspend whatever biases you currently have that are prompting such abject foolishness.

My reading of the OP, and I could be wrong. It's not about eliminating the EC.

It's about states eliminating voting for President within their state the the State Legislature directly appointing EC electors instead of the people. The US Constitution's clearly places the method of choice on the State Legislature. They can choose to have a vote, or they can choose to not have a vote and go with direct appointment.

The EC would still be there and function as it always has, it's about the method of selecting the electors.

WW

 

[EdwinWillers]

My reading of the OP, and I could be wrong. It's not about eliminating the EC.

It's about states eliminating voting for President within their state the the State Legislature directly appointing EC electors instead of the people. The US Constitution's clearly places the method of choice on the State Legislature. They can choose to have a vote, or they can choose to not have a vote and go with direct appointment.

The EC would still be there and function as it always has, it's about the method of selecting the electors.

WW

I was actually responding to a comment from another poster and the several people who "Liked" his comment. There is a growing opinion out there among a lot of people on the left, in the Democrat party, whatever, that the electoral college needs to go and be replaced by the popular vote, which, as you correctly state is not what the OP is promoting, but which is nevertheless generating such comments from some here.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Abolish the electoral college, use the popular vote.

One voter ---> one vote.

may the best man or woman with the most votes win.

Its ludicrous that this hasn't been changed already, the reasons for the EC are all gone. Constitution is in much need of updating in several different areas IMO.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Well I suggest before anyone pushes too hard to abolish 200+ years of history of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote that you do a serious study of the purpose of the electoral college and the ramifications of abolishing it.

But do so please without your rose-colored glasses on and do your best to suspend whatever biases you currently have that are prompting such abject foolishness.

It simply isn't working. It doesn't follow the will of the people, like elections are supposed to.

 

[HIP56948]

Frankly, there are a lot of State Legislators I wouldn't trust to take out my garbage when needed.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Personal anecdote: I registered as a Democrat so I could get a say in at least one of the main party primaries for my state, and they're the closest to my personal positions. If PA had open primaries or some other system I probably would still be registered independent.

Personal anecdote: I have never had to "register" (with the government) as a member of a political party to get a say in the selection of ANY political party. What I did have to do is to actually join a political party and then actually do some work - PERSONALLY - on candidate selection. That included actually talking to the potential candidates and actually asking the potential candidates questions and actually learning what the potential candidates had actually done to advance the actual concrete proposals of the political party.

The later meant that I had to actually learn what the political party actually intended to actually do in order to actually implement the concrete proposals which fleshed out its "Mom & Apple Pie" (and often weasel worded) "general statement of philosophy" (which in the US is called a "platform" but which in Canada is called "bloviating").

PS - If "A" is registered as member of "Party X" and "Party Y" comes to power, what is to stop "Party Y" from simply rounding up all of the members of "Party X" and thus perpetuating its grip on power?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, of course, the American people should be able to vote, and the legislature should NOT be able to reject anyone's vote.

And, of course, the American people ARE able to vote. Admittedly some of them can vote at a location that is mere blocks away from their residence and without waiting in line for six or seven hours for the chance to actually get into the polling location, while others can't - but that doesn't mean that the are NOT "able to vote".

And, of course, the legislatures are NOT able to reject anyone's vote. Admittedly the legislature can set ID standards so that the people who aren't likely to vote "The Right Way" are less likely to actually be able to vote and the legislature can pass laws that permit it to make decisions REGARDLESS of the way that the people vote after the people's votes have been accepted and counted - but that doesn't mean that they are "rejecting" any one person's vote.

 

[Phys251]

Well I suggest before anyone pushes too hard to abolish 200+ years of history of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote that you do a serious study of the purpose of the electoral college and the ramifications of abolishing it.

But do so please without your rose-colored glasses on and do your best to suspend whatever biases you currently have that are prompting such abject foolishness.

So just because something has been around for awhile, we should keep it? That sounds like a good argument for slavery.

 

[What if...?]

Well I suggest before anyone pushes too hard to abolish 200+ years of history of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote that you do a serious study of the purpose of the electoral college and the ramifications of abolishing it.

But do so please without your rose-colored glasses on and do your best to suspend whatever biases you currently have that are prompting such abject foolishness.

The founders spoke on this. They didn’t want a tyranny of the majority OR a tyranny of the minority, which is what we have now. A small fraction of the population has the same power as a far larger majority.

 

[TurtleDude]

Abolish the electoral college, use the popular vote.

One voter ---> one vote.

may the best man or woman with the most votes win.

Its ludicrous that this hasn't been changed already, the reasons for the EC are all gone. Constitution is in much need of updating in several different areas IMO.

All democrats care about is complete power-with the concept of federalism and a constitutional republic be damned.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Abolish the electoral college, use the popular vote.

One voter ---> one vote.

may the best man or woman with the most votes win.

Its ludicrous that this hasn't been changed already, the reasons for the EC are all gone. Constitution is in much need of updating in several different areas IMO.

Can you imagine the fun if that had applied in 2016?

Ms. Clinton would have been elected as the President of the United States of America and both the House and Senate would have been controlled by the Republicans.

The result would have been total chaos since just about the ONLY business that would be being conducted in the House of Representatives would have been impeachment hearings and since none of those impeachment hearings would have resulted in a conviction in the Senate.

 

[The Mark]

Personal anecdote: I have never had to "register" (with the government) as a member of a political party to get a say in the selection of ANY political party. What I did have to do is to actually join a political party and then actually do some work - PERSONALLY - on candidate selection. That included actually talking to the potential candidates and actually asking the potential candidates questions and actually learning what the potential candidates had actually done to advance the actual concrete proposals of the political party.

The later meant that I had to actually learn what the political party actually intended to actually do in order to actually implement the concrete proposals which fleshed out its "Mom & Apple Pie" (and often weasel worded) "general statement of philosophy" (which in the US is called a "platform" but which in Canada is called "bloviating").

PS - If "A" is registered as member of "Party X" and "Party Y" comes to power, what is to stop "Party Y" from simply rounding up all of the members of "Party X" and thus perpetuating its grip on power?

Interesting.

I'm not at all sure what conditions led to that system, but it sounds like it could be better in some ways, compared to our primary election system. Although even that is not identical across the US.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Interesting.

I'm not at all sure what conditions led to that system, but it sounds like it could be better in some ways, compared to our primary election system. Although even that is not identical across the US.

Since there are no multi-million dollar "primary races" in the electoral districts here, the fact that "Potential Candidate A" has $1,000,000,000,000,000 while "Potential Candidate B" has $50,000 doesn't cut much ice if "Potential Candidate A"

• has never actually done anything in the riding,
• is unknown to almost all of the party members in the riding,
• has never done anything "political", and
• showed up only just in time to make the deadline to register as a potential candidate

when "Potential Candidate B"

1. has lived and worked in the riding for most of their life,
2. is known to the majority of the party members in the riding,
3. has "worked for the party" for quite a while, and
4. has been a long-standing member of the party

REGARDLESS of whether or not "Potential Candidate A" looks like a Greek God on TV.

 

[What if...?]

All democrats care about is complete power-with the concept of federalism and a constitutional republic be damned.

And y’all want the minority to rule.