• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proposition for changing the US presidential popular-vote

I would only find electing a President by popular vote acceptable if it required winning the election by more than 50% of the eligible voters in each and every State.
I would however support a Constitutional amendment requiring each States EV be applied to the candidate winning the most votes, and eliminating the Electoral college completely, requiring a runoff election between the top two candidates in the case of a tied election.
Ideally, IMO, all politics within the U.S.A. should be more State and local, with Federal laws written/defined clearly and concisely yet broadly enough to allow leeway for States to comply with variation.
Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments, also IMO, would begin to allow people to retake control of government by exercising democracy within the limits they allow their Representatives in Congress to be exercised upon our Constitutional Republic.
 
I would only find electing a President by popular vote acceptable if it required winning the election by more than 50% of the eligible voters in each and every State.
I would however support a Constitutional amendment requiring each States EV be applied to the candidate winning the most votes, and eliminating the Electoral college completely, requiring a runoff election between the top two candidates in the case of a tied election.
Ideally, IMO, all politics within the U.S.A. should be more State and local, with Federal laws written/defined clearly and concisely yet broadly enough to allow leeway for States to comply with variation.
Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments, also IMO, would begin to allow people to retake control of government by exercising democracy within the limits they allow their Representatives in Congress to be exercised upon our Constitutional Republic.
Ranked choice voting would work too. Voting is enough of a Huge Deal without having a run off. Double trouble, the way the last one went.
 
Ranked choice voting would work too. Voting is enough of a Huge Deal without having a run off. Double trouble, the way the last one went.
I really don't have much interest in changing the way we elect a President, and would much more prefer repealing the 17th amendment returning the Senate to be representative of the State governments.
 
We must fix the manner in which the winner of the popular-vote can lose an election to the presidency. Which is wholly unacceptable to a truly fair and honest democracy.

Ours is dysfunctional because it does not reflect the pure total-vote of the presidency due to a dishonest manipulation of the vote-count in the Electoral College (EC). Only the pure total popular-vote is acceptable in any Real Democracy.

At the basis of the EC is a law passed and signed by Ulysses S. Grant in 1877. Voting needs a more modern rethink.

One that the basics of which might look like this:
*Only registered electronic-voting-machines are authorized to account for and deliver to DC electronically the presidential vote by state! (That method of communication can be made non-manipulable externally.)
*Each state decides (and is responsible for) how only Registered Voters access the also registered voting-machines (for the Presidency and Congress). Said machines can be kept under permanent-scrutiny to assure no tampering.
*The original vote-count - certified in each state by its Electoral College - is then sent to the head of both Houses of Congress that publishes the count immediately on their Web-site (the same date, hour and second programmed).
*The winner of the vote is then publicly simultaneously announced by the Senate and the HofR on their respective web-sites.


If and only if the above were passed into law by Congress and signed by the PotUS.

Which I think, btw, is highly unlikely - but you are most welcome to comment ...

PS: Comments adding to or subtracted from the above most-welcome!
This is really a stupid idea and shows a real ignorance of why the electoral college was instituted in the first place. First lets clear up one thing, we are not a democracy, we are a republic and if you do not know the difference you need to learn it.
If you have a popular vote system, it will be the end of the United States as we know it. The country will denigrate. A popular vote system would concentrate all the political power in just 3 or 4 States and leave the rest of the country without proper representation at the Federal level. That will soon turn to decent and to civil war. We are a nation of individual sovereign States, and every State needs to have a somewhat equal standing in its representation in the Federal Government .
Our country is more divided now than at any time since the civil war, and if the popular vote is ever enacted, we will surely see another one.
 
This is really a stupid idea and shows a real ignorance of why the electoral college was instituted in the first place. First lets clear up one thing, we are not a democracy, we are a republic and if you do not know the difference you need to learn it.

Oh, yeah. Let's exchange about a "stoopid notion" in red above!

YOU NEED BADLY TO TAKE A COURSE IN "CIVICS"!

