Lets get rid of primary elections when electing our president

[RoadRunner79]

I would also agree with your assessment about the swing states.   And that is a problem as well, which could be addressed.  However a simple majority system seems to compound the issue not solve it.

I agree that a straight popular vote system presents its own issues but I still think that the benefits have an edge over the drawbacks.

A popular vote would mean that the majority view point of the population would be represented in government, not the minority which is what's currently happening (the EC votes give Republicans the edge because of the low-population states' over representation in the EC).

That means that right now we have a president that, in addition to being wildly unpopular, is also not representing the ideology of the majority of the population he is supposed to be serving, and is now in a position to appoint a very conservative judge to the Supreme Court which then would also not represent the majority ideology of the country, and is likely to only be less and less representative as more young people age into their voting rights.

The majority of the people in this country are pro-women's rights, pro-reproductive-rights, pro-LGBT-equality, pro-DACA, etc... but we are in a position right now to have a court for the foreseeable future that is anti- all or most of these things.

I agree whole heartedly that the government should represent everyone, it shouldn't overlook the needs of the few in favor of the needs of the many, and the tyranny of the majority concept is and would be something we would have to keep in check, but that's already taken care of by the courts and many of our anti-discrimination laws.

A straight popular vote system wouldn't be perfect and it wouldn't be easy but it would more fairly represent the will of the people in choosing the individual who is meant to represent our country to the world.

(Also, we have state representatives in the congress who are and should be advocates for smaller states' issues.)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I obviously disagree, and the problem you described with the view of your mother, seems to be more concerned with a simple majority system, than an electoral college.   The issue is, that you would have that same problem, but on a country wide level.  I see the EC as a compromise.  I don't think that you would see a EC issue, if there was a 10 point or larger gap, and likely much smaller as we've had recently. 

I think that the issues of court appointees, is a whole other matter; which there are some issue there as well.

[Angrboda]

The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution. This may seem paradoxical, given that electoral votes are weighted in favor of less populous states. Wyoming, the least populous state, contains only about one-sixth of 1 percent of the U.S. population, but its three electors (of whom two are awarded only because Wyoming has two senators like every other state) give it slightly more than one-half of 1 percent of total electoral votes. But winner-take-all makes a slight increase in the popular vote have a much bigger electoral-vote payoff in a large state than in a small one. The popular vote was very close in Florida; nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small states does. And since presidents and senators are often presidential candidates, large states are likely to get additional consideration in appropriations and appointments from presidents and senators before as well as during campaigns, offsetting to some extent the effects of the malapportioned Senate on the political influence of less populous states.

In Defense of the Electoral College

If the electoral college does, as this Slate article suggests, favor big states over smaller ones, what is the justification for apportioning the smaller states representatives by virtue of their statehood? If the EC already favors big states, why not simply apportion electors according to state population, but otherwise keep things as they are with a winner-takes-all approach for each state?

[Roady, this is your chance to wow us all with your greater knowledge of why we should keep the electoral college as it is.]

[Minimalist]

That article is from 2012.  I wonder what the author thinks of it now that it has led to the biggest sack of shit ever sitting in the WH?

[Amarok]

Lots of other countries maintain population balance without an electoral college

[CapnAwesome]

Just saying it works here in Canada we have

---

Every major part in Canada 
Liberal
PC 
NPD 
Greens 

Every named minor party 
Libertarians
Wild Rose 
The marijuana party 
The non party 
The Christian Socialists

---

I would rather live under President Shithole than freeze my ass off. (Note to self, did I think that or say that?)

Just kidding. I'd Canada's views. Most of our allies are not as ass backwards as we are.

Have you ever lived somewhere else?

[Clueless Morgan]

Let's not forget that Pennsylvania was in the news recently because of gerrymandering. Given that PA is a swing state, the gerrymandering issue is a big one and yet one more reason why the EC has to go. It made my vote in my county basically pointless.

And not only is gerrymandering an issue, lawmakers are on record admitting they're doing it to gain a political advantage.

Justice Kagan wrote of partisan gerrymandering it has “become ever more extreme and durable, insulating officeholders against all but the most titanic shifts in the political tides... The 2010 redistricting cycle produced some of the worst partisan gerrymanders on record. The technology [of map-drawing software] will only get better, so the 2020 cycle will only get worse.”

But this is a little beside the point because presidential elections, the only ones decided by the electoral college, aren't voted on according to congressional districts. So even if North Carolina, which was terribly gerrymandered to favor Republicans, voted 60% D and 40% R, the state would go blue for the electoral college even though 10 of its 13 districts are gerrymandered to go Republican.

Gerrymandering influences the House of Representatives not the presidential vote.

It's still fucking awful though.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I obviously disagree, and the problem you described with the view of your mother, seems to be more concerned with a simple majority system, than an electoral college.   The issue is, that you would have that same problem, but on a country wide level.  I see the EC as a compromise.  I don't think that you would see a EC issue, if there was a 10 point or larger gap, and likely much smaller as we've had recently.

