 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Popular Vote or Electoral College? |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Which Vote should decide the President?| There are two options. | Popular Vote |
77.8%, 14 votes | Electoral College |
22.2%, 4 votes | Multi-voting is disabled.
| |
| User | Post | ||
Kario In Possession of a Stolen Shovel Level: 65 Posts: 551/2082 EXP: 2321379 For next: 14249 Since: 03-15-04 From: Texas... Yeehaw! Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 17 hours |
| ||
| For those of you who don't know, the popular vote in America does not count. The electoral college is who actually chooses the president. Many people think the popular vote should count. Just pick one and then explain your answer. My answer: I think it is good the way it is. Many people in this country are uninformed voters. They hear one of them say "Low taxes" or "More Healthcare" and think they should vote for them. They don't know where they stand on issues and stuff. The electoral college looks at the candidates for all their values and ideals. |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 1232/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Neither. Proportional representation all the way. Although America is a two-party system, and it doesn't work well with the congress idea. It works perfectly in parliment systems. | |||
|
Yoshi Dude XKEEPER STOLE MY CAR KEYS Level: 79  Posts: 1413/3271 EXP: 4572680 For next: 6787 Since: 03-15-04 From: give me a number folks. Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Well yeah, there are plenty of people who make decisions without knowing the facts, but who are you to decide which votes count and which do not? It is their right as tax paying americans to vote for whoever they please, whether you agree with it or not. I think it should be popular vote. I don't even understand why it isn't that way. Although this was never even an issue until the last election, was it? |
|||
drjayphd Beamos What's that spell? pimp! Level: 56  Posts: 602/1477 EXP: 1387410 For next: 10766 Since: 03-15-04 From: CT Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Back in the 1800's... I wanna say Rutherford B. Hayes won electoral, but lost popular. It's not unprecedented. Colorado's fiddling with proportional representation. We shall see how that works out, but if it does, then we go with that. |
|||
witeasprinwow Lakitu Level: 37 Posts: 382/555 EXP: 319587 For next: 18666 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 55 days Last activity: 55 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziffski I don't think would work very well for a nation like America. I'd go into much greater detail, but I'll just leave it at this statment: Americans are too hard-headed and divided into two camps for a system like this to work at the present. I think there have been two or three elections where someone has won popularly but lost electorally. Also, technically the electoral delegates we elect to vote for person X doesn't actually have to vote for person X, although that has only happened once in American history, and that person was instantly blacklisted from anything that had to do with politics. |
|||
|
drjayphd Beamos What's that spell? pimp! Level: 56 Posts: 610/1477 EXP: 1387410 For next: 10766 Since: 03-15-04 From: CT Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by witeasprinwow Not to mention the joys of gerrymandering. Ask Texas how well that worked out. |
|||
DahrkDaiz Red Super Koopa  Acmlm's Mosts 2005 Best ROM Hacker Level: 45  Posts: 316/885 EXP: 643520 For next: 16644 Since: 03-15-04 From: K-Town Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| The Electoral vote was designed to basically dilute any votes made by men that didn't matter (i.e. those who didn't understand politics, illiterate, etc) and it made small errors mean nothing (i.e. if someone won in a majority in 1 state, a few miscounted votes in that state wouldn't matter, even if the popular vote was close). But that was before we had the technology and the people to keep track of these votes. Last year was the first year the winner of the popular vote didn't win the electoral vote, I think this means it's time for a change in voting methods. (edited by DahrkDaiz on 09-04-04 10:20 PM) |
|||
|
Colleen Administrator Level: 136 Posts: 3940/11302 EXP: 29369328 For next: 727587 Since: 03-15-04 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| I never liked the Electoral vote system... I know how it works and why it's in place but it just seems strange if someone wins the popular vote but loses the election anyways because they lost one or two "key" states. | |||
|
drjayphd Beamos What's that spell? pimp! Level: 56 Posts: 611/1477 EXP: 1387410 For next: 10766 Since: 03-15-04 From: CT Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Culotte Yeah, but if you think that's bad, imagine if we go to popular vote. Never mind thirteen states deciding the election, it'll be, like, four. |
|||
|
Yoshi Dude XKEEPER STOLE MY CAR KEYS Level: 79 Posts: 1417/3271 EXP: 4572680 For next: 6787 Since: 03-15-04 From: give me a number folks. Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by drjayphdOriginally posted by Culotte But don't think of it as states deciding the election, eliminate all the borders from your mind. The popular vote counts every person as an American, not a Californian or texan or whichever. |
|||
|
drjayphd Beamos What's that spell? pimp! Level: 56 Posts: 615/1477 EXP: 1387410 For next: 10766 Since: 03-15-04 From: CT Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Well, yeah. But parties are going to target even fewer areas, focusing on population centers instead of states with a bunch of representatives. | |||
|
Yoshi Dude XKEEPER STOLE MY CAR KEYS Level: 79 Posts: 1419/3271 EXP: 4572680 For next: 6787 Since: 03-15-04 From: give me a number folks. Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
That's true..and in these larger states they will focus on the big cities rather than the rural areas. The larger the population they can hit at once, the better. That's just the way it is.  But at least this way someone's vote isn't ignored because a majority, large or small, believes another way. And I'm sure they won't ignore the smaller states. If every vote counts, they should be more aware of their affect on all parts of the country. |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 115/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| You guys need to separate the congressional races and the presidential race in your minds. They're two different elections that work differently. Congressmen are elected from a district or electorate, the President eis elected by winning the most electoral college votes which are somewhat determined by the popular vote but not really. The problem with the presidential election is it's an all or nothing proposition. Someone either wins the election or they don't. Ultimately a whole bunch of people aren't going to get their candidate in. This won't hugely change whether you go with the electoral college or popular vote. That's the problem with the executive branch in countries that elect one (ie, not Britain or Australia). To me, the far more important issue in the US is the lack of preferential (aka single transferrable vote, aka instant runoff) voting in any elections. This leads to the "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" thing because you can't indicate an order of preference for candidates, you just pick one and that's it. Oh, then there's the whole ridiculously low turn-out thing, and the fact that the Presidential cabinet is unelected and unaccountable, if you wanna talk about other things making the system less democratic. |
