Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYrepublican

How should US elections be determined

How should US elections be determined  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. should the U.S presidential election be determined by the national popular vote or the electoral college?

    • The electoral college
    • the popular vote
  2. 2. should the U.S Senate be determined using a system that assigns seats based on the share of the national popular vote?(Like what's used in Israel)



Recommended Posts

Just now, pilight said:

Indeed, all 50 states, and DC, have such laws.  30 of them, plus DC again, have penalties attached.

And really, if the Electoral College ever did invalidate a popular election it would cease to exist in short order thereafter.

And the EC destroying itself as a Constitutional institution on a matter of principal to stop a horrible populist demagogue would be true political martyrdom I'd respect... :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, even despite a serious threat and big media circus around the possibility, I didn't see it happening last year. Not that I thought Hillary Clinton was inherently better, or more ethical, or that I would have voted for her (or whether I would have voted AT ALL), if I were able, but she was at least more qualified in a resume sense, knew more about actual governance and what a U.S. President should know, and seemed like less of a wild card, and had a greater mandate of popular support.

Trump was no where near the dangers of authoritarianism.  Hillary was more qualified in failing at her previous positions.

5 minutes ago, pilight said:

Indeed, all 50 states, and DC, have such laws.  30 of them, plus DC again, have penalties attached.

And really, if the Electoral College ever did invalidate a popular election it would cease to exist in short order thereafter.

Unlikely unless there were radical groups that got enough support to amend the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Trump was no where near the dangers of authoritarianism.  Hillary was more qualified in failing at her previous positions.

You seem to have been bamboozled by short memory. Although he has indeed toned down his rhetoric (likely by necessity) after inauguration, have you forgotten the very different message and presentation Trump had during his actual election campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

You seem to have been bamboozled by short memory. Although he has indeed toned down his rhetoric (likely by necessity) after inauguration, have you forgotten the very different message and presentation Trump had during his actual election campaign?

Nope.  He never spoke against democracy and while threatened a Muslim ban, he backed off after advisers advised against pursuing a policy that would backfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvikings1 said:

Nope.  He never spoke against democracy and while threatened a Muslim ban, he backed off after advisers advised against pursuing a policy that would backfire.

Hitler didn't talk about a totalitarian state, the Final Solution, a Gestapo, or seven years of war in his March 1933 electoral campaign, either. I admit, that's a hyperbolic, extreme example, but it was moreso meant to warn against trusting populists than a direct comparison, so we're clear on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Patine said:

Hitler didn't talk about a totalitarian state, the Final Solution, a Gestapo, or seven years of war in his March 1933 electoral campaign, either. I admit, that's a hyperbolic, extreme example, but it was moreso meant to warn against trusting populists than a direct comparison, so we're clear on that.

Um the final solution yes and he expected the war to be quick too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Patine said:

Hitler didn't talk about a totalitarian state, the Final Solution, a Gestapo, or seven years of war in his March 1933 electoral campaign, either. I admit, that's a hyperbolic, extreme example, but it was moreso meant to warn against trusting populists than a direct comparison, so we're clear on that.

Mein Kampf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

Um the final solution yes and he expected the war to be quick too

Actually, he didn't explicitly say anything about a genocide or camps or any such thing. Just nebulous, ill-defined statements about dealing with "the Jewish Problem," and "rampant Romani issues," and "the Communist threat." Nothing more specific AT THE TIME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Unlikely unless there were radical groups that got enough support to amend the Constitution.

If someone with enough popular support to win the election got denied by faithless electors, you wouldn't need radicals to get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pilight said:

If someone with enough popular support to win the election got denied by faithless electors, you wouldn't need radicals to get rid of it.

The Constitution is difficult to amend and the people in power won't be dying to amend it if it kept a radical out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abolish the electoral college and have direct popular vote with two round system to ensure a candidate gets a majority of the popular vote, we have now had 2 elections in 16 years where the popular vote winner lost to runner up because of the archaic, undemocratic and asinine electoral college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

The Constitution is difficult to amend and the people in power won't be dying to amend it if it kept a radical out.

The Chinese Empire fell in 1911 to the tumultuous, chaotic, early Republic of China because it was mired in a long inertia of tradition, a superioristic belief that the way the Chinese did things was inherently better than how everyone else did and examples elsewhere on the globe were not applicable in any way to China, and the powers that be at the time there (the later Qing Dynasty Emperors - and the very powerful last Dowager Empress - the Imperial Ministers, the Mandarins, and the Commanders of the Banner Armies) had no interest in serious, institutional change, as such would be effectively shooting themselves in the foot. And thus, when things to a head, and Sun Yat-sen, Yuan Shikai, and others advised (read coerced) the 6-year-old last Emperor to abdicate and created a HUGE social and cultural shock, and triggered an era of civil war and warlordism (not to mention the 1937-1945 Japanese invasion) that didn't end between 1911 abdication and Mao Zedong's securing solidification of power after defeating Chiang Kai-shek and his supporters in 1949 who fled to Taiwan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electoral college but it needs MAJOR modifications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FloridaDemocrat said:

Abolish the electoral college and have direct popular vote with two round system to ensure a candidate gets a majority of the popular vote, we have now had 2 elections in 16 years where the popular vote winner lost to runner up because of the archaic, undemocratic and asinine electoral college.

I'd prefer ranked voting instead of two-round because of the problems with two-round, especially because it forces a "lesser of two evils" situation when you didn't vote for either person. Just look at the 2002 French election when you had a corrupt president against a fascist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say keep the current systems are they are. Meaning the Electoral System remains. The last thing we need, in my opinion, is mod rule determining any President. Our nation was built upon the idea that EVERYONE is represented at some level, with the biggest cities not having too much power, and the small cities having just enough to make a difference. Popular vote becoming the primary method of electing the President would be by far, one of the biggest mistakes the American people could make. Let's say if my candidate did not win enough of the EC: I would still be in support of it, because the EC is the only way to retain fair elections, and that is the foundation this country was created upon. I am 100% against abolishing the EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hardly surprising that only Republicans favor keeping the EC.  It's the only way they can win presidential elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, pilight said:

It is hardly surprising that only Republicans favor keeping the EC.  It's the only way they can win presidential elections.

This is true. Of the four or five Presidents who lost the popular vote but won the EC (not including the convoluted mess of 1824), all of them were Republicans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is true. Of the four or five Presidents who lost the popular vote but won the EC (not including the convoluted mess of 1824), all of them were Republicans...

And Democrats have won at least a plurality of the popular vote in every election in the past 25 years (except 2004, when Dubya had the advantage of incumbency and still only narrowly won reelection)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bruce Fischer said:

And Democrats have won at least a plurality of the popular vote in every election in the past 25 years (except 2004, when Dubya had the advantage of incumbency and still only narrowly won reelection)

And in all those elections (except 2004, 2008, 2012) there was no majority of the popular vote. Personally, I don't really consider it a "win" of the popular vote if 52% of the electorate voted against you. We need IRV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2017 at 3:53 PM, Patine said:

And the EC destroying itself as a Constitutional institution on a matter of principal to stop a horrible populist demagogue would be true political martyrdom I'd respect... :P 

so you rather neo cons and neo liberal instead of left wing populist and right wing populist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×