President Lincoln was elected because of the Electoral College

[Resha Caner]

In a free country, the leader is picked by the people, not by political units or officials.

Dream on. No such place has ever existed. I'm not convinced popular vote is the best way to select leaders. The FFs had just cause for worrying about such things resulting in fickle leaders who chase votes and change opinions with the wind.

Your metric indicating popular vote would have made a better selection is quite subjective.

Under the current system, however, huge numbers of votes are completely meaningless. A Republican in Massachusetts or a Democrat in Mississippi might as well not bother voting for president.

Or a Republican in Illinois - which is a bit ironic.

But you do need to think a little broader. "American History" had an excellent article on this type of thing several years back. The vote is not just about elections. If Republicans in Illinois make a strong showing by (for example) electing a Republican governor, then the national party is more willing to pump money into the state, which will increase the number of Republican votes, etc.

Voting patterns are used for other things as well - locating businesses, choosing where to live, etc.

 

[Albion]

In the past it was needed cause it would take too long to count the votes .It would be too long a period with out knowing who the president was.Today we have instant communication it's no longer needed .This technology also allows us to today to have Direct Democracy where We the People vote on issues our selves ending all the gridlock in D.C. that clearly isn't working anymore.

It would seem so. Except it isn't true.

Yes, most votes are counted fairly quickly, but if the election is at all close, a recount is usually called for and in some states that is mandated by the election laws.

If the race is between candidates for county or state government, that will take a week or two, but what if the election were for President (which is what we all are focusing on) and there were no Electoral College?

The consequence would be that every precinct in the nation, plus absentee ballots and overseas voting, would be candidates for being recounted! And why not? If every vote counts the same, gaining or losing any votes anywhere in the whole country would be the same. We would not know who won the election for, probably, the better part of a year since a close up and personal examination of the ballots like you saw when just a few counties in Florida were recounted after the Bush-Gore election in 2000. And don't anyone say we never have close elections for President!

 

[Albion]

Under the current system, however, huge numbers of votes are completely meaningless. A Republican in Massachusetts or a Democrat in Mississippi might as well not bother voting for president. And there's no obvious reason why a voter in a small state should have more of a say in who becomes president than a voter in a large state.

If you think that makes some voters meaningless, consider the situation when just campaigning in a few metropolitan areas with its media taking care of several nearby areas, such as with New York City which serves New Jersey and Connecticut as well. Or Boston, which is the focus of all of northern New England. (Why do you think they're called the New England Patriots instead of the Boston Patriots?)

That is what would happen. The voters in most of the inland states would never see a presidential candidate since there aren't enough voters there to bother with, as against millions in areas of concentrated population.

That is what would happen. The voters in most of the inland states would never see a presidential candidate since there aren't enough voters there to bother with, as against millions in areas of concentrated population.

 

[sfs]

That is what would happen. The voters in most of the inland states would never see a presidential candidate since there aren't enough voters there to bother with, as against millions in areas of concentrated population.

No, that's what's happening now. Here's the breakdown of states visited by presidential candidates during the last general election campaign:

[From here]

 

[Albion]

I don't see how North Carolina, New Hampshire, or Ohio are indicative of what we were talking about. What you have shown with your map are the states that were considered toss-ups in the last election--even though they were not tops in Electoral Vote count.

If the system were popular vote instead, there would effectively be no toss-up states since any vote anywhere would be the same as any other vote anywhere else. You would probably like that, but the focus would be on where the most voter are--obviously! So that would be a relatively few areas, mainly on the two coasts.

 

[John Bowen]

It would seem so. Except it isn't true.

Yes, most votes are counted fairly quickly, but if the election is at all close, a recount is usually called for and in some states that is mandated by the election laws.

If the race is between candidates for county or state government, that will take a week or two, but what if the election were for President (which is what we all are focusing on) and there were no Electoral College?

The consequence would be that every precinct in the nation, plus absentee ballots and overseas voting, would be candidates for being recounted! And why not? If every vote counts the same, gaining or losing any votes anywhere in the whole country would be the same. We would not know who won the election for, probably, the better part of a year since a close up and personal examination of the ballots like you saw when just a few counties in Florida were recounted after the Bush-Gore election in 2000. And don't anyone say we never have close elections for President!

