Should We Change How We Elect Presidents?

(CNN) -- A political movement is under way which, in the words of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, could result in "the most radical transformation in our political system that has ever been considered." Moynihan spoke those words in 1979, during a Senate debate over a proposed constitutional amendment calling for the direct popular election of the president. While that amendment failed, the goal of having the people vote directly in presidential elections has been resurrected in the form of the National Popular Vote plan. Just last week, California's legislature passed NPV into law, and it now awaits Gov. Jerry Brown's signature.

The Electoral College system, which passes the votes of the people through individuals called electors, has been a source of controversy in the United States for decades. Indeed, it seems that nearly every new Congress brings with it a proposed amendment calling for the elimination of this indirect election system. The NPV plan, however, is different. It is not a constitutional amendment, and it retains the basic form of the electoral system.

How would NPV work? Let's use California as an example.
Assume that in the next election President Barack Obama receives more votes in California than whoever wins the Republican nomination. If NPV is in effect, Obama would not necessarily be awarded California's 55 electoral votes. If the Republican candidate captured more of the popular vote nationwide, then he or she would be given those 55 electoral votes, regardless of the vote in California.

Sound undemocratic? Well, according to NPV advocates, this is actually a more democratic way to choose a president. Those who support the NPV plan emphasize the current system's alleged propensity to produce "wrong-winner" elections. By this they mean elections where the winner of the popular vote fails to win the Electoral College vote, thus losing the election.

 

If they want to do it that way, then why use the electoral votes at all. Just let whoever wins the popular vote win the presidency hands down and do away with the electoral college. I personally don't have a problem with the way it is done now.

However, direct popular elections would be nice because it would make it feel like your vote counts more. Under the current system, if you vote for a candidate and that candidate loses your state, your vote didn't count very much. Its only significance is going into the popular vote statistic for that candidate. Whereas with direct popular elections, if you are in the minority in your state, your vote goes toward the national popular vote which is what matters even if the majority in your state vote for the other side.

 

No, but perhaps we've recently learned that raising the bar just slightly for who can run might be appropriate.

 

The purpose of the Electoral College was to be yet another speed bump against democracy!!!!

Democracy is a very, very bad thing... yet, even though some elements of our former Republic still remain, like the EC, we've actually been functioning as a democracy for many decades.

The fact that the people turned their back on limited government, and bought into the lie of democracy is evidenced by our $14.3 trillion debt, and the unsustainable trajectory of all government spending.

Unscrupulous politicians are now able to ascend to power simply by promising the most goodies out of the public treasury - the predictable result of democracy.

Our bankruptcy and collapse are not far off now... so change is coming by fire; but the change we will be offered will be of a totalitarian nature. It will have the appearance of democracy, and there will be propaganda talking endlessly about equality, but the in the end, it will be a tyranny - again, the predictable result of democracy.

You want to fix what is broken in America??? The EC is the least of our problems... restore the Constitution, restore limited government, burn the UN down and throw those criminals out of the country, and throw the Republicrat criminals out of office and into prison... that would be a much better start than tinkering around with the EC.

Barach Obama, George Bush, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, all the FedRes board members, the heads of most of the Fortune 500 companies, all CFR members, et al... they all belong in prison.

 

We should change it so the person who gets the most votes wins. Like, you know, a democracy would do.

 

Which is why we don't do it that way, we are a republic.

 

Well, I'm glad you remember 5th grade civics class, but here in the real world where there are no actual democracies, we've taken to calling republics democracies. Now that wasn't my call, you understand. But that's what we do. So now you can move forward knowing that when someome refers to their country as a Democracy, it's really a Republic 100% of the time. Glad I could help out.

 

We do do it that way, just not for President.

 

A Republic is not the same as a Democracy.

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Democracy_vs_Republic.pdf

If you want a better understanding of Republics, and how they differ from a democracy, I suggest Plato's Republic. It has an excellent explanation of the structure of a Republic.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

 

I don't have a problem with the way it is now. How about we face the greatest threat to this nation above all else - Media Monopoly.

 

See: Manufacturing Consent

 

The United States is not meant to elect the President democratically. The United States is not a democracy.

 

First rule......Must show proof of an AUTHENTIC American Birth Cirtificate.

This crap today got through under the radar, and cover-up.​

 

If people want an actual legit third party in America, popular vote is needed.

 

We should keep our electoral college. Otherwise, whatever majority we see at an election campaign will run rough shod over the minority. Our founding fathers established th Electoral College for a reason, that every constituent group of our Republic has an equal say, no matter how big or small. This way our founding fathers safeguarded us against the "tyranny" of democracy.

 

Except popular vote for the president doesn't equally represent the people. Higher populated states would have greater influence than the smaller states, making it an unfair election. The president is supposed to be elected based on equal representation to the states, not each individual person.

 

IMO the USA needs to change the campain rules (or lack thereof) for all elections. No more spending hundres of billions paid to the corporation broadcasters (do like the UK). Don't allow paid lobbiest and news media celeberaties to fratenize and kiss eachothers butts (no ass kissing). Ad's should have only factual data and not opinion or manufactured BS.

However this will not happen, to take away hundreds of billions in campain money from the Media moguls would be impossible. The Media can make anyone look like a fool. And the media will take down anyone against their greedy money making agenda in Washington and the FCC.

You know the Broadcast Media has power over the politicians when you see the politicians kissing up to the media palyers.

 

We should change it but not in the way you describe. The electoral college should go. The popular vote alone is the only fair way. There's no way a voter in Wyoming should have more voting power than someone in California.

 

Yup, this is how you feel in NY if you vote Republican in a Presidential race....all it is, is symbolic...I have voted both ways..

 

Yes.
However, I wish we would overhaul primary elections from the trickle down effect to same day election. It makes no sense to me that people in other States decide the presidential front runner for me.
By the time the primaries are help in my State, I have nothing but leftover crumbs to choose from.

 

It's been suggested by many that a nation-wide primary be conducted in one day. That would eliminate what you describe plus a certain candidate gaining momentum and getting the rest of the primaries because they're ahead of another candidate.

 

I think we should limit the presidents term to 2 years. These 4 year stinches start making them feel like dictators after awhile. They can still serve 8 years but the people should dictate that.

 

Now that it has been published that even Apple Inc. has more money than the US government, I think it is best to stay realistic and expect some takeover of our government some time in the future. By all indications, it is an illusion that we have a country, in reality everyone is for himself.

 

What does that have to do with elections?

 

In my humble opinion, elections are invented as a concept, to put those in power who would represent the interest of the group you belong to. This requires a structure that provides an environment in which you can find a suitable candidate or be a candidate yourself, and the winner of the election staying able to represent his/her electors' interests.

The last candidate in US election history that was not a multi millioner was Jimmy Carter. We have now all accepted that people like that regular (black) guy from Virginia (or the Carolinas?) can't possibly make it even to the senate, and he didn't.

It is the media and the money that spends on the media that tells you who to want, and even if he seems what you would actually want, it becomes irrelevant in Washington. His reelection doesn't depend on the electorate, but on his financial sponsors.

This happened before, in history. When the Roman Empire transformed from a democracy into an empire, senate politicians moved away from the volatile general electorate to solid financial sponsors, and formed a new and much more stable ranking, around the emperor. This consolidated power.