Definition of "civics": the study or science of the privileges and obligations of citizens. Civic education is the study of the theoretical, political and practical aspects of citizenship, as well as its rights and duties.
 
I would love to see ranked choice voting for President, instead of the exhausting primary process to winnow down to two candidates. It would expand voter choice and open the field to more candidates.

Also, if you use electronic voting machines, they absolutely must produce a paper ballot to verify against.
 
I really don't have much interest in changing the way we elect a President, and would much more prefer repealing the 17th amendment returning the Senate to be representative of the State governments.
That's interesting. What would be the benefit of repealing the 17th?
 
This is really a stupid idea and shows a real ignorance of why the electoral college was instituted in the first place. First lets clear up one thing, we are not a democracy, we are a republic and if you do not know the difference you need to learn it.
PLEASE aren't there already enough threads on this topic?
If you have a popular vote system, it will be the end of the United States as we know it. The country will denigrate.
You mean deteriorate?
A popular vote system would concentrate all the political power in just 3 or 4 States and leave the rest of the country without proper representation at the Federal level. That will soon turn to decent and to civil war.
Why should citizens of smaller states have a greater say in the selection of the President than citizens of larger states?
We are a nation of individual sovereign States, and every State needs to have a somewhat equal standing in its representation in the Federal Government .
Our country is more divided now than at any time since the civil war, and if the popular vote is ever enacted, we will surely see another one.
Honestly, what benefits does the nation derive in this day and age from state sovereignty? States are excellent laboratories for public policies, but why should states as entities take primacy over citizens? After all, states are made up of citizens, and those citizens of smaller states get way more representation in the Senate than the citizens of more populous states. Wyoming has 574,000 residents, California almost 40 million. How is the nation better off with 285,000 Wyomingites getting the same Senate influence as 20 million fellow citizens in CA?
 
The reason Democrats want to eliminate the electoral college is so that they can steal the presidency by only one state as fraudulent vote totals in one state then equates fraudulent votes in all states.
 
That's interesting. What would be the benefit of repealing the 17th?

It was stated in my post.
"I really don't have much interest in changing the way we elect a President, and would much more prefer repealing the 17th amendment returning the Senate to be representative of the State governments."

But to really begin to fix our problems would also require repealing the 16th amendment as well.
 
We must fix the manner in which the winner of the popular-vote can lose an election to the presidency. Which is wholly unacceptable to a truly fair and honest democracy.

Ours is dysfunctional because it does not reflect the pure total-vote of the presidency due to a dishonest manipulation of the vote-count in the Electoral College (EC). Only the pure total popular-vote is acceptable in any Real Democracy.

At the basis of the EC is a law passed and signed by Ulysses S. Grant in 1877. Voting needs a more modern rethink.

One that the basics of which might look like this:
*Only registered electronic-voting-machines are authorized to account for and deliver to DC electronically the presidential vote by state! (That method of communication can be made non-manipulable externally.)
*Each state decides (and is responsible for) how only Registered Voters access the also registered voting-machines (for the Presidency and Congress). Said machines can be kept under permanent-scrutiny to assure no tampering.
*The original vote-count - certified in each state by its Electoral College - is then sent to the head of both Houses of Congress that publishes the count immediately on their Web-site (the same date, hour and second programmed).
*The winner of the vote is then publicly simultaneously announced by the Senate and the HofR on their respective web-sites.


If and only if the above were passed into law by Congress and signed by the PotUS.

Which I think, btw, is highly unlikely - but you are most welcome to comment ...

PS: Comments adding to or subtracted from the above most-welcome!
The rationale for the EC would be that intelligent, reasonable electors could overrule a popular vote that favored a totally unqualified, unfit demagogue. As in, stupid masses, they'll be swayed by any lying conman, let's make sure cooler heads prevail. But Trump proved that the EC currently fails that test utterly. SO ... if we are just going to let any narcissistic madman be president, it might as well be the one who wins the most votes , and **** the EC. Yet another high ideal destroyed by Trumpism, throw it on the pile with the rest of them.
 
