Lets get rid of primary elections when electing our president

[Angrboda]

Are you differentiating between the interests of the country as a whole and the interests of its individuals?  If so, I'd have to ask what you mean by the former, and why it should be privileged over the latter?   How does the representative being elected change what we consider to be the relevant interests?  You seem to have simply reasserted your prior position using different language without actually justifying it.  If, as you seem to be suggesting, empty farmland has as much interest in who leads the country as its people do, then I'd have to say I don't find your position at all persuasive.  The only reason empty farmland has interests derives from the fact that its fate is of interest to the people who own that farmland.  Even by your own argument, ultimately it comes down to the interests of the people, not some mysterious proxy which you somehow equate as "the country as a whole."  You don't appear to have an argument.  

I don't know offhand whether states rights and representation biased towards states rather than populations favors Republicans, but I'd be rather suspicious of your argument if it does.  The election of Trump in spite of him having fewer individuals vote for him than Clinton seems to confirm my suspicions, at least as far as this last election is concerned.   The last time before this that the majority vote lost the election it was also a Republican, George W. Bush.  Given your inability to clearly articulate a justification for your position, I have to say that my suspicions have been aroused.

I'm not sure what you believe I'm being unclear on.  And while I may concede empty farmland (doesn't get a vote), running farms however have people and interests which I think should be included in the priorities of the head of state.  Even in the current electoral college system, It is difficult for the lower population areas to overcome the big cities.  It only comes into play when the votes are close anyway.  I think that you are playing dumb, when you try talk about a proxy "Country as a whole" and empty farmland.  It's empty rhetoric, to diverge from the idea at hand.

It's also not about which side wins.  The parties could change, and the system could favor the other side in these cases.  This seems to be more of a concern for you, than it is for me, and ignores the ideology behind it.  That you don't even see why there is an electoral college in the first place, or seemly understand that there is an argument to begin with, makes me think that you aren't in a position to argue at all.  Or perhaps this is just a tactic of polemics.

You haven't presented any "idea at hand." All you've basically said is that you believe that something other than individual interest should determine representation because you believe that. You haven't given any real identification of what that something is, nor why you feel it should justify a different apportionment of representation than that dictated by individual interest. You haven't explained dick, and I find the accusation that I'm spouting empty rhetoric to be ironic in the extreme. You haven't justified your opinion by anything other than merely reasserting it.

There may be justifications for the electoral college, but so far you haven't presented any of them. Either you do have such a justification in mind and are simply doing a shit job of representing it, or you yourself are engaging in empty rhetoric. So stop with the ad hominem bullshit and get on with the argument, if you have one.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm not sure what you believe I'm being unclear on.  And while I may concede empty farmland (doesn't get a vote), running farms however have people and interests which I think should be included in the priorities of the head of state.  Even in the current electoral college system, It is difficult for the lower population areas to overcome the big cities.  It only comes into play when the votes are close anyway.  I think that you are playing dumb, when you try talk about a proxy "Country as a whole" and empty farmland.  It's empty rhetoric, to diverge from the idea at hand.

It's also not about which side wins.  The parties could change, and the system could favor the other side in these cases.  This seems to be more of a concern for you, than it is for me, and ignores the ideology behind it.  That you don't even see why there is an electoral college in the first place, or seemly understand that there is an argument to begin with, makes me think that you aren't in a position to argue at all.  Or perhaps this is just a tactic of polemics.

You haven't presented any "idea at hand."  All you've basically said is that you believe that something other than individual interest should determine representation because you believe that.  You haven't given any real identification of what that something is, nor why you feel it should justify a different apportionment of representation than that dictated by individual interest.  You haven't explained dick, and I find the accusation that I'm spouting empty rhetoric to be ironic in the extreme.  You haven't justified your opinion by anything other than merely reasserting it.

There may be justifications for the electoral college, but so far you haven't presented any of them.  Either you do have such a justification in mind and are simply doing a shit job of representing it, or you yourself are engaging in empty rhetoric.  So stop with the ad hominem bullshit and get on with the argument, if you have one.

Your not giving me anything else to work with... so I'm done here.   I presented my case.... even if you cannot see it.   I still maintain however, that if you can't understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, that you can't really argue against it.

[Angrboda]

You haven't presented any "idea at hand."  All you've basically said is that you believe that something other than individual interest should determine representation because you believe that.  You haven't given any real identification of what that something is, nor why you feel it should justify a different apportionment of representation than that dictated by individual interest.  You haven't explained dick, and I find the accusation that I'm spouting empty rhetoric to be ironic in the extreme.  You haven't justified your opinion by anything other than merely reasserting it.

There may be justifications for the electoral college, but so far you haven't presented any of them.  Either you do have such a justification in mind and are simply doing a shit job of representing it, or you yourself are engaging in empty rhetoric.  So stop with the ad hominem bullshit and get on with the argument, if you have one.

Your not giving me anything else to work with... so I'm done here.   I presented my case.... even if you cannot see it.   I still maintain however, that if you can't understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, that you can't really argue against it.

