# If electing the President by popular vote is a good idea... **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 13, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428 "2015-11-13T00:12:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/21 "2015-11-19T07:49:32Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Then why don’t we do the general election this way? I think it should be all on the same day, but at the very least both the primaries and general elections should operate on the same basis IMO. I think there’s good reason why they shouldn’t, and it’s because of the rather entrepreneurial style of our Presidential politics. Unlike in a parliamentary system where the next PM will have been the leader of his party for some time already and a familiar political figure (and where you’re voting for a party anyway, more than a person), we’ve got a system where people can run for their party’s Presidential nomination when they’re largely unknown to the wider public, even if they’ve been a Senator or governor for years. It takes time for the voters to figure out who the players are, and which ones they think are qualified and would represent them well. But by the time they’re nominated, the public has a pretty good idea who they are. A relatively short general election campaign, ending in a single day, works in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/22 "2015-11-19T07:59:47Z")
You make a good case. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/23 "2015-11-19T09:18:03Z")
Another reason it’s a bad idea is that you’ve just guaranteed there will be no majority if you have a lot of viable candidates. So you’d have the party running someone who most people didn’t vote for. Sure, you could use other voting systems, such as intstant runoff, but the current system gives time for people to get on board, giving a better turn out in the national election. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/24 "2015-11-19T18:13:58Z")
You could also do a non-instant runoff, as in France and Louisiana. But there is no voting system yet devised that perfectly avoids Condorcet perversity, unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/25 "2015-11-19T18:55:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course, coordinating state primary schedules would require national, federal, Congressional legislation . . . and that probably would require a constitutional amendment. The present text of the Constitution does not even **mention** political parties or primaries. Nope. All that has to happen is the states make a compact that is approved by Congress. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/26 "2015-11-19T19:46:27Z")
At the very least, I think it’s only fair to change up the order. There is no reason why a relatively small number of people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina should get such disproportionate power. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/27 "2015-11-19T21:05:48Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Another reason it’s a bad idea is that you’ve just guaranteed there will be no majority if you have a lot of viable candidates. So you’d have the party running someone who most people didn’t vote for. Considering how early in the primary season Super Tuesday is, isn’t that a possibility now? Then again, I wonder how many states had early primaries but moved them to a later date because they realize there’s more of a chance to be the “decider.” I have a feeling this is a big reason California moved back to June after a brief period of being part of Super Tuesday. (Plus, I think one, if not both, of the parties gives states extra delegates for having primaries after April 1, with the bonus being larger in May and larger still in June.) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/28 "2015-11-19T21:16:37Z")
Ahhh…that extra delegates bonus is a great idea–I hadn’t heard about that. And indeed, in a crowded field it could actually give a state more power in the end. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/29 "2015-11-19T23:03:28Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > At the very least, I think it’s only fair to change up the order. There is no reason why a relatively small number of people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina should get such disproportionate power. This is interesting reading. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-presidential-primary-works/) But I disagree with the initial premise. In a constitutional republic that has a federal system with states having a good deal of sovereignty it isn’t necessarily a good idea to elect the president by a popular vote. Especially with how ignorant our electorate actually is. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2015, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/30 "2015-11-20T00:10:12Z")
Very interesting article, thanks. How would you prefer the president be elected? ---
**Author:** ![LarryYT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3be4f8/32.png) [@LarryYT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LarryYT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/31 "2015-11-20T00:11:45Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Ahhh…that extra delegates bonus is a great idea–I hadn’t heard about that. And indeed, in a crowded field it could actually give a state more power in the end. Bobby Jindal dropped out so it is no longer as crowded 😛 ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2015, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/32 "2015-11-20T00:35:32Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Very interesting article, thanks. > > How would you prefer the president be elected? I sort of like the current system which is a compromise of many principles. If I could wave a magic wand and change the environment I’d change the voting system to one in which you’d vote by ranking each candidate on the ballot with a number 1-n and whoever had the lowest total score would win. Hopefully that’d change the voting dynamics enough that 3rd party candidates would be viable. