Should we change how we elect presidents?

reply to post by newcovenant


Yes, we need to go back to the day when land owners were the ones allowed to vote. Because they have a vested interest in the land. But to boost voting numbers the vote was opened up to regular citizens and eventually woman...

Oh well, with the current system it doesnt even matter what the majority votes for. It is the corporation that buys the election.

We need to make the peoples vote count, and each state represented should vote based on the states majority votes.

Originally posted by mvymvy
The founders intended that women NOT vote.

The founders intended that black people NOT vote.

The founders intended that native Americans NOT vote.

The founders intended that only white men with money could vote.

Just wanting some back up to these, I would like to read them.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by mvymvy
The founders intended that women NOT vote.

The founders intended that black people NOT vote.

The founders intended that native Americans NOT vote.

The founders intended that only white men with money could vote.

Just wanting some back up to these, I would like to read them.

Slaves were considered 3/5 remember?

The indigenous tribes were considered "savages" therefore heathens and dangerous since they had occupied much of the land before the elitist crew set up their electoral college

Hell, they wouldn't even let WOMEN vote! Couldn't be trusted...

Here comes the edit...slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for the population count for the electoral college. No one in chains can vote.

Let's do away with the Presidency altogether and let a motorcycle gang decide what's best for the country.

Like the Angles or the Pagans; Real men! Not a bunch effeminate intellectual snobs.

Or The Dallas Cowboys!!

I dunno, I think the problem is before both sides settle on their candidate there is only a small handful of candidates to choose from to begin with. It's a farce when a country of 300 million people is given such a small field of candidates. The two party system has become a way to insulate corrupt long term politicians and lobbyists. Most of these politicians support the same policies, and most of these policies don't have the best interests of most Americans in mind these days.

Until we have more parties and more legitimate choices to break up the insulated two party system, I don't see how it really matters how we change how the president is elected.

"Should we change how we elect presidents?" Yup! But aren't the popular ones "too much into themselves" to begin with, like gangs/thugs? And aren't most potential POTUS wealthy anyway? They could always buy votes, you know!

A popular vote for President would just further remove the States from their role in the Federal Government which has been eroded over the years.

I think the original intent of our system was for the people to have their popular representatives from the House in numbers proportionate to their populations, the States would all be equally represented by the two Senators (therefore regardless of size they had equal power in their house of government) from each. The President would be a combination of the popular vote (will of the people) and the States with each state deciding how to apportion its votes between their electoral college (EC) reps.

Some states divided their EC votes and some did not which should probably be reworked so that they all either apportion them according to the percentage of votes or to the all or nothing scheme. A state that divides theirs basically gives up the role and influence their EC reps have and making them a secondary campaign goal at best.

The same thing would happen to low population states if a simple popular vote was enacted for President - they'd just be marginalized and over time their right to self determination would be ceded to the majority. .

Why campaign in the flyovers if you can control the country by winning 11 States focused attacks are always better.

States rights have already been attacked in the passage of the 17th Amendment, which put Senators to the popular vote as opposed to them being appointed by the state legislatures. To further erode States rights at this time with a straight popular vote in the Presidential election would basically make the States irrelevant.

The whole point of separate States was for the people of like values and goals to be able to congregate and have determination in their own governance separate from that of the Federal branch.

They would have this by maintaining the freedom to choose for themselves how they are taxed, regulated, and in general the manner in which they live. If they felt the State in which they lived was not governed to their liking they could move to another State in which the people shared their values more closely.

A straight popular vote basically creates a system in which the large and more populated states can dictate to the lesser populated states how to run their affairs removing the little remaining authority of the States. Imagine if the liberals in California, New York and Illinois and their failed social and fiscal policy could basically dominate and dictate how people were governed in Missouri and Idaho. We do not share the same values at all. To whom is this fair representation?

It is bad enough that the federal government has been allowed to creep into states rights as much as it has through the years. The liberal majority population has already chipped away at this over the years and now we have a large bloated federal government that dictates the States remain largely homogenous in their policy. This was never the intended state of affairs. Each state was to be its own master within its borders so to speak loosely aligned for mutual defense and to enjoy better commerce.

This trend is heading down a risky road…should the left coast and liberal majority gain any more influence over the national affairs and attempt to inflict its nonsense on the flyover states there will be another civil war. We are seeing States, the conservative ones distance themselves from federal policy and actually asserting their rights again. We are ripe for secession.

We had a similar that situation once in the 1860 election.

A situation in which regardless of how the Southern states voted they had no chance to win at all and therefore the North was in a position to then dictate their way of life change forever.

Slavery aside (ten threads worth of drama in that issue) the Southern States were about to be disenfranchised at the big kids table of the Federal Government. Regardless of one’s view on issue of slavery and its heinous nature – disenfranchising a people and taking away their way of life is never received well by those who are its target.