Horse and buggy days it was necessary today we have this marvelous invention called the net people would use it instead of going to the old outdated polls we have today . Of course people would loose their privacy by knowing who they voted for , but people don't seem to care now by being on FB . If you truly follow the teachings of Jesus you want people to know who you are what you stand for .

 

[Albion]

Horse and buggy days it was necessary today we have this marvelous invention called the net people would use it instead of going to the old outdated polls we have today . Of course people would loose their privacy by knowing who they voted for , but people don't seem to care now by being on FB .

There are limitations to these things, though, and they would come into play. Votes can be invalidated by not following the rules correctly, whether that is online or in person. Any little misstep can cause a ballot to be eliminated in a recount, and even if many people vote by internet, provision must always be made for anyone who doesn't own the equipment or doesn't know how to use it or want to use it. It is always the case that the courts will rule that provision must be made for even the least up-to-date voter.

 

[The Barbarian]

The electoral votes are based on how the people voted.

Usually that's what happens. But sometimes, it glitches and the first choice of the voters doesn't get the most electoral votes. It's happened five times in our history. And the results each time have been pretty bad.

Which is a pretty good argument for direct election of presidents.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dream on. No such place has ever existed.

In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies, the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters.
U.S. stands out in how it picks a head of state

I'm not convinced popular vote is the best way to select leaders.

The following American presidents did not receive the majority of votes:

• 1824: John Quincy Adams
• 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
• 1888: Benjamin Harrison
• 2000: George W. Bush
• 2016: Donald Trump

Not the varsity, um?

Your metric indicating popular vote would have made a better selection is quite subjective.

C'mon. The best you can say about that bunch is "mediocre." All were failures as president. And the last two were among the worst ever elected.

But you do need to think a little broader. "American History" had an excellent article on this type of thing several years back. The vote is not just about elections. If Republicans in Illinois make a strong showing by (for example) electing a Republican governor, then the national party is more willing to pump money into the state, which will increase the number of Republican votes, etc.

Why do you think that's a bad thing?

Voting patterns are used for other things as well - locating businesses, choosing where to live, etc.

Sorry, not the concern of government.

 

[Resha Caner]

... like you saw when just a few counties in Florida were recounted after the Bush-Gore election in 2000. And don't anyone say we never have close elections for President!

It's funny when people bring up how Gore "won" that election. First of all, he didn't. The rules determine who won. There is no absolute truth stating that the "real" winner is the winner of the popular vote. Change the rules and you'll change who wins. In fact, change the rules and you'll change the popular vote. Were it a national election, candidates would spread their money differently, thereby persuading different people to vote in different ways.

Second, when elections get that close, the differences in voting numbers become statistically insignificant. IOW, the better statement about the popular vote in such cases would be: it was a tie. We then proceed with some political arm wrestling to determine who wins.

 

[Resha Caner]

In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies, the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters.

Oh my. This is one of those fractal posts ... where to begin. How about we look back in time for an example. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: Juan Peron was directly elected by the voters of Argentina.

C'mon. The best you can say about that bunch is "mediocre." All were failures as president. And the last two were among the worst ever elected.

That's your opinion. Or are you claiming you have a scientific measurement of Presidential effect that can be objectively segmented into "good" and "bad"? Do tell.

Why do you think that's a bad thing?

I listed one reason. But don't overplay my statement. I don't think democracy is bad. I just don't think there is any form of government that guarantees good.

Sorry, not the concern of government.

I never said it was, ... but actually the items I listed are a governmental concern. Government doesn't care about jobs? Anyway, if you don't want to comment on part of my post ... then don't.

 

[tulc]

You can Google this... there is well over 300 million people in the US... and about 100 million on the West Coast and the North East. So maybe 1/3rd of the population lives in those areas? Do you really believe that the 33% minority has the right to set the course for the 66% majority?

...you mean like the almost 3,000,000 more American voters who's candidate didn't get to be President in the last election? Because that sounds an awful lot like a a minority of voters got what they wanted instead of what the majority of voters wanted.
tulc(is just curious)

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Every President is elected because of the Electoral College...

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
In a free country, the leader is picked by the people, not by political units or officials.

Resha Caner disagrees:
Dream on. No such place has ever existed.

Barbarian observes:
In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies, the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters.
U.S. stands out in how it picks a head of state

Oh my. This is one of those fractal posts ... where to begin.

