the EC ( meeting in the middle)

[Pommer]

If we are going to get rid of the EC, we might as well have a parlimentary system of government like most of the rest of the developed world. Most nations that have presidential systems are more akin to corrupt banana republics, due to the extreme concentration of power in the presidency that is almost inevitable.

This would be a great benefit to our Nation, but would require extensive fiddling with the Constitution...who wants to open a Constitutional Convention NOW?

 

[Hans Blaster]

If we are going to get rid of the EC, we might as well have a parlimentary system of government like most of the rest of the developed world. Most nations that have presidential systems are more akin to corrupt banana republics, due to the extreme concentration of power in the presidency that is almost inevitable.

Where's the downvote button?

 

[Hans Blaster]

BTW, the campaigns already spend most all of their time and money in several high-population swing states. How many candidates will visit smaller, rural states with only 3 or 4 EV's? I'd think you have a better chance that a candidate will appear in person if the election is decided by popular vote. Because a smart candidate would know that every vote, from every state--whether cast by an urban, suburban, or rural voter--will add to his total.

We already have a pretty good idea about what would happen...

New Hampshire (4 EVs) has been a fairly close, or swing state, for the last election and also this year (perhaps not quite as much) and there is very little campaigning there after the separate, but intense, primary season.

Things look like Iowa (6 EVs) might be in play, but I don't expect to see any campaigning there.

You might note that these are the two early primary states that get intense campaigning about 1 year before election day.

Two of the districts in those two states that split their votes are quite close, the least conservative district of Nebraska (Omaha) and the more conservative district in rural Maine. Let me know if you hear about campaigning in Omaha or rural Maine. (I do expect advertisement, but actual visits will continue to be focused on states with 10+ EVs.)

 

[FireDragon76]

This would be a great benefit to our Nation, but would require extensive fiddling with the Constitution...who wants to open a Constitutional Convention NOW?

Time to learn to like hockey and maple syrup.

Personally, I think we owe King George III an apology.

 

[SimplyMe]

If we are going to get rid of the EC, we might as well have a parlimentary system of government like most of the rest of the developed world. Most nations that have presidential systems are more akin to corrupt banana republics, due to the extreme concentration of power in the presidency that is almost inevitable.

Another advantage, Parliamentary systems are much friendlier to third parties, particularly if third parties are powerful enough to keep other parties from capturing a majority of Parliament.

Of course, the advantage I tend to point out is that it forces the party (or parties) in power to govern. You lose the "Party of No," parties have to stand for something.

 

[rturner76]

What's the point? Why in the 21st century do we need middlemen to elect the President in any manner? The EC is the product of an awkward compromise over 2 issues: 1) Some members of the Constitutional Convention wanted the Congress to elect the President. They didn't trust the voters to make wise decisions. Which is basically elitism. 2) Members from smaller states were afraid voters in states with larger populations would overwhelm Presidential elections. This assumes that voters in larger states vote the same way. Which is still an argument used to support the EC. But it's obsolete, 18th century thinking. It's saying smaller states need a handicap to level the playing field. And it's also saying that states are more important than people. This is antiquated nonsense. In the modern world, geography is meaningless. There are conservative voters in CA, and liberal voters in TX. Why shouldn't their votes count the same just like all the others?

I see what you are saying here. If we went by popular vote alone Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have both been presidents. Conservatives can't let that happen. The southern states need to get more of the vote than their population allows so they can stiffle anything progressive, keeping the racism from the failed reconstruction alive.

Still, I heard something about it that rang true for me especially in this last election. Having the Electoral College ensures that a fraud is not able to con the American people with an obviously corrupt administration (can you imagine someone worse than Trumo? Ew). Voting against the results still has never been done. Some Republican members considered it when the current corrupt self serving fraudulent candidate won thr EC points but not the actual national vote. . Some members of the College (Republican members) considered NOT voting the way the state went because of the obvious ineptitude and corrupt nature of the winner.

They didn't do it because the citizens of the crimson neck in the south would have likely taken to the streets with their 5 firearms for each man woman and child.

 

[Pommer]

Time to learn to like hockey and maple syrup.

Personally, I think we owe King George III an apology.

More likely we’ll be pledging fealty to King Donald, first of His Name, ruler of the Great Lakes, the Mississippi, all the way to the sea, except for the Mexican state of California!

 

[rturner76]

Time to learn to like hockey and maple syrup.

Personally, I think we owe King George III an apology.