If there was a 10 point or larger gap in polling? What are you referring to?

In any case, I think we may have a fundamentally different view of what the office of the president is meant to reflect. To me, the president is not only the face we give to the world and not only the commander in chief, but is also the thought-leader of the country, the one meant to represent The People as whole as opposed to senators who reflect their states, or congresspeople who represent their districts (or at least should be representative of their districts).

Don't forget, either, that we have a whole other branch of the government that is meant to represent people all over the country at a more granular scale. The president isn't the sole advocate of the people.

If the majority of the country is moving toward LGBT equality then we should have a president that will fight to take us there. If the majority wants a blanket ban on abortion access then the president should push for that. If the people agree that climate change is a major issue facing us in the future, we should have a president who will work toward ways to combat it. Instead, what we've been getting with the electoral college system twice in the last five elections, is a president that the majority of the people didn't vote for who hold views the majority of people don't share, and in the case of our current president, is only interested in doing things to please the most extreme subsection of his own party.

Every other office that we elect is elected by popular vote. Why not the office that represents The People?

[RoadRunner79]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I obviously disagree, and the problem you described with the view of your mother, seems to be more concerned with a simple majority system, than an electoral college.   The issue is, that you would have that same problem, but on a country wide level.  I see the EC as a compromise.  I don't think that you would see a EC issue, if there was a 10 point or larger gap, and likely much smaller as we've had recently.

If there was a 10 point or larger gap in polling?  What are you referring to?

In any case, I think we may have a fundamentally different view of what the office of the president is meant to reflect.  To me, the president is not only the face we give to the world and not only the commander in chief, but is also the thought-leader of the country, the one meant to represent The People as whole as opposed to senators who reflect their states, or congresspeople who represent their districts (or at least should be representative of their districts).

Don't forget, either, that we have a whole other branch of the government that is meant to represent people all over the country at a more granular scale.  The president isn't the sole advocate of the people.

If the majority of the country is moving toward LGBT equality then we should have a president that will fight to take us there.  If the majority wants a blanket ban on abortion access then the president should push for that.  If the people agree that climate change is a major issue facing us in the future, we should have a president who will work toward ways to combat it.  Instead, what we've been getting with the electoral college system twice in the last five elections, is a president that the majority of the people didn't vote for who hold views the majority of people don't share, and in the case of our current president, is only interested in doing things to please the most extreme subsection of his own party.

Every other office that we elect is elected by popular vote.  Why not the office that represents The People?

What I meant by a 10 point or larger gap, is 10% (rather than 2.1% or 0.5%. And I agree that the President is suppose to represent the majority of the country, and I have said, not just a majority of the voters (Note: the correct term would actually be a "plurality" here, neither had a majority). And in 230 years it has come into play 5 times.

The main objection seems to be that the EC is not democratic, but we are a republic not a democracy. And this is a part of that set up in the constitution. In addition, if you look for those explaining and supporting the electoral college, there are a number of other reasons. They endorse the two party system, and largely credit it to the EC. Where instead of having numerous parties with narrow political focus, it forces candidates to appeal to a broader consensus of voters. This made me re-think having more parties and choices. It keeps things more towards the middle (at least in theory). That it prevents run-off elections, and for the most part voter re-counts in close races. It's not designed to promote any particular party, nor to favor any particular position.

What you seem to be describing is a pure democracy, which has a number of problems. Do we change the laws, every time the mob has a swing in opinion? We take a vote for each issue? We could get rid of all the branches, and let everyone decide? Perhaps the majority in the cities don't think that farms are that important, or that we can ignore the rust belt and industry. Do you think the nation will be prosperous if we neglect them? A candidate could win with more votes, but far less states and regions. The Presidents job is to be the executive head of the country. He doesn't create laws (which you have representatives for) and he needs to run the country in a way that represents all of it, not just a plurality of people, but all regions and ways of life.

One common thing I kept reading in looking online, is a suggestion, that perhaps instead of trying to circumvent the constitution, perhaps rather than complaining, the democrats should be looking to appeal to more of the country.

[Silver]

 

One common thing I kept reading in looking online, is a suggestion, that perhaps instead of trying to circumvent the constitution, perhaps rather than complaining, the democrats should be looking to appeal to more of the country.

Or maybe this, which makes more sense:

[RoadRunner79]

 

One common thing I kept reading in looking online, is a suggestion, that perhaps instead of trying to circumvent the constitution, perhaps rather than complaining, the democrats should be looking to appeal to more of the country.

Or maybe this, which makes more sense:

I agree very much with that!

[Clueless Morgan]

What you seem to be describing is a pure democracy, which has a number of problems.

I'm not advocating for a pure democracy, I'm saying we should get rid of the electoral college. Everything (most everything) else would remain the same in terms of being a representative republic.