If it was me, I'd be saying, "Oh, I was mistaken."

How about we look back in time for an example.

Sure. Ancient Athens and Novgorod come to mind, but there are others. But even if it's just recent, you're still wrong claiming that such a place never existed. They have and do.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: Juan Peron was directly elected by the voters of Argentina.

Sorry, no bunny trails today.

Barbarian, regarding presidents elected in spite of losing the popular vote:
The best you can say about that bunch is "mediocre." All were failures as president. And the last two were among the worst ever elected.

That's your opinion.

Well, let's take a look at the aggregate ratings of historians:
John Q. Adams 21st
Rutherford Hayes 25th
Benjamin Harrison 31st
George W. Bush 32nd
Donald Trump 44th (one poll of historians)

Of course, after a decade, a presidential failure usually moves up the charts a bit. So Trump might ultimately be a little higher than that. But you see the point; the people are a lot better at picking presidents than republicans think.

Or are you claiming you have a scientific measurement of Presidential effect that can be objectively segmented into "good" and "bad"?

The aggregate opinion of liberal, moderate, and conservative historians, is as good as you'll get.

 

[Resha Caner]

If it was me, I'd be saying, "Oh, I was mistaken."

I flat out don't believe you would ever admit an error of any significance. You simply deflect. I've seen you do it to many besides me on many different topics.

Sorry, no bunny trails today.

So very sad. But, live and learn.

 

[The Barbarian]

I flat out don't believe you would ever admit an error of any significance.

Then you haven't been here long. However, I don't like being wrong, so I usually research anything I don't know for certain, to avoid that.

In this case, however, you were simply wrong. And while you probably don't like being wrong any more than I do, it might be wise to just acknowledge it. Instead, you simply deflected.

"You've been wrong before" wasn't the right response, this time. Live and learn.

Bottom line, there have been many, countries where leaders are directly elected, and as you see, the aggregate opinion of historians of all political persuasions is that presidents elected in spite of the popular vote, have been at best, mediocre.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then you haven't been here long.

Since 2010.

Instead, you simply deflected.

Is this supposed to be clever? It seems a little childish to me.

Bottom line, there have been many, countries where leaders are directly elected, and as you see, the aggregate opinion of historians of all political persuasions is that presidents elected in spite of the popular vote, have been at best, mediocre.

Wrapping opinions in statistics doesn't elevate them to ... whatever point you think this makes. They're still opinions. What you have is statistics about opinions, not statistics about the impact of authoritative individuals on their society, or ... sigh ...

 

[The Barbarian]

The electoral votes are based on how the people voted.

Usually. But it's glitched five times, and someone who got less votes turned out to be the winner.
[/QUOTE]

 

[The Barbarian]

Since 2010.]

Then you've seen me mess up at least four times when I acknowledged it. Most embarrassingly, when I wrote that metal has a higher specific heat than plastic.

(Barbarian notes that instead of admitting he made an error, Resha Caner deflected by accusing the Barbarian of never admitting when he was wrong)

Is this supposed to be clever?

How clever does one have to be to call out an attempt to deflect? You goofed and instead of admitting it, accused me of not admitting when I was wrong.

It seems a little childish to me.

I wouldn't call you "childish", but I think your approach was ill-considered.

Wrapping opinions in statistics doesn't elevate them to ... whatever point you think this makes.

Turns out, it does. This is why important decisions are based on the evaluations of a number of knowledgeable people, rather than just one. It's just a more accurate way to determine things. There's a good deal of research on this subject. Would you like to learn more about it?

Historians do precisely what you're asking for. They evaluate the outcomes of things that these presidents have done or failed to do. No historian would put any of those people in the top ten presidents, and they have overwhelmingly rated them below average. Again, Trump will probably move up from 44; bad presidents usually do better a few years after they leave office.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I find arguments against the electoral college a little troublesome. I mean, if the Pres. is popularly elected, it would essentially ensure that LA, NY, and Chicago always choose the President. It would seem to dilute the vote of less populous areas - essentially disenfranchising them. This isn't to say that the majority should be overlooked either, less the majority be subjected to a tyranny of the minority. The electoral college seems to strike some sort of balance between population and geography. The majority most often wins, but occasionally not so.