The Southern way of life was threatened by their lack of representation at the big kids table of federal government so they rebelled and rightly so.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...yep - to make citizens' votes for potus REALLY count, the electoral college must be abolished because it was a corrupt idea from the get-go and has never produced a truly elected by the people prez... however, that only addresses part of the problem...

The Electoral College is a corrupt idea? How so? It was never intended that the presidency be directly elected by the people. Reason being is the smaller rural areas (even at the time) would be held hostage of sorts to large population centers. James Madison writing in Federalist Paper's #39 simply explains -- "The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people..." Federalist Paper #39 was to explain how the Constitution establishes a Republican form of government.

In Federalist Paper #68, Alexander Hamilton further explains the benefits of the system. Knowing that the method they have devised for the selection of the office was not perfect, it is an excellent idea given the form of government they were establishing. Since the presidency (as should be but is severely eroded) is/was extremely limited in their duties in regards to the administration of the Federal Government, the method of choosing, via an Electoral College system, fits nicely.

...another crucial part is making sure our direct votes are counted properly... the current "count" system is too easily corrupted and, even though its true that there is no such thing as a computerized system that cannot be corrupted, we have to find a better way...

I am agreed on this. But in regards to the "popular" vote, it doesn't count for anything. We do not directly elect the president, but we are most surely responsible for the electors that are chosen and thus indirectly still involved as a people in the election of a president.

...also on my list of (very old) gripes - it should be illegal for a candidate to receive more than one hundred thousand dollars (cumulative cap) to help support campaigning... thats a paltry amount by today's standards but today's standards are obscene and insure that candidates will be beholding to people with very deep pockets... a whistle-stop type of tour is still possible with a hundred thousand dollars... they might not be able to afford speach writers, wardrobe specialists and butt-wipers but thats the way it should be anyways...

Campaign finance is an overall tough subject in terms of a private citizen seeking to obtain office. There of course should be regulations on where and how donation money is spent, but the amount -- I am still not quite sure about that.

-----------------------

This isn't directed at the poster I replied to, but the overall post. The lack of knowledge on how and why we elect presidents via an Electoral College system is evident and I would suspect half designed to push for more "democracy". More specifically, direct democracy. It is ironic that people have been calling the current system corrupt and "elite" but moving to a popular vote would be disastrous. On average, over the past two presidential elections, approximately 63% of all eligible voters voted. Given President Obama's percentage and Senator McCain's percentage we would have elected a president with only about 74 million people. Yet people think that will be fairer? Will be a truer representation of who we want as leadership? Out of all the eligible voters in 2008 (about 230 million), the president would be voted in with just about 32%.

Given that, I would much rather have the Electoral College, which puts states at the forefront in deciding who the president will be. You have a much better chance at exacting a change at your state level (as long as you are involved in the process but that is a different topic all together) than you do trying to change the Federal Constitution.

Disclaimer: I can link the sources later but they are readily available on the internet. I have time constraints and certain restrictions currently that prohibit me from doing so. Also, all numbers above are approximates. If any of my math seems fuzzy, please correct it; you won't offend me.

No fuzzy math involved...just a system set up by a select group of white men who were amongst the richest of those in the new world who didn't want to pay taxes and got their field workers to stand in a field opposite well trained British troops and die in numbers so they wouldn't have to pay taxes.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Yes, we need to go back to the day when land owners were the ones allowed to vote. Because they have a vested interest in the land. But to boost voting numbers the vote was opened up to regular citizens and eventually woman...

Oh well, with the current system it doesnt even matter what the majority votes for. It is the corporation that buys the election.

We need to make the peoples vote count, and each state represented should vote based on the states majority votes.

So how much land and generational wealth do you own? Because there are a lot of people in this country that dream of "representation" that are not in your comfortable place. So we are just peasants in your eye unable to see what is going on, just because due to our birth station we do not own property by age 18?

Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Yes, we need to go back to the day when land owners were the ones allowed to vote. Because they have a vested interest in the land. But to boost voting numbers the vote was opened up to regular citizens and eventually woman...

Oh well, with the current system it doesnt even matter what the majority votes for. It is the corporation that buys the election.

We need to make the peoples vote count, and each state represented should vote based on the states majority votes.

I thought when moderators joined a discussion they had to use the disclaimer that they would no longer moderate the thread. I'm not trying to dog you, but lately, Mods have taken out their personal vendettas in good fashion. So, disclaimer would be good.

Total U.S. Voter Pop.= 230,782,000

California- 27,279,556
Florida- 14,395,399
Illinois- 9,684,345
New York- 15,048,837
Pennsylvania- 9,790,263
Texas- 17,654,414
Ohio- 8,802,396

The seven states above account for 102,652,000 voters out of 230,782,000, or 44.5% of the total U.S. vote possible.
If you do not reside in one of those seven States, you will not have a voice, you will never be represented.

You WILL still be expected to pay taxes, register for the draft, etc... but with a bit of pork belly politics thrown in, you will receive no consideration on a federal level at all.

