• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Elections Should the US election be decided by electoral votes or popular votes?

Should the election be decided by electoral votes or popular votes?

  • It should be decided by popular votes.

    Votes: 91 52.6%

  • It should be decided by electoral votes.

    Votes: 79 45.7%

  • It should be decided by winning both.

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Total voters
    173
Positions chosen by popular vote:

US senator
US representative
State senator
State representative
Governor
Mayor
City council
School board
County sheriff
County judge
Union representative
Etc., etc., etc

But the president chosen by popular vote: "Mob rule!"

Good times
 
Rocco Siffredi said:
The electoral college is protection from the mob/majority.

If only popular votes then it is mob rule. We are 50 states.....you should have to do well in many states and not just 3 cities to win.
Click to expand...
You mean like how the EC incetivizes ignoring safe states and just focusing in a couple swing states? Because the popular vote engages a larger base than that.
 
Is there really any argument being made in favor of the electoral college other than "a right winger can't win if we don't allow minority rule!!!".

This is a stupid argument and only one side of the political spectrum, the soon to be permanent ideological minority of the right, is suggesting that minority rule makes the most sense.
 
Possum Jenkins said:
Positions chosen by popular vote:

US senator
US representative
State senator
State representative
Governor
Mayor
City council
School board
County sheriff
County judge
Union representative
Etc., etc., etc

But the president chosen by popular vote: "Mob rule!"

Good times
Click to expand...
In other words, "how do you expect our minority to rule if the popular vote matters?".
 
"Tyranny" of the majority aka democracy = bad and unfair and people not represented fairly.

Tyranny of the minority aka oligarchy= everybody "represented fairly"

<{1-1}>

Glad I'm not retarded.
 
avenue94 said:
You mean like how the EC incetivizes ignoring safe states and just focusing in a couple swing states? Because the popular vote engages a larger base than that.
Click to expand...

I mean with the popular vote you only have to win 3 states...cali, ny, and one other. So you could screw all other 47 states if you want. Got it now???

K1levelgrappler said:
No that’s really really stupid.
.
Click to expand...
Not sure how it is stupid. See above.
 
bobgeese said:
I was responding to his post. That being said, it's close enough to share pitfalls.
Click to expand...

What do you mean here? What are the shared pitfalls of having the President elected by popular vote, we elect mayors, governors and congressman by polar vote.
 
avenue94 said:
OK, who creates the test then? It can't be federal since voting is administered by states. What's to stop states form abusing it reduce their voting population or increase it?


Do you have any real world examples of limited electorates electing better leaders? Because most non democratic leaders aren't known for competence.
Click to expand...


Competence? Our last two presidents can't speak three full sentences. You could literally find more qualified people by putting all of the war room members names in a hat and picking for at random.

As far as who creates the test, perhaps it could be the Department of Education. That way they could ensure everyone is taught the necessary civics lessons required to pass the test. The information would be freely available to anyone who wanted to study it.
 
Rocco Siffredi said:
I mean with the popular vote you only have to win 3 states...cali, ny, and one other. So you could screw all other 47 states if you want. Got it now???
Click to expand...
Not sure you understand the math here. Let's do some quick napkin math: 330 million Americans, if we take the 5 most populous states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Penn), that gives us 37 percent of the population. So already your statement is pretty dumb.

Or if you want the concrete example for 2020: For the Democrats to get the win in the popular vote (about 80 million votes), they needed voters from dozens of states. It's not like there are more votes to squeeze out of states.

So again, can you explain to me how one would win a popular election by winning just three states?
 
One person, one vote. The electoral college is a way to overrule the people if a candidate or vote is unfavorable. It's like having Kings and Queens and the people not having true power or democracy. Based on that alone, I'm against it.

Also, the electoral college made sense when news didn't travel far and all that we had was paper and word of mouth. One argument against it is that it means that only the big cities will decide the election. Doesn't that already happen? You have several battleground states and nothing else matters. This at least makes EVERY vote matter. You're still going to have places like California and New York have a huge impact but that's also because they are important states.

One person, one vote + Ranked choice voting is my preferred solution. Having the two together make every vote count and there are no wasted votes if your candidate loses or if you want to vote for a 3rd party. Your vote still counts regardless.
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
What do you mean here? What are the shared pitfalls of having the President elected by popular vote, we elect mayors, governors and congressman by polar vote.
Click to expand...


Well the major pitfall which we are currently stuck in the vicious cycle of, is both parties campaigning for the "lowest common denominator" of their party. Campaigns based on BS promises they not only can't deliver, but have no plan on delivering.

It would not be so easy to get away with that if you had an engaged, informed voting base.
 
bobgeese said:
Competence? Our last two presidents can't speak three full sentences. You could literally find more qualified people by putting all of the war room members names in a hat and picking for at random.

As far as who creates the test, perhaps it could be the Department of Education. That way they could ensure everyone is taught the necessary civics lessons required to pass the test. The information would be freely available to anyone who wanted to study it.
Click to expand...
How would the DOE even work here? States are allowed to run their own elections. How would you legally mandate states use a certain test? And why can't a state just ignore the test? Your requirement is dead on arrival for dozens of reasons, not least it would probably be unconstitutional on its face.
And again, any real world examples of countries that have good leaders because they require poll tests? I can't think of any, but I'm welcome to hear these examples.
 
bobgeese said:
Well the major pitfall which we are currently stuck in the vicious cycle of, is both parties campaigning for the "lowest common denominator" of their party. Campaigns based on BS promises they not only can't deliver, but have no plan on delivering.

It would not be so easy to get away with that if you had an engaged, informed voting base.
Click to expand...

How does the Electoral College address this vs a popular vote for President?
 
Back when had a democracy this was a topic worth debating, but since the democrats have figured out how to steal a national election does it really matter anymore?
 
avenue94 said:
How would the DOE even work here? States are allowed to run their own elections. How would you legally mandate states use a certain test? And why can't a state just ignore the test? Your requirement is dead on arrival for dozens of reasons, not least it would probably be unconstitutional on its face.
And again, any real world examples of countries that have good leaders because they require poll tests? I can't think of any, but I'm welcome to hear these examples.
Click to expand...
OK, a few things.

This obviously isn't a new concept, with roots tracing back to Plato. However in modern times, it has been coined by a particular political philosopher as epistocricy.

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-right-to-vote-should-be-restricted-to-those-with-knowledge

it's worth a read as it gives some insight into what the details might look like, it's not too long an article. For something longer, just Google the work of Brennan mentioned in the article.

As for examples today, there aren't any exactly like that. However, there are some countries where the only people that have to vote are the citizens who are literate. Obviously it's not the same, but the underlying theme is. Intelligent people are the ones who should be making the decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,270,970
Messages
57,693,267
Members
175,809
Latest member
lawfulgood

Share this page

Back
Top