Should the President be elected by popular vote or indirect vote?

[marcus903]

Trying to educate myself here...

Do you think the President should be elected by popular vote or indirect vote?

Why or why not?

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Indirect" vote?

Are you referring to the electoral college?

[Vynestra]

popular vote.

[Ectothrix]

Because popular vote = tyranny of the majority

Indirect vote is good. Electoral College is working as intended.

The USA had a great system at one point.

Congress = most powerful = direct elections = will of the people
Senate = represented states = elected by state congress (changed by 17th amendment to our demise)
President = elected by state delegates = supposed to be a very limited role directing executive departments (now is more like a king)

Democracy is terrible in its pure form.

[Lightwysh]

It should be decided in the octagon.

[Mormolyce]

I think the office of President has accumulated excessive power and has become godlike in the minds of Americans, so I propose making them unelected officials determined by whoever has the majority in the Senate, and chopping their balls off in terms of executive authority.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

The tyranny of the majority? I just... wat

Slavery and persecution.

[Mormolyce]

The tyranny of the majority? I just... wat

I believe he's referring to the tyranny of the 51%. Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Etc.

Which to some extent is what the EC was designed to avoid. Of course, the states and their independence was more important to people back then.

[OzoAndIndi]

While popular vote makes sense, I imagine it would also give the power to the most heavily populated areas and their common viewpoints alone.

[NYC17]

While popular vote makes sense, I imagine it would also give the power to the most heavily populated areas and their common viewpoints alone.

True, but on thee flip side I can't say I'm a fan of states like Iowa holding such importance either.

[Torgent]

While popular vote makes sense, I imagine it would also give the power to the most heavily populated areas and their common viewpoints alone.

No, it would give power to every single vote. In the current system in certain states, votes don't matter one single bit. Red states vote red, blue states vote blue, even when the popular vote in that area is very much in the other direction.

[atrixx]

True, but on thee flip side I can't say I'm a fan of states like Iowa holding such importance either.

I agree with you. I would personally like to see the Electoral college rebalanced around actual state population. There is no reason why Oklahoma, a state of 3.8 million, should have their (electoral) vote count more than a state like Ohio with 11.5 million people.

[jazen]

It really doesn't matter. Monied interests make or break candidates. Until the rules are changed to reduce the importance of fundraising/donors, and most importantly take redistricting out of politicians hands, nothing will stop the steady downward spiral of the American political system.

[Falrinn]

While popular vote makes sense, I imagine it would also give the power to the most heavily populated areas and their common viewpoints alone.

Believe it or not, even if you add up the 100 biggest US cities you only end up with about 20% of the population. A not insignificant percentage by any means, but nowhere close enough to win an election by running a campaign based on pandering to big cities to the detriment of everyone else.

[atrixx]

No, it would give power to every single vote. In the current system in certain states, votes don't matter one single bit. Red states vote red, blue states vote blue, even when the popular vote in that area is very much in the other direction.

You could break the electoral college down per congressional district. Maine and Nebraska follow this rule already and award the 2 "Senate" electoral votes to the overall popular winner of the state. If the country was unified behind that, we would have President Romney right now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2546010.html

[mizeri]

The tyranny of the majority? I just... wat

something like Egypt I would guess

[Underverse]

Both systems suck. Council technocracy.

[atrixx]

It really doesn't matter. Monied interests make or break candidates. Until the rules are changed to reduce the importance of fundraising/donors, and most importantly take redistricting out of politicians hands, nothing will stop the steady downward spiral of the American political system.

Indeed! Make the election publicly funded. Primaries can run End of Feb through early May. General run mid September through Election Day. No campaigning outside of that period and no private influence of money into the system.

I also completely agree that redistricting needs to be pulled out of the majority party's hands. Find a formula to divide states evenly with their population bases and slice away. The redistricting atrocities in Ohio before the last general was just ridiculous.

[NYC17]

You could break the electoral college down per congressional district. Maine and Nebraska follow this rule already and award the 2 "Senate" electoral votes to the overall popular winner of the state. If the country was unified behind that, we would have President Romney right now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2546010.html

That just becomes an arbitrary bunch of nonsense according to the plan in that article. In battleground states awarding the 2 extra votes to whoever wins the most congressional districts just underscores the illusion of a fix, and not an actual one.

[Very Tired]

Hasn't the past few winners of the election won the popular vote anyway?