Popular Vote or Electoral College?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/mass_legislatur.html?p1=News_links

[The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Poll: Do you think the Electoral College system should stay?
“What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America,” Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, “Every vote will be of the same weight across the country.”

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was “tried and true” since the founding of the country.

“We’ve had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support,” said Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.

The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick’s desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are campaigning, state by state, to get such bills enacted. Once states accounting for a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of Electoral College votes. That would hold true no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign’s website.

The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation’s 56 elections.

Presidential candidates now “ignore wide swaths of the country” they consider strong blue or red states and focus their campaigning on contested states, Eldridge said. If the president were picked by national popular vote, he argued, candidates would spread their attention out more evenly.

“That’s really what we’re talking about is making sure that every voter, no matter where they live, that they’re being reached out to,” he said.

Opponents say the current system works. They also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state’s 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

Tisei also criticized the proponents for not following the normal procedures to seek a constitutional amendment.

“The thing about this that bothers me the most is it’s so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky,” he said. “This is sort of an end run around the Constitution.”

The measure passed both branches of the Legislature in 2008 but did not make it all the way through the process.]

Thoughts?

ummmm…I don’t understand - even from a selfish perspective - why we should want to do this. I’m hoping someone here is kind enough to enlighten me on this.

I like the part where the guys says that liberals are sneaky. I thought it was funny.

I don’t see a problem with switching to a straight popular vote. There wasn’t a problem when we switched to the direct election of senators. Why do we need a filter in front of the political voice of the American people? It obviously doesn’t prevent shameless populism.

[quote]Otep wrote:
There wasn’t a problem when we switched to the direct election of senators.[/quote]

Are you being serious here? May I hope this is sarcasm?

The point of the electoral college was, originally, to protect the southern states from the fact that a substantial part of their population, already smaller than that of the north, was slave based. I see a striking similarity between that situation and the current burgeoning non-conservative-white population.

It’s no wonder that a democrat is pushing this. Not really making a subjective comment, just saying.

popular vote

Electoral College. We are and should remain a nation of states.

An outright popular vote focuses without - any restraint - all of our representation toward the interests of large urban areas. Look deeply into our big cities - we don’t want that.

I have to say that for a few years I was leaning toward the popular vote, but Thunderbolt talked me back out of it a couple years ago though he didn’t know that until just now.

[i]The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

~Winston Churchill[/i]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Electoral College. We are and should remain a nation of states.

An outright popular vote focuses without - any restraint - all of our representation toward the interests of large urban areas. Look deeply into our big cities - we don’t want that.[/quote]

I agree with this, popular vote sounds good in theory but it would make a state like Arkansas even more irrelevant.

There is a good reason we don’t do a popular vote. Smaller stats (population) become completely voiceless.

HOWEVER, the current system is nothing close to the one originally set up in the constitution.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
There wasn’t a problem when we switched to the direct election of senators.[/quote]

Are you being serious here? May I hope this is sarcasm? [/quote]

Yep, in my opinion there was and is a huge problem with the 17th Amendment. It was an idea spawned in the Progressive era of the early 20th century. The net result of its passing is a decrease in the power of the state legislatures; this power inherently gets shifted to the federal government.

All part of a tacit overall plan to essentially make the states mere colonies of the USA and THAT, my friends and loved ones, is not the fundamental basis of the US Constitution. It’s a perversion of originally intended federalism.[/quote]

You learn something new every day. I just looked up the 17th Amendment and the Clauses that it supercedes, and it is really eye opening. I reserve the right to make a decision on whether it is better for the State Legislature can pick a better Senator, or the people can. There are pros and cons to both sides.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
There wasn’t a problem when we switched to the direct election of senators.[/quote]

Are you being serious here? May I hope this is sarcasm? [/quote]

Yep, in my opinion there was and is a huge problem with the 17th Amendment. It was an idea spawned in the Progressive era of the early 20th century. The net result of its passing is a decrease in the power of the state legislatures; this power inherently gets shifted to the federal government.

All part of a tacit overall plan to essentially make the states mere colonies of the USA and THAT, my friends and loved ones, is not the fundamental basis of the US Constitution. It’s a perversion of originally intended federalism.[/quote]

This^

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[i]The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

~Winston Churchill[/i]

[/quote]

While i agree with your point , that is the reason our elected officials get away with all that they do.

[quote]Otep wrote:

I don’t see a problem with switching to a straight popular vote. There wasn’t a problem when we switched to the direct election of senators. [/quote]

Oh yes, there was.

It took power away from state parliaments and led to a further centralization of power in the US.

A bad idea, all around.

I go back and forth on the merits of directly-elected Senators.

On one hand, having the state legislatures elect the federal Senator diminishes (but does not eliminate) the chance of a disinterested or demagogue-motivated public to elect a bad candidate. See the Democratic nominee for South Carolina to see a good example of this in practice - no way a state legislature process would have allowed him to be the nominee, which is good, no matter what party to side with.

On the other hand, state legislatures are given to clubbiness and incestuous ruling-class, career politican types as much as any legislative body (and their entitled incumbents), and as anyone paying attention can figure, the last thing we need is to reinforce that problem in DC.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[i]The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

~Winston Churchill[/i]

[/quote]

While i agree with your point , that is the reason our elected officials get away with all that they do. [/quote]

They get away with all that they do because politicians can always pander to the (majority) ignorant electorate at election time. People are voting who cannot even explain for you the basic workings of our government. Ask anyone to name their federal representatives, or even to tell you how many senators there are. Seriously, a random poll would show you exactly how ignorant the average voter is. Scary stuff…

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

I don’t see a problem with switching to a straight popular vote. There wasn’t a problem when we switched to the direct election of senators. [/quote]

Oh yes, there was.

It took power away from state parliaments and led to a further centralization of power in the US.

A bad idea, all around.
[/quote]

Agreed.