Under those circumstances, how long before the other forty-three states decide to look elsewhere for leadership, perhaps even secede?

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Under the current system, the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, and a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

reply to post by the owlbear


There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.


I find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren't hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state's electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states. So they are ignored.

Under a national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes... Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

As long as the Presidency holds the immense amount of power it does today, it matters not how the person in that office is put there, the problem isn't in any lack of popular vote, the problem is in the gross aggregation of power that most assuredly corrupts this position.

What does it matter if the President is popularly elected, elected by electoral college, appointed by Congress and/or the judiciary, or born and bread to inherit the position, when that position comes with being Commander in Chief of the worlds most dangerous military? Who benefits from such blatant usurpation's as those committed by those who held the office of the Presidency? The People?

Who benefits from America being a world "super power"? Americans?

The issue of how we elect the President is just a pointless distraction from the real problem. Until We the People accept the responsibility we need to in order to reign in the excess of governance, not just by the POTUS, but by the Congress as well, it just doesn't matter how democratic the election process is.

If people truly want to believe, en masse, that freedom is gained through democratic elections then we will never see this desired state of freedom. If people, en masse, are so willing to abdicate their inherent political power and surrender their rights in order to have a government insisting on that abdication and surrender, no tweaks of the system will make it better.

Personally, I think the problem stems from the fact that we don't have realistic term limits for the Senate and House.

US Senate. 6 years, unlimited terms of office.
US House of Representatives, 2 years, unlimited terms of office.

Unlimited, as long as they get re-elected....

Ironically, the President is limited to two 4 year terms, with a maxim 'possible' of 10 years in office.

We'd likely be better served if the Senate was limited to two 3 year terms, and the House limited to three 2 year terms. It might make it a bit more dynamic and adjustable to the world we live in, rather than being stuck with career politician mind-sets.


But that's just my take on it.

M.

Originally posted by the owlbear
Slaves were considered 3/5 remember?

The indigenous tribes were considered "savages" therefore heathens and dangerous since they had occupied much of the land before the elitist crew set up their electoral college

Hell, they wouldn't even let WOMEN vote! Couldn't be trusted...

Here comes the edit...slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for the population count for the electoral college. No one in chains can vote.

In reference for me asking for the sources (and quite genuinely for that matter) in those claims that the Founding Fathers set out to do all he stated, you gave me one.

The rest, while correct (minus the cynicism), cannot be found anywhere in the Federal Constitution (which is a document that controls, limits and directs the administration of Government, not the People.)

The cultural of the time dictated a large swath of who can and cannot vote. Since the Constitution speaks none to the Peoples' ability to vote, we look to the Ninth And Tenth Amendment and see that voting is handled by the States and the People. It was culturally acceptable at the time for women to be in the position of status they were in among men. Was it right? To them it was, it was a different time. It is easy for us to sit here, 235 years later and wag our fingers and say "Bad, bad white man!"

But I really enjoy your two sentence analysis of what the Electoral College is...I am really impressed when faintly witty quips are utilized to summarize topics that require a bit of intelligence and critical thought.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As long as the Presidency holds the immense amount of power it does today, it matters not how the person in that office is put there, the problem isn't in any lack of popular vote, the problem is in the gross aggregation of power that most assuredly corrupts this position.

Many I think do not understand the importance of this paragraph above. The long push to elevate the presidency into a position of power continues its march. Evidence was seen during the last presidential campaign and the promises made and the things that people think the president can do.

I think JPZ hits this one directly square in the forehead. "...gross aggregation of power that most assuredly corrupts this position." We have allowed, in a system of checks and balances, for the office of the president to become more powerful than ever intended. Regulatory rules, vast amounts of executive orders misused (ranging back further than the current president), wielding the most powerful military around while Congress looks like a bunch of pussies. (Edit it out...I don't care, that is what they are.)

Maybe when people stop looking to the president as the savior or even congress as their savior, and realize that with that thinking they have given up and allowed the whole entity of Government step in and dictate how to live their lives within the neatly constructed rules.

reply to post by the owlbear


You assumed I am a land owner, I own no property, lay off of me.

These accusatory comments as well as the "mods are not allowed... bs", is clearly an attempt to hate on staff.
We all were members like every one else. Just because I was asked to help clean up after the carpet pissers don't give any one a reason to be haters.

If I shat in your Cheerios at some time in the past, perhaps it was due.

Congratulations, you are the first person I have put on my ignore list.

Originally posted by newcovenant
Should we change how we elect presidents?

Even though this is an opinion it is gaining momentum and so I thought we should have a thread on it.
Here is a video prepared by Fred Thompson below, states a very credible case for Popular Vote Plan.

With our electoral system now, the candidate with the most votes still might lose.

When Al Gore got more votes that Bush but the electoral college messed it all up only a few of us actually seemed to care. You know, those of us not for Bush. It just did not catch on. Now that a black guy somehow got that job, something needs to change.



OK, Fred. How about you go back to snoring into your radio mic and stay out of it.