Time to change the electoral system?

[sudcalifornio]

how posible it is to change the way elections for a president? Is USA the only country with this particular way of election?
What do you thing about?

 

[Industrialsize]

It would require a Constitutional amendment. They are purposefully very difficult. It must be passed by at least 38 states by a two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—assuming that a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.

 

[sudcalifornio]

Why people prefer this particular indirect system?

 

[Klingsor]

It was part of the original plan of the Constitution because, frankly, the founding fathers had limited faith in the popular vote.

It was also a way to give less populated states more of a say in presidential elections--thereby abandoning any "one person, one vote" pretense.

 

[nickinoo]

I am obviously biased, not being American. But the system seems like madness to me. Every person who votes should have an equal power over the result. Am I missing something?

 

[Klingsor]

I am obviously biased, not being American. But the system seems like madness to me. Every person who votes should have an equal power over the result. Am I missing something?

Bill O'Reilly argues against such equality, because that would mean the vote of a single urban black person would count for as much as the vote of a single rural white person.

I hope that helps.

 

[sudcalifornio]

I am obviously biased, not being American. But the system seems like madness to me. Every person who votes should have an equal power over the result. Am I missing something?

even incorporate a 2 round system

 

[nickinoo]

Bill O'Reilly argues against such equality, because that would mean the vote of a single urban black person would count for as much as the vote of a single rural white person.

I hope that helps.

Wow, scary to know people actually think that way. Are there any less idiotic reasons?

 

[nickinoo]

even incorporate a 2 round system

Would this be to encourage non-voters to vote the second time around? I'm not sure I agree with that.

 

[sudcalifornio]

Wow, scary to know people actually think that way. Are there any less idiotic reasons?

+me, and there are millions of them

 

[Klingsor]

Wow, scary to know people actually think that way. Are there any less idiotic reasons?

People fall back on the old Federalist Papers principle of defending the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The problem is, they don't really believe in that argument, since the electoral college favors only a certain type of arbitrarily selected minority (residents of less populous states), while showing no such favoritism to other types of minorities (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.).

 

[nickinoo]

People fall back on the old Federalist Papers principle of defending the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The problem is, they don't really believe in that argument, since the electoral college favors only a certain type of arbitrarily selected minority (residents of less populous states), while showing no such favoritism to other types for minorities (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.).

Lol so as long as it protects the "nice normal American" minorities it's okay. I don't think any minorities should be protected in elections as it undermines the whole point of them. If the majority is likely to vote a certain way then so be it.

 

[Perados]

While I understand why this system has been installed the way it is (the size of the country with the, not given infrastructure, back then - not to mention no telefon or modern communication). I really would support the idea to reform it.


But what I really don't understand is why still everyone has to register and why it is so easy to gerrymandering

Gerrymandering. You're talking about gerrymandering.

that's it... thanks

 

[Klingsor]

But what I really don't understand is why still everyone hasto register and why it is so easy to rearrange "counting areas" (sorry, but I don't know the exact word for what I mean. I still hope you get it)

Gerrymandering. You're talking about gerrymandering.

 

[marlins]

U bet it is - good riddance to a major problem in our republic.

 

[Shackleford]

The manner in which the President is elected is reflective of how our federal government operates otherwise. Each state having a voice as an entity and that voice being on a weighted footing with every other state is and always has been a tenant of the United States government. There is an electoral college for the same reason Congressional seats are delegated by state and each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population or acreage.

The bothersome part to me isn't that the popular vote diverges from the electoral vote every now and then, it's that the two major parties have embraced knowing which states they have no chance of winning and no chance of losing. That strategy is a problem for two reasons: 1) That gives them no incentive to be flexible and seek new voters by talking sense upon which everyone can agree or at least find a middle ground. Surely, somebody could come up with SOMETHING voters in both Alabama and California could get behind, but the current attitude is, "Why bother? Just dig in deeper with the 'base.'" 2) Basically, any given election comes down to as few as 1 and as many as 4 "swing" states, when the whole damned point was to keep that small a number of states from having that much influence!

I've got boucoup problems with the state of American politics right now, but none of them are the mere existence of the electoral college. That's like blaming your shoes for where you walked.

 

[Perados]

]

The manner in which the President is elected is reflective of how our federal government operates otherwise. Each state having a voice as an entity and that voice being on a weighted footing with every other state is and always has been a tenant of the United States government. There is an electoral college for the same reason Congressional seats are delegated by state and each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population or acreage.

we have a similar federal system in Germany.
The Bundesrat is is the second chamber in Germany and every federal country has a voice weight by its population...
But still every citizen one voice equal to everyone's.
No matter of they vote for the fed. country government, or for the federal government. Every voice counts equal...

The bothersome part to me isn't that the popular vote diverges from the electoral vote every now and then, it's that the two major parties have embraced knowing which states they have no chance of winning and no chance of losing. That strategy is a problem for two reasons: 1) That gives them no incentive to be flexible and seek new voters by talking sense upon which everyone can agree or at least find a middle ground. Surely, somebody could come up with SOMETHING voters in both Alabama and California could get behind, but the current attitude is, "Why bother? Just dig in deeper with the 'base.'" 2) Basically, any given election comes down to as few as 1 and as many as 4 "swing" states, when the whole damned point was to keep that small a number of states from having that much influence!

both problems could get solved by simply counting the votes and the majority wins... nothing else

I've got boucoup problems with the state of American politics right now, but none of them are the mere existence of the electoral college. That's like blaming your shoes for where you walked.

you could blame your shoes for how fast you walks... maybe more accurate?

 

[Jason]

If the USA didn't have an electoral college system the candidates would campaign in a different way. Trump more or less ignored California. Probably even a small effort there would have got him a lot of additional votes. I'm not convinced a changed system would have much effect on the result.

 

[Shackleford]

both problems could get solved by simply counting the votes and the majority wins... nothing else

In theory, yes, but due to the particular demographic/political makeup of the nation, that would just make it even easier to work the system and lead to different people's votes not mattering as opposed to everyone's counting. Instead of certain states being the focus of the game, it would be certain urban centers. You'd just be re-shuffling the cards in the same deck.

 

[TexanStar]

It would require a Constitutional amendment. They are purposefully very difficult. It must be passed by at least 38 states by a two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—assuming that a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.

^^

Not even worth discussing right now.

There are ways around a constitutional amendment, but they suffer the same problem... red states and swing states won't join.

Red states won't sign because the current system is advantageous to their candidates winning (a la trump). Swing states won't join because the current system gets them a lot of attention and $$$ from aspiring presidents from both parties.

It's just not something that's going to happen. Gotta choose our battles, etc.