TRUE DEMOCRACY

I would love to see ranked choice voting for President, instead of the exhausting primary process to winnow down to two candidates. It would expand voter choice and open the field to more candidates.

Also, if you use electronic voting machines, they absolutely must produce a paper ballot to verify against.

The "European System" (if there is a "system" of voting) is to have multiple parties fighting one another for the vote. Typically, most countries do not have the US system of only two major parties. Some think that is "more efficient". And it is - but in name only.

What happens is that party-beliefs are based on individual private-sentiments and not that of the public as a whole. Of course, if a nation's majority of citizens think that Rich Politicians should run politics, then the country surrenders to the political domination run by a singular political-ethic, meaning this:
"What's best of us is best for them!"

Which is what I suggest is happening today. One of the two-only parties has manipulated the popular-vote to obtain either the presidency or, next best, the control of either major party of Congress. The brute purpose of which is to manipulate policy-outcomes voted into law.

The Rabid-Right's notion of "democracy" is to control it wherever/whenever the Replicant Party can do so. This notion is monolithic and says, effectively, "No, we don't believe in a Royal Regency! We believe in "democracy", but only as WE DEFINE it!" (Which is, yes, a contradiction of terms!)

On the Right is rhetorical hyper-ventilation of a brainless mentality that resembles the autocracy of the Nazis or either Russian or Chinese Communism. It constitutes "One Party Control of the political law-making system" and thus the purse-strings of any so-called "government of the people".

The reality of True Democracy is simple: The people must vote THEIR preference amongst a number of political-inspirations, beliefs and theories. THAT is a True Democracy ... a real scramble of political ideals!

It is far more difficult to run, because "political inspiration" can take many colors in order to manipulate public opinion. It is nonetheless much more democratic in opinions expressed than any kind of singular "political doctrine" ...
 
It was stated in my post.
"I really don't have much interest in changing the way we elect a President, and would much more prefer repealing the 17th amendment returning the Senate to be representative of the State governments."

But to really begin to fix our problems would also require repealing the 16th amendment as well.
Your post stated the consequence of repealing the 17th but not what the benefit would be. Perhaps you could elaborate on why more representation of the State governments would be better than the current system.
 
The reason Democrats want to eliminate the electoral college is so that they can steal the presidency by only one state as fraudulent vote totals in one state then equates fraudulent votes in all states.
This statement is so confusing and freighted with assumption and speculation.that I can't even formulate a clarifying question.
 
This statement is so confusing and freighted with assumption and speculation.that I can't even formulate a clarifying question.
Half a million fraudulent Democratic ballots in California under the current system would not change the election outcome as California will go Democrat regardless.

However, half a million fraudulent votes shift if the election by popular vote would have reversed at least 5 elections, including Nixon would have defeated JFK. It also would reserve the Bush-Gore election. Nor would the first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson, have won.

With a national popular vote, Republicans could steal the entire election in just one state such as Texas and Florida - and Democrats could steal the entire election in just one state such as California and New York.

It also means any glitch in any state jams up the entire election nationwide. It literally could result in NEVER knowing the outcome of the election. Lose of ballots (fire, theft etc) in just one state could erase the entire election, where with the EC for most elections one state would make any difference so would be a moot legal issue.
 
It is interesting that now Democrats are apparently claiming every election for every office in the entire history of the USA have been fraudulent, racist and the outcome was by denying people the right to vote - because the Democratic Party claims that without drop boxes where people can drop off ballots with no confirmation whatsoever over who is casting the vote no election is legitimate. Therefore, according to the Democratic Party, all elections In US history have been fraudulent, racist and did not represent the will of the voters because without ballot drop boxes everywhere an election isn't legitimate.
 
Your post stated the consequence of repealing the 17th but not what the benefit would be. Perhaps you could elaborate on why more representation of the State governments would be better than the current system.
Actually it would require repealing both the 16th and 17th amendments to achieve the benefit of bringing government more under control of the people.
 
A total popular vote system in the US would make every US president the president of large US cities only.

