Question:
The popular vote should decide the election, not the electoral college, agree?
anonymous
2016-11-10 09:30:08 UTC
Not saying this because Hillary lost, because this was even brought up during the 2012 election when Mitt Romney won the popular vote.
31 answers:
thegreatone
2016-11-11 19:13:10 UTC
Agreed.
anonymous
2016-11-12 17:41:59 UTC
The framers seem to have been much smarter than modern liberals including some professors we have seem of late.



Perhaps you noticed or perhaps not but each state gets a number of Representatives in the House Of Representatives according to its population. The same goes for the Electoral College.



According to the Constitution Of The United States it is the States, not the people that elect a President for the Union that is entitled The United States Of America. As for how Electors are chosen for the Electoral College that is left to the individual State.



Before the 17th Amendment was passed and ratified State Legislatures used to elect Senators who are to represent the States, not their people, who are Represented in the House Of Representatives.



If we are not to have Representatives vote in our place as our Attornies do in court why should we elect them? All of these progressive ignorantly attempt to ruin the nation with weakening amendments.
Kaleb13
2016-11-10 12:22:24 UTC
I was a Hillary Clinton supporter, and as much as I would be happy for that to be the case, it's hard to disagree with the electoral college. Each state has issues that effect it differently, and a great degree of weight is given to states like New York with 29 and California with 55, that candidates who win those states already have a big chunk of the points. It would ignore issues effecting states with different economical issues. I would be in favor of states having more split votes to where a candidate can get some points in a losing state if they reach a certain percentage, but having the winning candidate get all of the points if they get a majority of over 50%.
?
2016-11-11 11:11:01 UTC
There are states, countries, and counties for a reason. The idea is that a smaller, more local government will serve its people better than a world government.



Lets say each country votes in the United Nation based on population. Lets say big countries like China and India's votes are so strong, that smaller countries like Sweden stand absolutely no chance in getting their voices heard. This system is unfair, because large countries with large populations with dictate how smaller countries should be governed.



Similarly, each state has some local power not based on population, but based on seats. This ensures that even if many people in the state die out due to a plague, or if there is mass emigration, the state does not lose all its power in having a say in their own interest.



Imagine candidate #1 winning every single state by a difference of 1 vote each. Candidate #2 only wins 1 state, but by 55 votes. If we decide the election with the popular vote, candidate #2 will win, despite having lost all but 1 state.



Lets say that a huge plague wipes out 95% of the citizens in California. Should California lose 95% their right to decide on national issues?



If we decide by popular vote, then politicians will put all their political programs, promises, and policies on areas with most density. For example, politicians will focus on cities, rather than rural areas. They will focus on New York, rather than Alaska. The politicians will not bother to make any changes or listen to areas with low population density. Why should politician put any funds towards Alaska if it doesn't give them any substantial votes?



Worse case scenario, the politicians will actually TAKE AWAY from underpopulated areas to give to populated areas. Giving every state a sizable influence in vote forces politicians to address the needs of every state, not just the ones with the most people.



That's one of the reasons why Trump won. Clinton's policies serve the city well. "When the middle class prospers, America prospers." But there were a ton of people living in the sticks, who are not middle class, who feel that Hillary's promise of the budding middle class does little to relieve them from the harsh life in the middle of nowhere.



This election was a testament to the success of our democracy. Virtually all the cities voted for Hillary Clinton. But our voting process gives power to all areas, including the rural areas. The sparsely populated areas of the rural lands was able to outvote and defeat the densely populated areas of the cities, because America gives power to everyone, every area, so that no area will be left unheard.



City folk shouldn't have all the say in dictating what the rural folk get. Just because the city has more people doesn't mean that rural folk don't matter. This is why voting by AREA is so important.
anonymous
2016-11-10 20:40:36 UTC
No. The system we have now (winning state by state) is the most fair system. The system we have now takes into consideration the population of each state, awarding more electoral votes to more populous states, while also taking into consideration each state having a say in elections. A popular vote system would just give a political monopoly to a few populous states. Do you know how unfair that would be to people living outside of those states? Presidential candidates would only focus on those few states and promise them perks and special treatment for their votes. The only people who would benefit in a popular vote system would be the people residing in those few states. Everyone else would be neglected and ignored. Thee founding fathers knew best.
steve l
2016-11-11 16:35:48 UTC
The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. For those who thinks popular vote is the way to go, you're taking the voice away from the smaller voting group. Give you an example: 4 wolfs and 1 sheep voting which one should be sacrificed for dinner. Who do you think which one will be sacrificed?
?
2016-11-11 08:19:56 UTC
romney never won the popular vote, before hillary it was gore, cleveland, tilden and jackson in 1824 who also won the electoral college but the house gave the election to his opponent anyway somehow. look on dave leips atlas of u s presidental elections which has the results all the way to our first president
-j.
2016-11-10 09:31:58 UTC
Mitt Romney did not win the popular vote, he lost by almost five million. The last president to win an election without the popular vote was GWB over Gore.



