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

[kenetics]

I personally think it should be popular votes. I mean it just make sense to me that the candidate who had the highest vote count should win. Why make these specific states so important with higher electoral votes? Doesn't seem right to me.

It seems like common sense to have the highest voted person win the election or any kind of voting in all spectrums.

Are you serious? Can you imagine what celebrities, athletetes and musicians would be president? Come on man lol.

 

[bobgeese]

I did and it was dumb. Just like the idea of an intelligence test for voting is a dumb idea if you want a healthy democracy or functional one even. You're asking us to believe that it's a great idea when it was abandoned specifically because it was a terrible idea and no one uses it anymore. And you yourself admitted it's likely to be abused. Let alone the unworkable logistics problems of who the fuck would even impose a test since it would be state by state.

The opinion of Plato through modern political philosophers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.

 

[avenue94]

The opinion of Plato through modern political philosophers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.

I mean, I'm not going to say he's not smarter than me. But governing has advanced in the thousands of years since he was alive. Not to mention real world examples >>>Plato at this point if we're discussing how to improve governance. You don't see people copying fucking health care ideas from thousands of years ago if we've improved upon them, I don't see why governing philosophy should be treated any different.

 

[bobgeese]

I mean, I'm not going to say he's not smarter than me. But governing has advanced in the thousands of years since he was alive. Not to mention real world examples >>>Plato at this point if we're discussing how to improve governance. You don't see people copying fucking health care ideas from thousands of years ago if we've improved upon them, I don't see why governing philosophy should be treated any different.

I provided you with the means to do more extensive study. You refuse and continue to pretend it's revisiting "literacy tests". Enjoy your ignorance.

 

[avenue94]

I provided you with the means to do more extensive study. You refuse and continue to pretend it's revisiting "literacy tests". Enjoy your ignorance.

Yeah, and I googled it and turned up no democracies using it these days. It was abandoned. You're the one arguing it's a great idea. If it's great, someone would be using it today. But no one is. I don't know why you're stuck on this dog of an idea here, it's not a winning one.

 

[bobgeese]

If it's great, someone would be using it today.

You would definitely fail the test...

 

[avenue94]

You would definitely fail the test...

Sure

 

[deviake]

Well, it's probably because our last two presidents have been incapable of speaking three complete sentences. We have reached a point of inability to make big decisions which will be necessary to improve our country. If we had a voting base made up solely of intelligent, informed people, politicians would not so easily be able to BS our citizens. We as a country might actually be able to get something done.


Everyone keeps on bringing up "muh minorities", Unlike you, I have faith in them.

PS, LOL at destroyed. You brainlets can barely destroy a ham sandwich. Not a single one of you have posted a good reason that we should have uninformed idiots helping determine the direction of our country.

Unintelligent people vote with the EC in place. That's not even a fleeting semblance of an argument

 

[bobgeese]

Unintelligent people vote with the EC in place.

That's the problem. See post 199 for the solution.

 

[deviake]

No, you are the one suggesting that. I am suggesting a modern way of testing voters to ensure that they are well informed on the issues.


It would be created the same way that all tests are created. Do you really think I'm suggesting having someone like Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi create it? Please don't be so stupid.



PS, The lack of education opportunities in the past are gone. Hence in modern times, it's an entirely different argument.

Everything about that is ridiculous. Even if well meaning it's simply a form of voter suppression and adding needless bureaucracy to a simple process.

A lot of factors have to be in play for people to be "informed", whatever your arbitrary definition of that is. A helluva lot more would have to change systemically and culturally to create a more informed voting process, a test is a simple minded and untenable and unrealistic fix to larger issues

 

[bobgeese]

Everything about that is ridiculous. Even if well meaning it's simply a form of voter suppression and adding needless bureaucracy to a simple process.

A lot of factors have to be in play for people to be "informed", whatever your arbitrary definition of that is. A helluva lot more would have to change systemically and culturally to create a more informed voting process, a test is a simple minded and untenable and unrealistic fix to larger issues

Why do you want the opinion of the uninformed?

 

[deviake]

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.

I get the idea but disagree with it. It's a band aid on larger societal issues. People being uniformed or misinformed is a systemic issue and intelligent people can make bad and selfish decisions.

Intelligent people can be self serving. I agree that an informed populace is a good thing but I don't think this is the best course of action. I think that needs to be baked in systemically and culturally.

I can have a shitzillion dollars, pass a test, then vote in my own interests knowing it fucks over 3/4 of the population

 

[deviake]

Why do you want the opinion of the uninformed?

Same reason I believe in people's right to assemble and speak even when I vehemently disagree with what they're saying, when I think they're dumb and ignorant. It's their right. This idea has the scent of aristocracy and for what it's worth I've not seen an argument that's convinced me that it's a good idea (I read the article). It sounds nice in theory but I don't think it would be in execution.

I think the energy and money that could be put into it would be better served going into reformations like Rank Choice Voting, getting money out of politics, and eliminating the EC, just for starters. I think getting people to care and be informed is a tougher fix and this doesn't meet those needs. Don't get me wrong though, to be fair, I see the appeal of the idea, I just disagree that it's a tangible solution.

 

[bobgeese]

I get the idea but disagree with it. It's a band aid on larger societal issues. People being uniformed or misinformed is a systemic issue and intelligent people can make bad and selfish decisions.

Intelligent people can be self serving. I agree that an informed populace is a good thing but I don't think this is the best course of action. I think that needs to be baked in systemically and culturally.

I can have a shitzillion dollars, pass a test, then vote in my own interests knowing it fucks over 3/4 of the population

See post 199. It's more practical than you might think.

 

[deviake]

See post 199. It's more practical than you might think.

I read it, I still respectfully disagree. Maybe there's something I'm missing or not considering about the idea but at this stage I just don't think it's the solution. I think the fix to apathy and an uninformed populace is a deep dive and I'm not convinced that people being able to pass a test is going to lead to more desirable outcomes for the country

 

[1pedestrian]

popular votes.

 

[jmag]

The United States is a union of states. Being rid of the electoral college must first consider being rid of the states.

 

[avenue94]

The United States is a union of states. Being rid of the electoral college must first consider being rid of the states.

That's quite the odd reasoning. There are plenty of countries with states and no electoral college. As in every other country on the planet.

 

[Mike Hagger]

If the elections are rigged. Why does it matter?

 

[jmag]

That's quite the odd reasoning. There are plenty of countries with states and no electoral college. As in every other country on the planet.

Some examples of countries that do hold direct elections for their heads of state: Afghanistan, Iran, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, Zimbabwe..

Many democracies do not directly elect heads of state but have more complicated processes than our electoral college.

My point is that federalism is the basis of the republic, a union of states. Why should states that would not be represented as intended remain in the union? It would no longer be the system as created.