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/33 "2015-12-01T00:05:24Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If I could wave a magic wand and change the environment I’d change the voting system to one in which you’d vote by ranking each candidate on the ballot with a number 1-n and whoever had the lowest total score would win. Wowsers, have you really thunk that out? You’d make POTUs some guy who only picked up 3 votes from himself, his wife and his mum? You’d viritually silence the campaign because there’s be a total disincentive for any “get-out-the-vote”. Any issue that motivated people to actually go to the polls would be a campaign killer. A candidate’s best chance of winning would be to encourage lots of people to vote for their opponent. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/34 "2015-12-01T05:16:57Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > Wowsers, have you really thunk that out? > You’d make POTUs some guy who only picked up 3 votes from himself, his wife and his mum? > You’d viritually silence the campaign because there’s be a total disincentive for any “get-out-the-vote”. Any issue that motivated people to actually go to the polls would be a campaign killer. A candidate’s best chance of winning would be to encourage lots of people to vote for their opponent. Not that I’d be in favor of such a system, but your objection could easily be dealt with by automatically assigning the remaining values, or an average of them, to the candidates not voted for. For instance, if there were 14 candidates running, and you only gave your preferences for 3 of them, those 3 would get 1, 2, and 3 points, and the remaining 11 would either be randomly assigned 4 through 14 points, or they’d all get 9 points, being the average of 4 through 14. Under such a system, candidates not voted for would be worse off than those voted for. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/35 "2015-12-01T10:53:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > … but your objection could easily be dealt with by automatically assigning the remaining values, or an average of them, to the candidates not voted for. So FPTP gets replaced with mandatory preference voting (STV), possibly exhausting preference. (good start, that covers bias in the ballots that are cast. ) But as I understand it the US elections are matters of state concern and so a candidate who only stands in say Vermont will have a profound advantage in accumulating that target of the lower number of votes than a national candidate. So to remove that inequity there will need to be a national ballot. Which would in turn need to be administered by a national and non-partisan body (and while they are on the job in that regard they might as well manage all the House and Senate and adjudicate on the boundaries but I digress). And were it possible to do such tinkering without violating numerous articles of that clever constitution you’d have an electoral system that would look remarkably like the one used on this side of the puddle … and we still decide elections based on the rooster who collects the most votes. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/36 "2015-12-01T23:29:21Z")
**penultima** : I started off my post by saying I wasn’t indicating support for the general idea. All I was saying was that that particular flaw you pointed out in post #33 could easily be patched. I have no interest in arguing for or against **octopus** ’ proposal in general. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/37 "2015-12-02T15:43:15Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > …then why not each party “electing” its candidate by popular vote on a unified national Presidential Primary Election Day? > > It just seems strange to me that people whine about the Electoral College, but when it comes to suggesting having the primaries on the same day, they tend to respond, “But that would take all of the small states, and the rural areas of the big states, out of the process; the candidates would just concentrate on where most of the people live.” The funny thing is, shouldn’t candidates concentrate on where most people live in a democracy? Who cares what state they live in? Most voters don’t vote based on “how will it help my state,” but rather “how will it help me.” In a modern mobile society, states don’t really matter all that much. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/38 "2015-12-02T15:49:16Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > In a constitutional republic that has a federal system with states having a good deal of sovereignty it isn’t necessarily a good idea to elect the president by a popular vote. Especially with how ignorant our electorate actually is. We DO elect the president by popular vote. We just count the votes in a convoluted way. Only very rarely has that resulted in the popular vote count not going to the winner, and it has never has anything to do with wise old men choosing someone else because the people picked someone stupid. The Electoral College wasn’t about keeping the popular vote at bay. It was invented because the idea of counting voters across state lines was problematic. It meant states with more liberal voting qualifications would have more votes. States that wanted to keep more people from voting would be screwed, especially those who had made a deal to count some of their people as 3/5ths of people while giving them no vote at all. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2015, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428/39 "2015-12-02T15:50:57Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > First of all, the primaries are the internal elections of private clubs. What the heck are you talking about? Anyone can vote in a primary. In most states, the only qualification is that you be registered as a member of that party, which makes perfect sense, but some even have open primaries. Where you get this notion that they are private clubs is beyond me. The whole point of primaries was to open the system up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-electing-the-president-by-popular-vote-is-a-good-idea/737428.md?page=1)