jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (7 posts)

President elect or popular?

  1. andrew savage profile image60
    andrew savageposted 4 years ago

    Which is the better of the two: a president who wins the election by popular vote or a president who wins by the electorial vote? What are the safeties and dangers of the two?

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How about the current one who won by both.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Reagan did too.  How do you like him?

    2. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I prefer the popular vote, even though that could be an administrative nightmare in practice., as the voice and the will of the people are more direct. The danger is the contention much like occured in the election of 2000.

    3. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Greetings, Mr. Savage. Thank you for launching this thread.

      U.S. Constitution, Article II…
      Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

      There have been many proposals in the past to abolish or to revise the Electoral College. It is an issue that comes up every four years ad nauseam. In spite of the frequently of these efforts, they have ALL failed largely because the alternatives to the EC are far more problematic than is the College itself. The nation would face a number of negative ramifications from changing a system that has worked for over 200 years and is not at all broken.

      What do Andrew Jackson (1824), Samuel J. Tilden (1876), Grover Cleveland (1888), and Al Gore (2000) have in common? After 220 years, 56 presidential election cycles, and 44 elected presidents, these four men are the ONLY candidates for President of the United States to win a plurality of the popular vote and to loose in the EC. This 4-out-of-56 record clearly shows that the system is overwhelming effective in electing candidates not only favored by the majority of the nation's population, but also favored by the majority within the individual states. The EC strikes a brilliant balance between federalism, states' rights and individual equality. To eliminate the EC to promote individual equality places the principles of federalism and state's rights at risk when it is all three that make our republic unique. {1}

      History shows us that the EC functioned remarkably well for over 200 years; achieved all of the Constitutional objectives for which it was created; and has agreed with the sentiments of the majority of voters in 52 out of 56 elections. More importantly, it is one of the last surviving vestiges of states' rights.

      In practice, the Electoral College combines both the size of a candidate's popular support with the distribution of that support among the states. It represents two majority votes not just one! The system is overwhelming effective in balancing the majority of the nation’s popular vote with the majority of the populations within each individual state. Doing away with the EC just to promote individual equality places another principal of states’ right at risk. When all state’s rights have been eliminated the 3–legged stool of federalism, states’ rights, and individual equality collapses along with all of our safeguards against tyranny.

      The purpose of the EC is to stabilize the whole election process. Without it, the presidential election could be unfairly influenced by the nine states with over 50% of the population leaving little or no influence in those 25 states with a combined population of only 17% of the total nation. {2}

      In my opinion, if it ain’t broke don’t try to fix it!
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
      {2} http://exploredia.com/population-of-us-states-2011/

      1. andrew savage profile image60
        andrew savageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Those four mentioned presidential candidates would have changed the course of history for the better. The federation does not operate as a republic for the people when the electoral college has impeded the popular vote for one single vote- one single election is too many.

        Listen, if you only make up 17% of the population, then you only account for 17% of the vote.

        The electoral vote failed 11% of the time. If an elevator failed that many times you would have to be an idiot to gamble your life to get to the top.

        Not only is electoral voting ineffective, inefficient, non-democratic-republican; it is a violation under any nation under martial law with a ruling military power investing its efforts into restoring the constitution, or law, of the said nation.

        It is the means to keeping the under-privileged of a nation in the belly of the beast.

        The system is either bought out, or broken... Either way it is not going to last if it is not able to change. Like communism, it only works in one's subjective imagination, and ultimately fails in objective reality. Based off of your presentation of data and opinion, you are more likely a subjectivist, rather than an objectivist.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi, Mr . Savage.  Thank you for your prompt reply.

          In your last sentence, (“you are more likely a subjectivist, rather than an objectivist.”) you falsely accuse me of being something I am not. In your first, (“Those four mentioned presidential candidates would have changed the course of history for the better.”) you make a totally subjective claim which, by its very nature, you can not possibly prove.

          It is hard to believe you wrote the following:
          “The federation does not operate as a republic for the people when the electoral college [sic] has impeded the popular vote for one single vote- one single election is too many.”

          My dear friend, the United States has conducted its elections as a republic in full and faithful compliance with its constitution since its founding. Our Constitution calls for the election of the president and vice-president by the states and not by a popular vote. Your personal viewpoint is hardly a good reason to change the Constitution.

          “The electoral vote failed 11% of the time,” you said. “If an elevator failed that many times you would have to be an idiot to gamble your life to get to the top.” Surely, you are not suggesting that a political process that is 89% successful is hazardous to my health! Your comparison leaves me speechless.

          Your wrote:
          [i]“Not only is electoral voting ineffective, inefficient, non-democratic-republican; it is a violation under any nation under martial law with a ruling military power investing its efforts into restoring the constitution, or law, of the said nation.”

          It is your expressed opinion the Electoral College…
          …is ineffective when it is historically consistent with the popular vote in all but four cases. {1}

          …is inefficient when in a truly close election, counting all the final ballots, absentee ballots, and provisional ballots would take a huge amount of time and would seriously delay the final results. {2}

          …is non-democratic-republican when our particular republic empowers the states to elect the president based upon the popular vote within each individual state. {3}

          …is a violation under any nation under martial law when our country is not now nor has it ever been under to martial law. (Even pro-popular-vote advocates will raise an eyebrow over this one!)

          Thank you Mr. Savage for sharing your views. It is my experience that reasonable points sometimes need to be clarified but they never need to be repeated. Have a great night.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.history.com/topics/president … tion-facts
          {2} http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/15 … e-20121214
          {3} http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749819.html

 
working