Why vote in the US for president?

growsince79 said:

It would require a constitutional amendment. Never gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Doesn't require an amendment. Weren't you the one who got all huffy when a different poster got his civics lessons wrong? laughing at you.



9.1.1 MYTH: A federal constitutional amendment is necessary for changing the current method of electing the President.
QUICK ANSWER:

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision.
• The winner-take-all rule is used today in 48 of the 50 states because it was enacted as a state statute in those states, under the same provision of the U.S. Constitution (empowering the states to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes) being used to enact the National Popular Vote plan.
• Winner-take-all statutes may be repealed in the same way they were enacted—namely, through each state’s process for enacting and repealing state laws. Therefore, a federal constitutional amendment is not necessary to change the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.
• The Constitution’s grant of exclusive power to the states to decide how presidential elections are conducted was not a historical accident or mistake, but was intended as a “check and balance” on a sitting President who, in conjunction with a compliant Congress, might manipulate election rules to perpetuate himself in office.

doublejj said:

View attachment 4662897

Click to expand...

Unless all the disastor movies are right and Cali breaks off into the ocean on its own, I don't think we should follow what the Russian military wants us to do.

Fogdog said:

Doesn't require an amendment. Weren't you the one who got all huffy when a different poster got his civics lessons wrong? laughing at you.

National Popular Vote

State status: AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50...

www.nationalpopularvote.com

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

9.1.1 MYTH: A federal constitutional amendment is necessary for changing the current method of electing the President. 9.1.2 MYTH: The traditional and appropriate way of changing the method of electing the President is by means of a federal constitutional amendment. 9.1.3 MYTH: The Electoral...

www.nationalpopularvote.com

9.1.1 MYTH: A federal constitutional amendment is necessary for changing the current method of electing the President.
QUICK ANSWER:

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision.
• The winner-take-all rule is used today in 48 of the 50 states because it was enacted as a state statute in those states, under the same provision of the U.S. Constitution (empowering the states to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes) being used to enact the National Popular Vote plan.
• Winner-take-all statutes may be repealed in the same way they were enacted—namely, through each state’s process for enacting and repealing state laws. Therefore, a federal constitutional amendment is not necessary to change the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.
• The Constitution’s grant of exclusive power to the states to decide how presidential elections are conducted was not a historical accident or mistake, but was intended as a “check and balance” on a sitting President who, in conjunction with a compliant Congress, might manipulate election rules to perpetuate himself in office.

Click to expand...

So you’re saying there’s chance?

I think anytime you have to make something more complicated than it is, there’s a reason behind it.

Wattzzup said:

So you’re saying there’s chance?

I think anytime you have to make something more complicated than it is, there’s a reason behind it.

Click to expand...

"If you win the most votes, you are president" is complicated?

Fogdog said:

"If you win the most votes, you are president" is complicated?

Click to expand...

I’m saying them using the electoral college and not popular vote is complicating things unnecessarily.

Idk I kind of like the Electoral system.

It keeps the president from just pandering to the large population zones because the rural areas would not be as important or need to recognize each states individual issues in the presidential election. I do think each state should have a proportional number of EC votes based on their population though.

I really am not sure how it is done now. I like the checks and balances in our system. It is defiantly flawed and needs a lot of upgrades, but there is a process to do that. We just need to vote in the best people that understand at the highest level the world we live in making the decisions and not fools that sell conspiracy theories.

hanimmal said:

Idk I kind of like the Electoral system.

It keeps the president from just pandering to the large population zones because the rural areas would not be as important or need to recognize each states individual issues in the presidential election. I do think each state should have a proportional number of EC votes based on their population though.

I really am not sure how it is done now. I like the checks and balances in our system. It is defiantly flawed and needs a lot of upgrades, but there is a process to do that. We just need to vote in the best people that understand at the highest level the world we live in making the decisions and not fools that sell conspiracy theories.

Click to expand...