But to your general question, I do agree that the electoral college should be abolished. The president should represent all Americans equally: one person, one vote.
Natalia
2016-11-10 13:23:28 UTC
You do realize that even if they even if they had popular vote, instead of electoral college, decide election than Hillary would still not win. It would've ended with a tie as both Hillary and Trump got less than 50% of vote. In that case they take the top 3 candidates, which were Hillary, Trump and Johnson, and let House of Representatives vote for winner. All three of them would have equal chances to win House as its republican dominated. Johnson might've actually had the best chance as the republican establishment hates trump and wouldn't want a democrat. Plus he used to be a governor who worked with both sides. As I voted for Johnson I'm all for us doing that.
Smokies Hiker
2016-11-10 12:28:27 UTC
Our Founding Fathers set it up that way so all states had a more fair representation under the Constitution of The "United" States of America. States like California, New York, Florida, etc. that are large and heavily populated, would have a distinct advantage over the smaller states with less population. And besides, voter fraud would really be rampant if every voted counted. As I recall, one house in Montana received 93 absentee ballots in the mail last month!
?
2016-11-10 16:16:51 UTC
The electoral college prevents concentrated population centers from deciding the winner. Without it, big cities like LA, NY. etc. would have a decided advantage and the people living in smaller towns and cities would have no voice at all.
anonymous
2016-11-10 14:19:35 UTC
The popular vote should decide the election, not the electoral college, agree?

LOL, you're still sniveling & a DOUBLE LOSER, ya lost, get over it & yourself > help make America better or leave America > ya TROLL
Mike
2016-11-10 13:19:26 UTC
Popular vote should decide the election without a doubt
Jimbo
2016-11-10 10:22:17 UTC
No, if the popular vote decided the election, New York and California would decide ever election.
Claire
2016-11-10 09:46:32 UTC
Mitt Romney did NOT win the popular vote.
?
2016-11-10 09:31:31 UTC
Nope. Good luck changing it, as it would require an amendment to the Constitution.



Weren't you whining yesterday about how you were going back to the land of the Rising Sun?



Perhaps you should start packing and not concern yourself with matters of this country.



The only reason we're seeing this phenomenon is due to the large number of states in which the margin of victory was very small.



The EC exists for a reason.
Ray
2016-11-11 18:38:08 UTC
We didn't hear about Arizona's vote until today (3 days later). Are all the other states in, yet?
u_bin_called
2016-11-10 09:36:13 UTC
disagree... the Electoral system remains one of the wisest and insightful elements the Founders hammered into their revolutionary new system of government....one that used to be taught in high schools before all this "self esteem" stuff...



the irony, of course, is how these kids call themselves "worldly and liberal-thinking"...and congratulate themselves for caring about all voters... when in reality they are advocating a system where our national policy is actually dictated by an elite few because they are completely ignorant about regional differences in their own country.
Snid
2016-11-10 09:30:58 UTC
Yes. I've always thought so. The Electoral college needs to go the way of Trump University.
?
2016-11-10 09:31:26 UTC
No. There is a reason for the electoral college. Google it.
?
2016-11-10 09:54:01 UTC
Neither candidate won more than the margin of error. Intelligent people know this. Idiots can't do simple math.
anonymous
2016-11-11 18:01:30 UTC
No. In your scenario California and NY would be the only voices in pres elections.
anonymous
2016-11-10 14:30:50 UTC
NO, libtard.



Besides, if you eliminate the votes of illegals, dead people and people voting more than once, Trump probably DID win the popular vote.
Matt
2016-11-12 06:14:32 UTC
No because then Politicians would just campaign in highly urbanized areas and neglect many state problems. Many states would never be heard.
anonymous
2016-11-10 09:32:40 UTC
That would make our country run by New York and California.
anonymous
2016-11-10 09:32:48 UTC
I completely agree with this! So unfair. I say they do a recount. Just for the record. Ugh.
?
2016-11-10 17:36:58 UTC
no because the state of cal would decide our president every time
anonymous
2016-11-10 09:32:47 UTC
Before you decide to change it, first explain to me why it exists. Is there anything positive about it? (I know the answer to my questions. Trying to get you to think. That is difficult, I know.)
Amy Flower 💋
2016-11-11 11:42:21 UTC
I think so but that isn't the way it works
Squidmaster
2016-11-10 09:30:59 UTC
And when Gore won the popular too.

I agree.
anonymous
2016-11-10 13:31:28 UTC
NEGATIVE ! Then the cities would run the elections... NOT !


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...