Not really. I myself have become a character voter when it comes to the Presidency. “The one I’d like to have a beer with” isn’t the best proxy for determining good character but it might be more effective for choosing Presidents than taking an issues quiz and finding the best match.
Ahistorical bullshit.
In a world in which we go by popular vote we probably also require a majority.
No. Not really.
How would that even work?
Think the recent Louisiana Governor race run off. None had won a majority so the top two had a run off.
Not sure if that would be required though. Why do you think so adaher?
The only other western democracy with a popularly elected President, France, does it with a required majority. You certainly don’t have to go that way but you are giving third party runs much more “spoiler” power if you don’t.
Because no one should be President when most people voted against them, and you don’t want spoilers. A runoff if no one gets a majority insures that voters put their stamp of approval on the winner. A popular vote result where the winner gets 43-48% is no more legitimate than what we have now.
I get the point about wanting to reduce the power of spoilers but I would say that a popular vote result in which the person who wins 48 to 46% is more “legitimate” than the one have now in which the 46% candidate wins. And spoilers seem to have that power now, with each state doing their individual popular vote in which the plurality wins … maybe more so since it can be a few votes they take in just a single state.
(Quotes placed because of course it is legal and the according to the rules of the game so of course is in fact “legitimate” in that sense.)
If 3 people run, there’s a chance a person with 34% could win. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to remove the Electoral College if you are just going to switch to first past the post.
Given that with the Electoral College system that election would have no one with 270 so the House would decide Frequently Asked Questions | National Archives with each state delegation getting one vote.
Still better with popular vote.
But also, still worse than have a popular vote with a runoff if nobody gets a majority.
For Hillary, being arrogant, prickly, paranoid, and entitled, is being herself.
Regards,
Shodan
Expert opinion. :rolleyes:
Then why exactly was she running? So she could lose to a bobblehead?
Maybe if she didn’t cheat, they wouldn’t have as much to bitch about.
Right, because that’s what i said.
In what way did Saint Cad Mistate the facts? And in what way was that mistatement bullshit? Everything he said seem accurate.
Or are you just saying shit to pass the time?
A nationwide campaign is even harder for less well financed candidates and money becomes even more important than it is now.
The electoral college has a protective function that acts as a fuse against a tyranny of the majority.
It is much easier to scoop up votes in densely packed population centers than in sparsely populated rural areas. We would end up going from ignoring deep blue and deep red states to ignoring rural voters.
How do you know that the winner wouldn’t have gotten more of the popular vote if they were trying to get a majority of the popular vote rather than the electoral vote?
That’s like saying that the football team with the the most yards should win the superbowl because they are obviously better. Well there are all sorts of decisions that would change in how a game is played if we scored games by yardage instead of touchdowns.
To me rural voters are pretty much ignored now with the exception of Iowa and New Hampshire for the primaries.
I don’t see why either of these are necessarily the case.
At least every vote would count the same, rural or urban. As we are right now, the millions of voters in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and many other big cities don’t matter at all. Seems ridiculous and anti-democratic to me that the biggest cities in the country don’t matter at all when it comes to electing presidents.
Of course they matter. They just aren’t all that matters.