So instead he’s pandering to 4 states? What is the difference?

every vote would be one point so you would have cover every area

Wattzzup said:

So instead he’s pandering to 4 states? What is the difference?

Click to expand...

Who, which states?

I think currently most the presidential candidates try to put time in focussing on each state even if it's not really noticed. Even small states like Iowa with this system get a lot of play they wouldn't otherwise have.

hanimmal said:

Who, which states?

I think currently most the presidential candidates try to put time in focussing on each state even if it's not really noticed. Even small states like Iowa with this system get a lot of play they wouldn't otherwise have.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

Who, which states?

I think currently most the presidential candidates try to put time in focussing on each state even if it's not really noticed. Even small states like Iowa with this system get a lot of play they wouldn't otherwise have.

Click to expand...

No they don’t focus on each state.

In 2012, 100% of the general-election campaign events (and virtually all campaign expenditures) were concentrated in the 12 closely divided "battleground" states where Romney's support was 45%-51%. Because of state winner-take-all laws, neither Romney nor Obama had any realistic chance of winning electoral votes outside those 12 states. Thus, 38 states were totally ignored, including almost all small states, medium-sized states, rural states, western states, southern states, and northeastern states. Two-thirds of the general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were concentrated in just 4 states (OH, FL, VA, IA).

Wattzzup said:

Just Four States Predicted in 2019 to Determine Outcome of 2020 Presidential Race

In an August 21, 2019 article entitled "The 2020 Electoral Map Could Be the Smallest in Years," Dan Balz of the Washington Post wrote: "The 2020 general election could be contested on the narrowest electoral terrain in recent memory." "Just four states are likely to determine the outcome in...

www.nationalpopularvote.com

Click to expand...

It doesn't mean that the other states can be ignored, just that those are those in the middle states that can go one way or another turning the entire election.

As a Democrat you still need to talk to New Yorkers even though you might not be as worried about winning their votes. Also the President needs his parties House and Senate seats to get his agenda done.

I like the President of the United States having to consider every aspect of the country personally.

But pretty sure it is moot, I believe this would be a 75 vote thing.

Wattzzup said:

I’m saying them using the electoral college and not popular vote is complicating things unnecessarily.

Click to expand...

The current system disenfranchises people who live in states with large populations. The constitution allows states to decide how to allocate electors. If enough states sign on to this agreement it's done. Everybody's votes will count the same.

The only argument remaining is whether or not this country should elect presidents via a national majority vote.

growsince79 said:

Tulsi Gabbard was a rising star in the Demacrat party. In 2016 she resigned as vice chair of the party and endorsed Bernie Sanders when she learned they were rigging the debates for Hillary. Now they say she's a Russinn spy.

Click to expand...

they've been saying that for a long time..but we love russia now..right?

hanimmal said:

It doesn't mean that the other states can be ignored, just that those are those in the middle states that can go one way or another turning the entire election.

As a Democrat you still need to talk to New Yorkers even though you might not be as worried about winning their votes. Also the President needs his parties House and Senate seats to get his agenda done.

I like the President of the United States having to consider every aspect of the country personally.

But pretty sure it is moot, I believe this would be a 75 vote thing.

Click to expand...

in 2016 it was a 75k thing.

hanimmal said:

Idk I kind of like the Electoral system.

It keeps the president from just pandering to the large population zones because the rural areas would not be as important or need to recognize each states individual issues in the presidential election. I do think each state should have a proportional number of EC votes based on their population though.

I really am not sure how it is done now. I like the checks and balances in our system. It is defiantly flawed and needs a lot of upgrades, but there is a process to do that. We just need to vote in the best people that understand at the highest level the world we live in making the decisions and not fools that sell conspiracy theories.

Click to expand...