|||
Banedon Giant Red Paratroopa Level: 55 Posts: 573/1408 EXP: 1291380 For next: 22809 Since: 03-15-04 From: Michigan Since last post: 101 days Last activity: 90 days |
| ||
| I think it should be decided by popular vote...the electoral system is really messed up, your vote counts more if you live in a less populous state, and if one candidate gets 50.00000001% of the popular vote of a state, they receive 100% of the electoral vote. | |||
Rydain Ropa Blaze Phoenix Runs With the Dragon Within Level: 42  Posts: 260/738 EXP: 490056 For next: 31306 Since: 03-15-04 From: State College, PA Since last post: 6 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| Arwon beat me to it. It's actually up to each state to decide how to allocate their electoral votes, and I think we would make some major progress by convincing the vast majority of them to kick the winner-take-all system, which I think is grossly unfair because it effectively discards all the votes that weren't for the winner and keeps third-party candidates from having any real chance at succeeding. Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992, but his electoral vote count was zero, which doesn't represent his actual popularity at all. I would love to see the instant-runoff system implemented everywhere because, as he said, it would let people vote for their true #1 choice while also selecting "safe" candidate(s) that they think would be good for the job. As the Wikipedia link on the subject explains, it does have some possible drawbacks, but I feel that its potential for giving third parties more representation would be well worth it. DahrkDaiz - Actually, it was the third. 1876 and 1888 were the other two years in which a candidate (Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison, respectively) lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote. |
|||
|
drjayphd Beamos What's that spell? pimp! Level: 56 Posts: 617/1477 EXP: 1387410 For next: 10766 Since: 03-15-04 From: CT Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Arwon: I'd be curious to see how a system like a coalitional government would work here. It would certainly open things up to more parties instead of two courting special interests. Ryd-erm, Croix: We need IRV YESTERDAY. Although I doubt that the populace would embrace it before it's deemed a fKitten Yiffer. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 117/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Firstly, there's the seemingly obvious point that you can't have a coalitional government in the office of president... Now, the thing to remember is that instant runoff voting by itself doesnt automatically result in more parties and coalition government arrangements. We have 3 major parties, but the Liberals and Nationals are in permanent coalition. Between those two and Labor, they hold all but 4 of the 150 seats in the House of Reps. This is partly because we use an electorate based system, like the US uses for congressmen - you vote for a congressman to represent your district. Most people in any given area vote for the major parties so except in rare instances the Libs, Nats or Labor win the seat. In the senate though, there's a proportional system by state - 12 senators from each state are elected, according to what percentage of the vote they get in the entire state (there's an obscure runoff system in place, too). Again, the major parties hold most senate seats but there are more minor party members of the senate (Democrats, Greens, and some independants) and between them they hold the balance of power. A couple of Greens or Democrats or assorted others usually win enough of the vote to get in, since if you divide 100% by 12, you don't get a huge percentage and even then it doesn't work out that you need exactly that many. This arrangement, brought in initially by one major party to screw over another (O the irony), forces the Government to negotiate with minor party and indie senators (or the other major party) to get legislation though, forming a fairly effective counterbalance to the power of the House of Reps. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`` What I find interesting is how our system evolved differently, from similar origins, than Canada's or New Zealand's. New Zealand, I believe, is unicameral but elected paritally by proportional representation. Canada's senate of course very weak and a big joke really, while ours is very strong and robust, so their government of the day is probably stronger than ours. But, on the flipside, their provinces are a lot stronger against the federal government than our states are. We developed different to them for a variety of reasons, despite coming from broadly similar political and cultural traditions. This just goes to illustrate that structure and official reforms are only one part of what forms a political culture iin a country - tradition, precedent, convention, history and circumstance all result in different and perhaps unexpected outcomes from a given system. |
|||
|
The SomerZ Summer, yay! Level: 45  Posts: 518/862 EXP: 618182 For next: 41982 Since: 03-15-04 From: Norway Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziffski As a person who has been promoting proportional representation at this board for ages now, it's great to see that I've finally got some who agree with me!  |
|||
|
Kario In Possession of a Stolen Shovel Level: 65 Posts: 589/2082 EXP: 2321379 For next: 14249 Since: 03-15-04 From: Texas... Yeehaw! Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 17 hours |
| ||
| Wow, this thread is starting to make me wish I didn't live in America.... | |||
neotransotaku Baby Mario 戻れたら、 誰も気が付く Level: 87 Posts: 1332/4016 EXP: 6220548 For next: 172226 Since: 03-15-04 From: Outside of Time/Space Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Originally posted by The SomerZ I'd like proportional representation too. Seems a lot more people would like government or be happier about the elections than they would be. However, it isn't going to ever happen in the U.S. unless some miracle happens. I forgot what book I read but the U.S. is the only federal government of its kind in the world. I found it surprising that if the U.S. structure government is so great, people would copy it but nope, no one has... |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Popular Vote or Electoral College? |
| | |