I wasn't arguing against the electoral college, so your criticism is a straw man argument. I was arguing that you haven't presented a valid justification for preferring representation on some other basis than individual self interest. And you've pretty much conceded that you don't. You presented no case. But by all means, quit the field if you feel incompetent to adequately explain yourself.

[Clueless Morgan]

When it comes to presidential elections, I favor an overhaul of the system that would do away with this ridiculous winner-take-all approach to a state's electoral votes. If we must maintain a vestige of the electoral college, then require that each state's electoral votes are awarded proportionately to the candidates based on their total of that state's popular vote.

At the least, it might motivate people who are perpetual political minorities in red or blue states to get off their asses and cast a ballot. It would also ensure that candidates would take states for granted at their peril.

^^-- This is exactly why my mother doesn't vote. Her rationale is that if she votes Democrat then it doesn't matter because Oregon is a reliable blue state so she'd just be piling on. If she votes Republican it doesn't matter because Oregon is a reliably blue state so her vote wouldn't make a difference anyway.

If we went to a true one person one vote system, abolishing the EC and made the office of President a popular vote election she would vote more because she would feel like her vote could actually mean something.

So just as the EC boosts low population states influence on elections and suppresses high population states influence, it also works to disenfranchise votes of the minority party in each of those states. Democrats in reliably red states and Republicans in reliably blue states both can feel like their votes ultimately don't matter and the system then starts to favor swing states whose issues take precedence over the high population states and the low population states and whose populations are more likely to over represent white, non-college-educated, working class people (AKA the Trump voter).

So if the argument is that the EC more fairly represents the interests of the low population states then that argument is not born out by facts. It's the swing states whose issues are catered to in presidential elections. It's the predominate populations in those swing states that are most likely to dictate that state's issues.

[Angrboda]

When it comes to presidential elections, I favor an overhaul of the system that would do away with this ridiculous winner-take-all approach to a state's electoral votes. If we must maintain a vestige of the electoral college, then require that each state's electoral votes are awarded proportionately to the candidates based on their total of that state's popular vote.

At the least, it might motivate people who are perpetual political minorities in red or blue states to get off their asses and cast a ballot. It would also ensure that candidates would take states for granted at their peril.

^^-- This is exactly why my mother doesn't vote.  Her rationale is that if she votes Democrat then it doesn't matter because Oregon is a reliable blue state so she'd just be piling on.  If she votes Republican it doesn't matter because Oregon is a reliably blue state so her vote wouldn't make a difference anyway.

That precisely describes my situation last election. I wasn't feeling well in addition to that, but I rationalized not voting because I live in a heavily blue state, so ultimately my vote wouldn't have mattered.

[RoadRunner79]

When it comes to presidential elections, I favor an overhaul of the system that would do away with this ridiculous winner-take-all approach to a state's electoral votes. If we must maintain a vestige of the electoral college, then require that each state's electoral votes are awarded proportionately to the candidates based on their total of that state's popular vote.

At the least, it might motivate people who are perpetual political minorities in red or blue states to get off their asses and cast a ballot. It would also ensure that candidates would take states for granted at their peril.

^^-- This is exactly why my mother doesn't vote.  Her rationale is that if she votes Democrat then it doesn't matter because Oregon is a reliable blue state so she'd just be piling on.  If she votes Republican it doesn't matter because Oregon is a reliably blue state so her vote wouldn't make a difference anyway.

If we went to a true one person one vote system, abolishing the EC and made the office of President a popular vote election she would vote more because she would feel like her vote could actually mean something.

So just as the EC boosts low population states influence on elections and suppresses high population states influence, it also works to disenfranchise votes of the minority party in each of those states.  Democrats in reliably red states and Republicans in reliably blue states both can feel like their votes ultimately don't matter and the system then starts to favor swing states whose issues take precedence over the high population states and the low population states and whose populations are more likely to over represent white, non-college-educated, working class people (AKA the Trump voter).

So if the argument is that the EC more fairly represents the interests of the low population states then that argument is not born out by facts.  It's the swing states whose issues are catered to in presidential elections.  It's the predominate populations in those swing states that are most likely to dictate that state's issues.

I would agree with this, and think that is a problem with the current (EC) system.  You can have a large state, that carries a number of Electoral College votes (such as where I am in PA), and even a 55% win gives all the votes to one party.  Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) and Philadelphia control the state most often.  At least in Pittsburgh, it's largely union driven most of the time, I'm not sure about Philly.   It's a similar issue to the one on the national level.

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.

[Minimalist]

But there are other races aside from president, Jorm. Those matter too.

[Angrboda]

But there are other races aside from president, Jorm.  Those matter too.

I'm pretty sure I considered those as well, though I'd have to research the matter to be sure. That's why I intend to vote in the midterms, even though, IIRC, the relevant candidates there pretty much have a lock as well. I'll have to review things more closely when election time rolls around.

[Clueless Morgan]

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.)

[Joods]

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.