It's the President of the United States, not the president of mostly small states. The Senate is the check on the tyranny of the majority, giving the same unequal voice to citizens of small states in the election of President ends up giving us a skewed government that we have today. Also a truly pissed off urban population and a majority who have issues that aren't given the same weight as those of soybean farmers. Most of the economy comes from larger population centers. Why wouldn't you want people living there to have the same weight in their vote as people in Montana? I like Montana btw, just don't think they should have a larger say in who is president than those living in New York.

Gorillabilly said:

I think that's valid. Only thing is the country is so different. You can't have 8 people in California vote in something that the entire state of KY will revolt over. I think states should have the right to control ALL laws that apply to their citizens.

Click to expand...

In that case, we’d no longer have a country: we’d have 50 little countries squabbling amongst themselves and literally doing gawd-knows-what to their citizens and residents. That’s why the Union (as in “UNITED States“) was and is so important. The slave rebellion should have ended the ‘sovereign state’ nonsense: we’re either a nation, or we’re not.

Really can’t have it both ways: it’s a major reason why “legalization” is such a ridiculous mess. IMO

Fogdog said:

It's the President of the United States, not the president of mostly small states. The Senate is the check on the tyranny of the majority, giving the same unequal voice to citizens of small states in the election of President ends up giving us a skewed government that we have today. Also a truly pissed off urban population and a majority who have issues that aren't given the same weight as those of soybean farmers. Most of the economy comes from larger population centers. Why wouldn't you want people living there to have the same weight in their vote as people in Montana? I like Montana btw, just don't think they should have a larger say in who is president than those living in New York.

Click to expand...

If each states delegate count is fair based on population (again I have no idea how it is actually set up), each person's vote for their state would be proportional to the entire nation, it is just their state is functioning as one vote.

Those large financial centers still have the power of their votes for that state, because they have a huge population and would have a proportional vote to everyone else in the country, but just the states vote for one person. I am ok with that. But I am not sure if population is the determinant of the number of EC votes each state has, that might be what needs to get fixed (along with everyone having easy access to voting over an extended period of time).

Bagginski said:

In that case, we’d no longer have a country: we’d have 50 little countries squabbling amongst themselves and literally doing gawd-knows-what to their citizens and residents. That’s why the Union (as in “UNITED States“) was and is so important. The slave rebellion should have ended the ‘sovereign state’ nonsense: we’re either a nation, or we’re not.

Really can’t have it both ways: it’s a major reason why “legalization” is such a ridiculous mess. IMO

Click to expand...

they allowed the 'south will rise again' bullshit along with flying a flag of treason..what do you expect?

dolly parton said she 'doesn't even know what that flag means'.

maybe Iran is waiting until after the election..?

hanimmal said:

If each states delegate count is fair based on population (again I have no idea how it is actually set up), each person's vote for their state would be proportional to the entire nation, it is just their state is functioning as one vote.

Those large financial centers still have the power of their votes for that state, because they have a huge population and would have a proportional vote to everyone else in the country, but just the states vote for one person. I am ok with that. But I am not sure if population is the determinant of the number of EC votes each state has, that might be what needs to get fixed (along with everyone having easy access to voting over an extended period of time).

Click to expand...

Electoral College votes are equal to a state's representation in Congress. The House allocates seats according to population while the Senate gives two seats to each state regardless. That means Montana, with a small population has larger weight in the EC per voter compared to California. This by itself should be a reason for getting rid of the EC but it's not the most important one.

More important is the winner takes all rules that most states hold for selecting Electors. Most states are already blue or red in partisan leanings. The election is already decided in Oregon, for instance. From 538, based on aggregate polling models and their own time-tested models, this is the path to the presidency for either candidate:



There are just a handful of states in play. To win, Trump just needs to flip Arizona, Florida and PA to win while keeping NC, Ohio and Georgia. He has a real chance of doing this despite him trailing Biden in opinion polls by no less than 8% and as much as 12%. This is why 538 give Trump a 30% chance of winning in the fall even though his record as President is one of the worst in history.

Selecting a president by majority vote will not guarantee a great president. But it does guarantee that president was the choice of the majority. I think it's better than the system we have.