Should popular vote be enough to win the presidency?

Bunraku

Bunraku

Well-known member
Usual debates and happenings, social media, etc.
People on social media are arguing against a representative democracy, and that a direct democracy is more fair. Then it came with statistics about Hilary winning the majority vote and that a direct democracy is a more fair representation of what the nation wants/needs.

I mean this always happens when a president wins, so it’s not something new.
 
K

katydid

Well-known member
Should popular vote be enough to win the presidency?

NO!

That would mean that NYC and Los Angeles would decide every election. It should not be simply the most crowded urban centers that choose our leaders.
 
E

ElenaJ

Well-known member
Agree completely with Katydid, for the same reason.
Which is why the Electoral College system was created by the founders.
I live in a straightforward democracy and it doesn't work well on a national level.
Local elections, though, can work by majority vote.
In local elections the people are closer to the vote and candidates, and it is a more homogeneous electorate in that when the town is small the problems are more or less shared by everyone.
On federal elections there are too many differences between areas and their needs, and the concentration of votes in the cities with respect to less populated countryside gives little weight to non-city residents.
 
K

katydid

Well-known member
ElenaJ said:
Agree completely with Katydid, for the same reason.
Which is why the Electoral College system was created by the founders.
I live in a straightforward democracy and it doesn't work well on a national level.
Local elections, though, can work by majority vote.
In local elections the people are closer to the vote and candidates, and it is a more homogeneous electorate in that when the town is small the problems are more or less shared by everyone.
On federal elections there are too many differences between areas and their needs, and the concentration of votes in the cities with respect to less populated countryside gives little weight to non-city residents.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Voters in urban Los Angeles have no idea what farmers in Iowa or ranchers in Montana need or want.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
katydid said:
Well said.

Voters in urban Los Angeles have no idea what farmers in Iowa or ranchers in Montana need or want.
Click to expand...

And, vice versa!

HOWEVER, there was a huge change in the U.S. following the last time previous to 2016 that there was a split between the Electoral and Popular votes: That was in 1888, and immediately thereafter, lower population States began to be added to the Union. Initially, there were 10 new States, now there are 12 (including Hawaii and Alaska). So, the more populated States lost their potential advantage, when it came to greater demographic influence on the Popular Vote.

This is the reason the Electoral and Popular votes matched up for 128 YEARS prior to 2016. In 2000, they did match, once the final Florida recount was completed, but the Supreme Court refused to recognize that Al Gore had won BOTH, on the grounds that the final tally had taken too long. So, we got Bush Jr's Presidency, even though he'd actually LOST both!

So, what could have caused the FIRST REAL SPLIT in 128 years between the two types of votes in 2016?

Ans: Highly effective, PROVEN, lllegal foreign interference, which specifically targeted the Swing-States.

In other words, THERE'S NO GOOD REASON why the results of the Popular Vote and the Electoral College Vote shouldn't matchup.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
katydid said:
Should popular vote be enough to win the presidency?

NO!

That would mean that NYC and Los Angeles would decide every election. It should not be simply the most crowded urban centers that choose our leaders.
Click to expand...

It's NOT! It's been 132 years since the urban centers lost the ability to unilaterally choose the President. And again, that was because so many more lower-population States have joined the Union.

Since 1888, EVERY President prior to the year 2000 Florida State-election debacle in Florida won BOTH the Popular and Electoral College votes. And since then, only ONE President failed to win both.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
One might think that Obama would have easily won the Popular Vote with urban support. But, in 2012, early on, it looked like he would win the Electoral College Vote and lose the Popular-vote to Romney.

Trump was angry about it, and said the Electoral College system was "incompatible with a democracy". Little did he know!
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
In 2004, John Kerry came close to winning the Electoral Vote and losing the Popular Vote. Bush Jr. won both; unlike in 2000, when he actually lost both, and was appointed by a Republican-majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Top