- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In one of my threads, I talked about precisely why the founders put the electoral college in place and why it is now obsolete: http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-us-presidential-election/271294-something-electoral-college.html
Now I will talk about the different voting methods:
Our first system is the current one: the winner take all system. Technically, there's not one presidential election but 54 (DC plus the way Maine and Nebraska do it). It's a first past the post election in which the candidate who wins the most votes in a state wins all of the electors for that state. Each state gets 2 electors for their senators and however many electors as there are representatives. Since 2 additional electors is more compared to wyoming's 1 representative than california's 52, it's weighted of small states. Supporters of this system state (no pun intended) that it protects "flyover states" from being trampled by the big states. However, this system's biggest downfall is that it concentrates the election down to the swing states and that political minority votes in safe states don't matter. In this election, 4 million people voted for trump in california which is roughly the amount of total votes in arizona and colorado combined. However, both of those states get more attention than california because the latter is a safe state. Every state except Nebraska and Maine uses this method.
Speaking of Wyoming and Maine, the second method for organizing votes is via the congressional district method. Each congressional district gets 1 elector and 2 electors go to the candidate who won the state popular vote. This system seems like a good alternative to our current WTA system as 14 districts in california would go red while 8 in texas would be blue. However, this system ends up being worse than winner take all as now who becomes our next president can be affected by gerrymandering. In 2012, Mitt Romney won most of the districts in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania even though he lost all 3 of those states. Not only that but Romney would have been our current president even though he lost the popular vote. This system is skewed towards republicans because cities tend to vote strongly democrat while more rural areas are slightly republican.
This one is pretty simple. It's the national popular vote. Opponents point out that the founders wanted to prevent "direct democracy". At that time, the only experiences the world had with democracy were chaotic. Today however, a majority of the world's countries are democratic. Every elected office in the US is elected via this method except for the president. A direct democracy would be one where the people vote on every issue while a republic is one where the people vote for officials who represent them and make laws; a national popular vote would not change that. Another concern is that NPV would consolidate the election down to the big cities. However, if this was true, then Trump and hillary would have only campaigned in Cleveland and Columbus when in ohio rather than several parts of the state.
The last method is like the first wta method except it's proportional. This seems like a great method considering that it keeps it out of big cities like our current system and is proportional like npv. However, it could keep either candidate from getting a majority should a third party candidate win enough votes in enough states, causing it to go to the house which could end up electing a candidate with less votes. This happened in 1824 when John Quincy Adams got the most votes but thanks to 2 other candidates, Andrew Jackson ended up being the victor. This was because the third and fourth parties plus the proportionate electoral system in some states prevented a majority.
Now I will talk about the different voting methods:
Our first system is the current one: the winner take all system. Technically, there's not one presidential election but 54 (DC plus the way Maine and Nebraska do it). It's a first past the post election in which the candidate who wins the most votes in a state wins all of the electors for that state. Each state gets 2 electors for their senators and however many electors as there are representatives. Since 2 additional electors is more compared to wyoming's 1 representative than california's 52, it's weighted of small states. Supporters of this system state (no pun intended) that it protects "flyover states" from being trampled by the big states. However, this system's biggest downfall is that it concentrates the election down to the swing states and that political minority votes in safe states don't matter. In this election, 4 million people voted for trump in california which is roughly the amount of total votes in arizona and colorado combined. However, both of those states get more attention than california because the latter is a safe state. Every state except Nebraska and Maine uses this method.
Speaking of Wyoming and Maine, the second method for organizing votes is via the congressional district method. Each congressional district gets 1 elector and 2 electors go to the candidate who won the state popular vote. This system seems like a good alternative to our current WTA system as 14 districts in california would go red while 8 in texas would be blue. However, this system ends up being worse than winner take all as now who becomes our next president can be affected by gerrymandering. In 2012, Mitt Romney won most of the districts in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania even though he lost all 3 of those states. Not only that but Romney would have been our current president even though he lost the popular vote. This system is skewed towards republicans because cities tend to vote strongly democrat while more rural areas are slightly republican.
This one is pretty simple. It's the national popular vote. Opponents point out that the founders wanted to prevent "direct democracy". At that time, the only experiences the world had with democracy were chaotic. Today however, a majority of the world's countries are democratic. Every elected office in the US is elected via this method except for the president. A direct democracy would be one where the people vote on every issue while a republic is one where the people vote for officials who represent them and make laws; a national popular vote would not change that. Another concern is that NPV would consolidate the election down to the big cities. However, if this was true, then Trump and hillary would have only campaigned in Cleveland and Columbus when in ohio rather than several parts of the state.
The last method is like the first wta method except it's proportional. This seems like a great method considering that it keeps it out of big cities like our current system and is proportional like npv. However, it could keep either candidate from getting a majority should a third party candidate win enough votes in enough states, causing it to go to the house which could end up electing a candidate with less votes. This happened in 1824 when John Quincy Adams got the most votes but thanks to 2 other candidates, Andrew Jackson ended up being the victor. This was because the third and fourth parties plus the proportionate electoral system in some states prevented a majority.
