Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
25. Ain't happening but it would be great.
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:15 PM
Nov 2012

I'd finally have a Republican cause to support.

2000, hello?

A bunch of low-density states that vote Republican and get electoral votes out of any proportion to their low populations.

1 vote in Wyoming presidential election = about 5 votes in Florida.

Of the many ways in which the 55 dead men of 1787 sought to stymie the existing American democracy that their constitution was designed to roll back, this one never worked according to intent. They thought the electors would deliberate and change results if they judged it wise, which has never happened. Electors have always voted with their original candidates, and the exceptions are literally a handful. The only effect of the EC has been to create the mathematical possibility that a losing candidate can still get a majority of EVs by winning the right combination of states. A vestigial and blind effect, but it has nevertheless changed history four times. If the EC had functioned to prevent tyrannies, 2000 would have gone the other way, no?

Let the people vote, I say. It would be much better to change the fact that one single elected super-leader and/or his entourage are so influential atop a super-executive branch that no one had imagined would ever be this big and important, but a straight popular election would be a start.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I wish they would. msrizzo Nov 2012 #1
Bring it on! I'm not afraid of a straight popular vote--but they should be! librechik Nov 2012 #2
You completely trust a state like Texas to report an accurate, honest popular vote total? Nye Bevan Nov 2012 #5
in a scenario where there is no electoral college, reforms to prevent the abuses you mention librechik Nov 2012 #10
Good thing, too. sibelian Nov 2012 #3
I would love it, but the smallest 15 states would never go for it. JaneyVee Nov 2012 #4
I don't think it'll be much of an issue liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #6
Why not? I will take the 2,600,000+ and rising win in the Popular Vote. IllinoisBirdWatcher Nov 2012 #7
Do they realize how many New Yorkers and Californians stay home in "safe" races ?... RagAss Nov 2012 #8
In a popular vote election, I bet Southern states would allow pastors Nye Bevan Nov 2012 #12
Don't they do that now? RagAss Nov 2012 #24
Fine and while were at it ... Ganja Ninja Nov 2012 #9
Why would they do that?? kentuck Nov 2012 #11
Given the union vote in OH, PA and MI, Nye Bevan Nov 2012 #13
I would favor adding 10 electoral votes to the popular vote winner. former9thward Nov 2012 #14
In the back of my mind living in a State where I knew my Presidential vote would not count I voted. gordianot Nov 2012 #15
What is their point? Obama won the popular vote too. n/t EC Nov 2012 #16
There would be an enormously bigger GOTV effort in red states with a popular vote. Nye Bevan Nov 2012 #19
I thought they did already ...n/t EC Nov 2012 #23
Bring it on. calico1 Nov 2012 #17
What we need to work on first, is to get control of the election machinery away from private hands. RC Nov 2012 #18
I'd be ok with that...they just need to get more accurate vote counting Sheepshank Nov 2012 #20
I hope they do. distantearlywarning Nov 2012 #21
It's so cute when they try to change the Constitution to their advantage ; hedgehog Nov 2012 #22
Ain't happening but it would be great. JackRiddler Nov 2012 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Expect a big Republican p...»Reply #25