Here here, it seems like the British have some class and respect, not to mention a rich history dating to BC times. We were tax dodgers and pirates when we rebelled. Look at how squared away Canada is. We are like a bastard child of the UK and Canada is the good son of her majesty.

 

[jayem]

I see what you are saying here. If we went by popular vote alone Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have both been presidents. Conservatives can't let that happen. The southern states need to get more of the vote than their population allows so they can stiffle anything progressive, keeping the racism from the failed reconstruction alive.

Much truth in that. There have been 7 Presidential elections in the last 28 years. 2 Republican, and 2 Democratic Presidents have been elected. In only one of these elections, (2004) did the Republican candidate win the popular vote. In fact, it’s been 16 years since a Republican won the most votes nationwide. Conservatives won’t admit it, but this tells me that there are more liberal voters in this country. And the only way a conservative can be elected President is with a voting scheme that gives them a handicap.

 

[KCfromNC]

Much truth in that. There have been 7 Presidential elections in the last 28 years. 2 Republican, and 2 Democratic Presidents have been elected. In only one of these elections, (2004) did the Republican candidate win the popular vote. In fact, it’s been 16 years since a Republican won the most votes nationwide. Conservatives won’t admit it, but this tells me that there are more liberal voters in this country. And the only way a conservative can be elected President is with a voting scheme that gives them a handicap.

Hmm, almost as if it there were some affirmative action taken to help a minority group out when they can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

[jayem]

Hmm, almost as if it there were some affirmative action taken to help a minority group out when they can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

In a way, it’d be kinda fun to see Donald Trump win the popular vote, but lose the EC. Of course, you know he’d go hyper-ballistic. Every which way possible, he’d try to keep the EC from casting their votes in Dec. He’d demand recounts, claim voter fraud everywhere, and file court challenges galore. If the 2000 election was an ugly spectacle, Trump v. Biden would be Bush v. Gore on steroids. Honestly, it wouldn’t be good for the country to go through that mess again. But the poetic justice of a Democrat losing the popular vote, but winning the EC would be delicious.

 

[Arcangl86]

In a way, it’d be kinda fun to see Donald Trump win the popular vote, but lose the EC. Of course, you know he’d go hyper-ballistic. Every which way possible, he’d try to keep the EC from casting their votes in Dec. He’d demand recounts, claim voter fraud everywhere, and file court challenges galore. If the 2000 election was an ugly spectacle, Trump v. Biden would be Bush v. Gore on steroids. Honestly, it wouldn’t be good for the country to go through that mess again. But the poetic justice of a Democrat losing the popular vote, but winning the EC would be delicious.

Honestly, that's the only way we would get rid of it. As long as it only benefits Republicans, we are never going to get rid of it. But if it benefits both sides, then it's more likely to get people to go against it.

 

[KCfromNC]

In a way, it’d be kinda fun to see Donald Trump win the popular vote, but lose the EC. Of course, you know he’d go hyper-ballistic.

We don't even have to imagine the response - https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...038b76-4af7-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html

 

[JSRG]

Another advantage, Parliamentary systems are much friendlier to third parties, particularly if third parties are powerful enough to keep other parties from capturing a majority of Parliament.

Of course, the advantage I tend to point out is that it forces the party (or parties) in power to govern. You lose the "Party of No," parties have to stand for something.

Parliamentary systems aren't really any friendlier to third parties than our system, though... nor does it make sense they would. AS I understand it, the difference between a parliament and a congress is that a parliament elects the head of state (prime minister) whereas a congress is a legislative body where the head of state is elected separately, normally directly by the people. So for the US to turn into a parliamentary system, all that would theoretically be necessary is to have the president be elected by the House of Representatives. That is not really something that has much of an effect on third parties.

We need look no further than Canada and the UK to see how a parliamentary system still has two parties having a stranglehold on politics. Someone might say "but there are still third parties that get in" but most of those are regional third parties, namely Bloc Quebecois or the Scottish National Party. Take Quebec and Scotland out of those countries and you'd see two-party dominance about as extreme as in the US.

What does benefit third parties is getting rid of our first-past-the-post system, also known as plurality voting, in which you have single winners in which whoever gets the most votes wins. That heavily favors a two-party system irrespective of whether the legislature is a parliament or a congress, and what do you know, it's also what Canada and the UK uses. Parliamentary systems that use first past the post are hostile to third parties while congressional systems that use a different electoral system--proportional representation, for example--are generally more welcoming to third parties.

So it's not really a matter of parliament vs. congress but the specific method in which people are elected, and the US uses the form of election that most favors a two-party system.