U.S. Election Day — Obama vs. Romney

swim · 11-08-2012, 03:04 PM

The electoral college is flawed but a popular vote system has its flaws too. It wouldn't really be better or worse, it would just change strategy. An overhaul in the primary system would have just as big impact in American politics. If you look at the margins that Romney won in the states that he won it puts D's at an advantage.

**Janszoon** · 11-08-2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swim

The electoral college is flawed but a popular vote system has its flaws too. It wouldn't really be better or worse, it would just change strategy. An overhaul in the primary system would have just as big impact in American politics. If you look at the margins that Romney won in the states that he won it puts D's at an advantage.

What do you feel would be the flaws of simply having a popular vote? The way I see it, it would give everyone an equal voice and also make third party candidates more viable. Both of those seem like positives to me.

Circe · 11-08-2012, 03:10 PM

The main problem with the electoral college is that de jure, your vote means absolutely nothing. If you and almost every other person in your county voted for someone, the college could just turn around and put their vote in for somebody else regardless. Before anyone goes crazy at me for saying the US is a democracy, it should be, and a system like that prevents it from being one. The winner-takes-all system is actually the only one that works with proportional representation so you may as well switch to that. It might encourage more people to actually bother voting when they realise they don't have to go with their state's flow to have any impact.

**Janszoon** · 11-08-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circe

The main problem with the electoral college is that de jure, your vote means absolutely nothing. If you and almost every other person in your county voted for someone, the college could just turn around and put their vote in for somebody else regardless. Before anyone goes crazy at me for saying the US is a democracy, it should be, and a system like that prevents it from being one. The winner-takes-all system is actually the only one that works with proportional representation so you may as well switch to that. It might encourage more people to actually bother voting when they realise they don't have to go with their state's flow to have any impact.

^This. Precisely.

Burning Down · 11-08-2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circe

The main problem with the electoral college is that de jure, your vote means absolutely nothing. If you and almost every other person in your county voted for someone, the college could just turn around and put their vote in for somebody else regardless. Before anyone goes crazy at me for saying the US is a democracy, it should be, and a system like that prevents it from being one. The winner-takes-all system is actually the only one that works with proportional representation so you may as well switch to that. It might encourage more people to actually bother voting when they realise they don't have to go with their state's flow to have any impact.

This is why the Electoral College needs to be done away with. It may have worked 240 years ago when there were only 13 states in the Union and a population that was probably only 1 million, but it doesn't work anymore.

blastingas10 · 11-08-2012, 03:19 PM

It makes complete sense to me If we just decided by popular vote. Who ever has the most votes wins, whats wrong with that?

JustJunMC · 11-08-2012, 03:19 PM

By Electoral and Popular, Obama won

and I think the reasoning for the electoral vote is the voice for each state and its representation to have its own voice

For example, New York and California are majority democratic

Florida is dead even

swim · 11-08-2012, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

What do you feel would be the flaws of simply having a popular vote? The way I see it, it would give everyone an equal voice and also make third party candidates more viable. Both of those seem like positives to me.

Third parties won't win the presidency until we have multi-member district legislators. So right now with the electoral college there's a rural bias in policy. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing. These places are poorer and are a lot less self sufficient than large urban with larger tax bases. A popular vote would just shift the bias towards urban areas. I don't really think big picture that one is better than the other but ag subsidies definitely keep food prices low. It would equalize voting power but it's not really as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Obama got approximately 60 million votes and Romney got approximately 57 million votes (rounding down for easy math). So Romney got 5% less popular vote and 33% less electoral votes. Most of the states listed as a problem voted for Romney.

I really think that changing the system ends with a different approach but unlikely a different outcome.

**Janszoon** · 11-08-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swim

Third parties won't win the presidency until we have multi-member district legislators.

The point is that they'd have more of a chance. As it stands right now it's basically impossible, even if they have a lot of support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swim

So right now with the electoral college there's a rural bias in policy. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing. These places are poorer and are a lot less self sufficient than large urban with larger tax bases. A popular vote would just shift the bias towards urban areas. I don't really think big picture that one is better than the other but ag subsidies definitely keep food prices low. It would equalize voting power but it's not really as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Obama got approximately 60 million votes and Romney got approximately 57 million votes (rounding down for easy math). So Romney got 5% less popular vote and 33% less electoral votes. Most of the states listed as a problem voted for Romney.

I really think that changing the system ends with a different approach but unlikely a different outcome.

So you acknowledge the rural bias but it doesn't bother you? Don't you think every voter deserves an equal voice?

swim · 11-08-2012, 03:32 PM

I think rural areas need the protection in ways that urban areas don't. Going to a popular vote would create an urban bias. Voting is the lowest level of political participation and there's inherent inequality in voting power in a federalist system. It's just part of it. If we had a unitarian system then it would be a bigger problem and a popular vote would make more sense.

View Poll Results: Who has your vote?
OBAMA/BIDEN	35	59.32%
ROMNEY/RYAN	7	11.86%
My cat.	17	28.81%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

11-08-2012, 03:19 PM	#547 (permalink)
JustJunMC Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Hongcouver & Global Posts: 125	By Electoral and Popular, Obama won and I think the reasoning for the electoral vote is the voice for each state and its representation to have its own voice For example, New York and California are majority democratic Florida is dead even __________________ So now I cant even post my own nickname in my signature or have an avatar of a graphic design I made that has my username on here? I dont know who is doing it but please provide a legit reason why my material is suddenly being singled out. Thanks

11-08-2012, 03:04 PM	#541 (permalink)
swim dontcareaboutyou Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Carolina Posts: 5,188	The electoral college is flawed but a popular vote system has its flaws too. It wouldn't really be better or worse, it would just change strategy. An overhaul in the primary system would have just as big impact in American politics. If you look at the margins that Romney won in the states that he won it puts D's at an advantage.

11-08-2012, 03:10 PM	#543 (permalink)
Circe Blunt After Blunt After Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: In a French-ass restaurant Posts: 337	The main problem with the electoral college is that de jure, your vote means absolutely nothing. If you and almost every other person in your county voted for someone, the college could just turn around and put their vote in for somebody else regardless. Before anyone goes crazy at me for saying the US is a democracy, it should be, and a system like that prevents it from being one. The winner-takes-all system is actually the only one that works with proportional representation so you may as well switch to that. It might encourage more people to actually bother voting when they realise they don't have to go with their state's flow to have any impact.

11-08-2012, 03:19 PM	#546 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	It makes complete sense to me If we just decided by popular vote. Who ever has the most votes wins, whats wrong with that?

11-08-2012, 03:32 PM	#550 (permalink)
swim dontcareaboutyou Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Carolina Posts: 5,188	I think rural areas need the protection in ways that urban areas don't. Going to a popular vote would create an urban bias. Voting is the lowest level of political participation and there's inherent inequality in voting power in a federalist system. It's just part of it. If we had a unitarian system then it would be a bigger problem and a popular vote would make more sense.