Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?
If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. How we choose a president profoundly impacts how campaigns are run, the importance of swing states and an election’s outcome. It’s certainly no surprise that the Electoral College vs. popular vote controversy has sparked considerable debate. As the issue surfaces heading into November, is it time to graduate from the Founding Father's Electoral College concept, or are popularity contests no way to choose a president?
Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?
Electoral College perpetuates the 2 party system
The 2 dominant parties won't let us drop the antiquated electoral college because it keeps them in a duopoly. We need to drop the electoral college and have a national primary and run-off. 51% should be required for a president to take office. Not 50.5% and certainly not 47% + 1 intern. Meanwhile, the dems and repubs agree, keep the college. We're stuck.
- joelinda September 3, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What's wrong with a system that works?
I'd be curious to know why you don't like the two-party system?
A two-party system encourages citizens to work together in large coalitions before elections. A multi-party system encourages elected politicians to make back-room deals to form governing coalitions after elections.
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 4:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The system doesn't work
I'm not advocating a parliamentary system that requires post election coalitions in this way. I'm advocating a popular vote and run-off system that would allow for multiple parties to gain traction and survive. Coalitions would form before the general election and would realign before a run-off. Like him or not, the fact is that Bill Clinton is an example of a president that never won a popular majority. The majority (definition = more than half) of Americans voted against him in both elections, yet he still took office. That is not the definition of a system that works, if "majority rules" is the intention. The irony is that an amazing number of Americans that don't vote + a large number of those that do vote, still think that America is run by people that gain the majority of a vote. You and I and most of the people on this discussion board know better. I'm advocating a system that gets us closer to majority rule. The current duopoly + the electoral college = broken system.
- joelinda September 8, 2008 9:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The founders reason
the reason we have an electoral college is because the candidates could cry foul over the votes. we saw this with Minnesota when senators coleman and franken were caught in limbo for over 4 months debating on who won, what would happen if we debated for twice that amount of time to figure out who the next, most powerful man in the world would be? there is a reason that the founders saw the need for an electoral college, and that reason was they didnt see the need for a drawn out voting process.
- camdaddy09
June 17, 2009 11:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Finality is guaranteed long before inauguration day in January
The U.S. Constitution , existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee "finality" in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January. These constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents apply equally to a presidential election conducted under the National Popular Vote legislation and an election conducted under the current system.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."[Spelling as per original]
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called " safe harbor" date established by section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code).
In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.
It may be argued that the schedule established by the U.S. Constitution may sometimes rush the count (and possibly even create injustice). However, there can be no argument that this schedule exists in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes; that this schedule guarantees "finality" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections under the current system.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 12:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.