A huge problem is that electors are not bound to the decisions of their states. Many can simply decide to go maverick.

There are two solutions within their two party system. One is to force the electors to vote based on the results of the election. Another is to not use electors but rather just use the results of the election to create a virtual electoral college. Both would require US constitutional amendments.

(I might mention here that if the electoral college system favoured US Democrats this would not be an issue or that the US left would be silent about it or say that it is an example of how the system works)

Of course the best solution of all would be to establish a parliamentary system but that will never happen as US Democrats and Republicans know how to keep each other in power, make deals and insure their political power in the country where US power means so much internationally.
 
HOW THE U.S. SCREWS-UP THE POPULAR-VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENCY

I would only find electing a President by popular vote acceptable if it required winning the election by more than 50% of the eligible voters in each and every State.

The worst that can happen in a two-run "Popular Vote" is that a number of individuals would be up for election in a first run. Which would reduce to the top-two selected for a second-run. The winner of the second vote would be elected PotUS.

The most important result would be that the vote is "natural" and not "manipulated" by by an intermediary Electoral College - which is of no real consequence whatsoever. Do you understand the fact that whoever wins the EC-vote assumes all those votes. Which is contrary to the essence of the popular-vote! The proportion of the vote for each candidate should be maintained and totaled to designate the winner for the entire country!

But no, it has to go to an Electoral College in the aggregate - that is all the votes for any state (according to it population size) go the winner! The loser gets none! Which means that those who voted for the loser find that their vote is simply not counted in the Electoral College.

How unfair in a popular-vote can a country get! In which way is that rule fair-and-honest - that votes against the candidate are counted "for the candidate" who wins all the Electoral College votes?


The present EC-vote screws-up royally the popular vote and can have a minority-vote candidate win the election. (Which has happened 5 times in history!) Anyone who might want to have THAT result of a national popular-vote (for the Head of state) happen should have their head examined!

Since 1803, that is EXACTLY the manner in which the Head of state is selected in America! With the result that five times in history the LOSER of the popular-vote was elected PotUS. But, hey, That's OK! Because it's the law!

The countries that have adopted the Electoral College system of electing the Head of state: Burundi, Estonia, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago and Vanuatu - and the USA ...

PS: The Electoral College explained
 

Attachments

  • 1625038032782.gif
    1625038032782.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 1
  • 1625038089403.gif
    1625038089403.gif
    42 bytes · Views: 1
Last edited:
This statement is so confusing and freighted with assumption and speculation.that I can't even formulate a clarifying question.

Welcome to the Club of Inanities where any debate about democratic-fairness turns into a mud-slinging match with Right-wing idiots.

What-in-hell did they take for a Civics-course in high-school ... ????
 
HOW THE U.S. SCREWS-UP THE POPULAR-VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENCY



The worst that can happen in a two-run "Popular Vote" is that a number of individuals would be up for election in a first run. Which would reduce to the top-two selected for a second-run. The winner of the second vote would be elected PotUS.

The most important result would be that the vote is "natural" and not "manipulated" by by an intermediary Electoral College - which is of no real consequence whatsoever. Do you understand the fact that whoever wins the EC-vote assumes all those votes. Which is contrary to the essence of the popular-vote! The proportion of the vote for each candidate should be maintained and totaled to designate the winner for the entire country!

But no, it has to go to an Electoral College in the aggregate - that is all the votes for any state (according to it population size) go the winner! The loser gets none! Which means that those who voted for the loser find that their vote is simply not counted in the Electoral College.

How unfair in a popular-vote can a country get! In which way is that rule fair-and-honest - that votes against the candidate are counted "for the candidate" who wins all the Electoral College votes?


The present EC-vote screws-up royally the popular vote and can have a minority-vote candidate win the election. (Which has happened 5 times in history!) Anyone who might want to have THAT result of a national popular-vote (for the Head of state) happen should have their head examined!

Since 1803, that is EXACTLY the manner in which the Head of state is selected in America! With the result that five times in history the LOSER of the popular-vote was elected PotUS. But, hey, That's OK! Because it's the law!

