I favor a popular vote for reasons outlined in the article.  Let's jettison the 'red' state-'blue' state garbage. In reality, all states represent various shades of purple.  It seems screwy that someone could win an election and receive fewer votes than an opponent.

Last edited by Just Fred (7/26/2015 7:51 am)

I always thought this was a stupid way to do things.

Someone could actually have more votes than anyone else and still lose the election.

And the people casting the electoral votes are under no obligation to vote in favor of the popular vote.

Who thought something like this was a good idea?

Just Fred wrote:

...we shouldn't radically change the way we elect a president because of how the electorate is made up today.  -  Lager

I don't understand what you mean.
 

What I mean is that as things stand today, there are only a handfull of states that presidential candidates have to focus on to win a campaign. There is a very clear line between red states and blue states and because of that, presidential races are for the most part run in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, and perhaps North Carolina.

It wasn't always that way. Look no further than back in 1992

Who woulda thought less than 25 years ago, Montana, Georgia, and Kentucky were "blue" states. 

And no one knows what the map will look like 25 years down the road.

So for me, I don't see a change to the electoral system being wise because of today's "problem" with the make-up of the electorate because history shows it can change is fairly short order.
 

Last edited by TheLagerLad (7/27/2015 9:13 am)

Why should a voter living in one state have more or less importance than someone living in another state in a national election?

Here's the best argument I could find....

Recognizing the strong regional interests and loyalties which have played so great a role in American history, proponents argue that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country be requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, without such a mechanism, they point out, president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire. 

This unifying mechanism does not, however, come without a small price. And the price is that in very close popular elections, it is possible that the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the one elected president - depending (as in 1888) on whether his popularity is concentrated in a few States or whether it is more evenly distributed across the States. Yet this is less of a problem than it seems since, as a practical matter, the popular difference between the two candidates would likely be so small that either candidate could govern effectively. 

Proponents thus believe that the practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, they point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern.

Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those State with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth. 

It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority. 
Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system. There can be no doubt that the Electoral College has encouraged and helps to maintain a two party system in the United States. This is true simply because it is extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency. Even if they won enough electoral votes to force the decision into the U.S. House of Representatives, they would still have to have a majority of over half the State delegations in order to elect their candidate - and in that case, they would hardly be considered a minor party. 

In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress) is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government. 

A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election. 

Just Fred wrote:

Ok, how abot a compromise?  For example, PA has 23 electoral votes.  Let's say The Red Tribe gets 40% of the popular vote and the Blue Tribe gets 60%.  Then 60%, or 13.8 electoral votes go to the Blues and the Reds get 9.2.

It just doesn't seem like it's very democratic or fair representation for one tribe to receive all 23 of PA's electoral votes when 40% of the people voted for the other guy and got nothing for it.

 

What troubles me about this method of election is that there are 23 individuals in PA who are essentially voting for the entire state.

This makes me uncomfortable because individuals can be influenced.

Does anyone know if the people selected to cast the votes are required to follow the popular vote or can they choose whomever they like?