Its worth considering IMHO. I think we'd also need a runoff system so the President has at least 50% plus 1 vote. And since US citizenship will become the new prerequisite to vote for President and not state citizenship; Puerto Ricans, Virgin Islanders, Guam citizens and American Samoans would get the right to vote for POTUS, something they've wanted for a while.
On the downside, we'd still have "irrelevant" parts of the country as nearly all the focus could be on reaching major metropolitan areas who's values and concerns are often sharply different than rural America.
Direct elections does seem for fair however; one man, one vote.
I really don't know. I have been in favor of abolishing the electoral college most of my life, but in just the last few years have seen good arguments for keeping it. Hence, my opinion now is "I don't know".We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.
Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?
.)I have to say that I agree that a 51% majority factor is slightly unerving. Any time 51% can impose a decision on 49%...it doesn't quite sit right with me.
Not to mention direct democracy is not such a grand thing. Things like amendments that can get voted on because of direct democracy is idiotic and they do that in my state. It is a dumb idea. I can understand voting for people, but I still don't quite like the idea.
Every single vote counts now.
Only California and 19 others would count and the candidates wouldn't be visiting New Hampshire, or Iowa.
I disagree, if im a canidate this would only happen if the super majority of people in those states like me and did NOT like my opponent.
otherwise i would have to go to little places also
for example if the 20 states of your picking had 100million voters and say 60 of them liked me by polling thats great
but
that leaves 40 million votes and that other guy is DEFINITELY going other places like Iowa (if he wants to win) to try and get another 21million votes so i will HAVE to go also to stop him
im not saying its impossible im saying the strs have to really be aligned to make it happen and theres a slim chance it could happen today too (places being ignored)
I think a direct vote would be AWESOME BUT also make it for a minimum of 3 maybe more candidates and second place should be the vice
It's prudent to go where they can hit the most voters at once. There is a possibility to cobble together a bunch of small states, but the cost would be enormous, better to mine votes in more populous areas.
But you still get electoral votes based on population anyhow. The way it stands now, because the liberals outnumber the conservatives in California, every vote in California will almost always go to the liberal candidate. My vote doesn't count because all electoral votes are going to Obama regardless.
Why vote for president at all?
They certainly don't count equally.
That is nonsense since California does not vote as a block. One cannot count on ALL of California or all of any state. If one only courts part of the country, one will lose, because no one can win all, or even more than a 60 or 70 percent lead of any given geographic area. A candidate would have to appeal to the whole nation.
You miss my point. Of course because California does not vote as a block, candidates would focus where the most votes are to had for the least campaign money. California's voters would be courted to a much greater extent than they are now. Romney has hardly visited there because 60% of the vote went to Obama the last time. He hasn't really made his case there. Take away the EC and the next Republican candidate will spend loads more time there, taking away from the states he is spending more time in now. I like that they have to spend time in places like Nevada and Ohio and such.
Texas would be the same story. Though a red state now, there is no serious contest there for Democrats.
They wouldn't appeal to the whole nation, just those with the most votes to offer.
I see the only way for us to have a fair election is to get rid of it.We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.
Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?
From a previous Poll of the same.I voted no. I am too lazy to explain why, when someone has already done so in an older thread:
Ah, because the State itself needs to be recognized separately from the People?
We are a Nation of States, not a Nation of individuals.
Why should a minority of States with the largest populations be able to dictate to a majority of States who will be the President?
The Electoral College strikes a balance. Does it not?
No, the Electoral College serves a purpose.
The People were never meant to vote for the President.
To allow this would be unfair/unequal representation of the States.
The People already have their representation through Congress.
... The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. ...
Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.... The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. ...
Exactly. Because the President represents the States of the Union, and the States choose.Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.
I usually use a hand of poker as my example.Exactly. Because the President represents the States of the Union, and the States choose.
In the absurd; If a State wanted it to be contingent on the date of a "smelt run" it could.
Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.
Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.
Any way you do it, some states are going to be looked over. That's just reality. I think more states will be focused on though through a popular vote method though.Only California and 19 others would count and the candidates wouldn't be visiting New Hampshire, or Iowa.
The example that I received was a coin toss. It was given to me by an eighth grade history teacher in the Great Lakes Region 30+ years ago.I usually use a hand of poker as my example.
WTF?And the electors are not required to vote the way the people they are supposed to be representing want them to. There have been times in history where electors have decided screw the people, we're voting the way we want.
That's ridiculous.
Every single vote counts now.
I left off another discussed alternative of the President being selected by the members of the House of Representatives of Congress. This would be indirect democracy but on a nationwide basis. Many countries have such a system.
And the electors are not required to vote the way the people they are supposed to be representing want them to. There have been times in history where electors have decided screw the people, we're voting the way we want.
That's ridiculous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?