The countries that have adopted the Electoral College system of electing the Head of state: Burundi, Estonia, India, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad, Tobago and Vanuatu - and the USA ...

PS: The Electoral College explained
I'd have no problem eliminating the Electoral College, simply applying the EV (winner take all).
 
It was stated in my post.
"I really don't have much interest in changing the way we elect a President, and would much more prefer repealing the 17th amendment returning the Senate to be representative of the State governments."

But to really begin to fix our problems would also require repealing the 16th amendment as well.

Nope, all that aint gonna happin!

And you have no idea apparently how unfair the present electoral system is in the US. The popular-vote is the heart of any true democracy - and that is NOT THE CASE in the US (just because you learned it as such in high-school Civics)!

The disgrace that you refuse to acknowledge is that five times the popular-vote HAS NOT ELECTED THE WINNER! And that is just "fundamental logic" that seems lost on many Yanks today! Clearly the voting process MUST BE CORRECTED, heads-of-state are elected not by "committees" but directly by the people!

Another idiocy on your part is to want the Senate to assume the responsibility of "representing state governments", which means Oklahoma has as many votes as New York State. Any popular-vote of elective office must be genuinely an expression of the preponderant popular-vote. It is the heart of any democracy that stipulates that the majority-rule is observed in elections!

As well, in your preference for inanities, you suggest that the 16th amendment be annulled. Which effectively means no more presidency and the states can all do as they like. That is, it turns the political-structure of the United States upside-down - no more effective Federal government! And the states decide EVERYTHING for themselves!

Brilliant stoopidity, all that ... !
 
I'd have no problem eliminating the Electoral College, simply applying the EV (winner take all).

Winner-take-all is NOT a fair democratic rule. Never has been, and never will be.

And, I am beginning to understand here in this forum how badly the US has screwed-up the teaching of the fundamental precepts of a Functional Democracy ...
 
Nope, all that aint gonna happin!

And you have no idea apparently how unfair the present electoral system is in the US. The popular-vote is the heart of any true democracy - and that is NOT THE CASE in the US (just because you learned it as such in high-school Civics)!

The disgrace that you refuse to acknowledge is that five times the popular-vote HAS NOT ELECTED THE WINNER! And that is just "fundamental logic" that seems lost on many Yanks today! Clearly the voting process MUST BE CORRECTED, heads-of-state are elected not by "committees" but directly by the people!

Another idiocy on your part is to want the Senate to assume the responsibility of "representing state governments", which means Oklahoma has as many votes as New York State. Any popular-vote of elective office must be genuinely an expression of the preponderant popular-vote. It is the heart of any democracy that stipulates that the majority-rule is observed in elections!

As well, in your preference for inanities, you suggest that the 16th amendment be annulled. Which effectively means no more presidency and the states can all do as they like. That is, it turns the political-structure of the United States upside-down - no more effective Federal government! And the states decide EVERYTHING for themselves!

Brilliant stoopidity, all that ... !
Then all I can offer are my condolences.

I don't recall being taught our government being founded as a "true democracy" in neither High School or College.

I only can acknowledge the fact that in each and every election since our founding the rules determined the winner.

And I find it even more idiotic to suggest the idea of any fairness resulting from centralized majority rule government of our 50 State nation.

Actually I've suggested both the 16th and the 17th amendments should be repealed. There would still be a Presidency, and States would still be required to obey the U.S. Constitution as well as Federal laws and their own State Constitutions. The States would NOT decide everything for themselves, but might exercise variations in achieving results within the laws which they collectively allow to be created by the Federal level of government.

And I found your post lacking of any brilliance in its stoopidity [sic].
 
Winner-take-all is NOT a fair democratic rule. Never has been, and never will be.

And, I am beginning to understand here in this forum how badly the US has screwed-up the teaching of the fundamental precepts of a Functional Democracy ...
But we're NOT a "true democracy", Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

I agree with your comment about our schooling, it has changed drastically since I finished High School in 1953.
 
Back
Top Bottom