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

[TheFNK]

How about popular vote with a points system. Make every voter take a test. Award 50 points of it based on knowledge of Civics and Governance and award the other 50 for general intelligence. Your vote is worth as many points as your score.

I bet if it happened both parties would suddenly decide to fix the broken education system in the country immediately.

[Kaleredar]

How about popular vote with a points system. Make every voter take a test. Award 50 points of it based on knowledge of Civics and Governance and award the other 50 for general intelligence. Your vote is worth as many points as your score.

I bet if it happened both parties would suddenly decide to fix the broken education system in the country immediately.

Pretty sure that literacy tests and the like were deemed unconstitutional.

[TheFNK]

Pretty sure that literacy tests and the like were deemed unconstitutional.

That was also during a time where every American didn't have equal access to education. And was used to deny their ability to vote. This would not deny your right to vote only scale the worth of your vote to your understanding of government and your intelligence.

[Elegiac]

That was also during a time where every American didn't have equal access to education. And was used to deny their ability to vote. This would not deny your right to vote only scale the worth of your vote to your understanding of government and your intelligence.

It also sets the precedent that is it acceptable to impose arbitrary standards to preclude people from voting, which is vastly more detrimental in the long run.

[Skroe]

That was also during a time where every American didn't have equal access to education. And was used to deny their ability to vote. This would not deny your right to vote only scale the worth of your vote to your understanding of government and your intelligence.

It still is a barrier. Voting needs to be one of the very few things WITHOUT any barriers whatsoever, because it is the foundation of everything in our government. Really. Everything. You start putting up barriers of any sort, you start disenfranchising people.

Put another way, the stupid, the ignorant, the paranoid, the crazy, the prejudiced, the malcontent, the hateful and the wicked have every right to vote too.

[Nakura Chambers]

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.

I agree with Ectothrix here.

[Elegiac]

It still is a barrier. Voting needs to be one of the very few things WITHOUT any barriers whatsoever, because it is the foundation of everything in our government. Really. Everything. You start putting up barriers of any sort, you start disenfranchising people.

Put another way, the stupid, the ignorant, the paranoid, the crazy, the prejudiced, the malcontent, the hateful and the wicked have every right to vote too.

And with very good reason.

One of the reasons why the First French Republic failed like many such Enlightened republics (that are in fact dominated by an intellectual upper class) is that its rulers lost touch with the common man of France. Many of the reforms they created, while rational and beneficial, stirred resentment in a mostly conservative population and eventually necessitated the use of terror in order to enforce those reforms. A stable republic has to be able to mind the interests of the masses, both to act as a brake on idealistic progressivism as well as to cultivate loyalty to the state amongst the masses.

[TheFNK]

It still is a barrier. Voting needs to be one of the very few things WITHOUT any barriers whatsoever, because it is the foundation of everything in our government. Really. Everything. You start putting up barriers of any sort, you start disenfranchising people.

Put another way, the stupid, the ignorant, the paranoid, the crazy, the prejudiced, the malcontent, the hateful and the wicked have every right to vote too.

A dysfunctional electorate elects dysfunctional politicians.

I'm not naive. I understand why it is controversial. Just that the sooner we dispel the notion that a million people are, somehow, smarter than one the better.

[Mammoon]

If we are speaking about the US, a new system is needed.

Can anyone explain with good reason why if a state is worth 20 points and 51% of the state votes one way, then 100% of the points go one way?

The system might be "working at intended" but it doesn't make logical sense when you think about it. The other 49% of the votes were completely meaningless in the current system.

[Elegiac]

If we are speaking about the US, a new system is needed.

Can anyone explain with good reason why if a state is worth 20 points and 51% of the state votes one way, then 100% of the points go one way?

The system might be "working at intended" but it doesn't make logical sense when you think about it. The other 49% of the votes were completely meaningless in the current system.

With good reason? No.

The rather trite justification is that it preserves the interests of smaller states. In reality, it shifts importance to swing states that are typically of medium population and size.

[Skroe]

A dysfunctional electorate elects dysfunctional politicians.

I'm not naive. I understand why it is controversial. Just that the sooner we dispel the notion that a million people are, somehow, smarter than one the better.

Our dysfunctional politicians have little to do with the electorate itself. It's mostly because of the rules "the competition" is waged under and changes in policy that changes WHO we elect.

I love France's electoral system. In my eyes, they're world #1. And they got it figured out. They're a rich country with a media every bit as voracious as ours. They have one rule I love in particular: elections have a fundaraising cap. For the Presidency it is $100 million. If a candidate or an affiliated group (in the US, this would include SuperPACs by the way... it's that broad) raise over the cap, the candidate can be disqualified. In fact, Former President Sarkozy is being investigated for just that right now.

It's also things like this: allowing C-SPAN into the Senate. Now some people think openness... ALL OPENNESS is good. Hogwash. The Senate in particular, is an institution where relationships need to be formed, and trust needs to be built, because democracy does not function without back room deals so that all stakeholders get their fair cut. Senators most of all, need to talk to each other. With C-SPAN, that doesn't happen. Which is why Senators show up with with these posterboards scaled to look good on TV to show them off to a barely filled senate (with their back to the Senate desks by the way). Because with C-SPAN, senators aren't talking to each other. They are talking to C-SPAN. They are protecting their political asses and shouting out to their political base as often as possible.

Toss C-SPAN out of the Senate, ban the "Majority of the Majority" rule in the House, and throw in a fundraising cap, and you'd find our politics a lot less dysfunctional. A dysfunctional system of rules will encourage people to be dysfunctional, rather than paragons of democratic virtue.

[Elegiac]

Our dysfunctional politicians have little to do with the electorate itself. It's mostly because of the rules "the competition" is waged under and changes in policy that changes WHO we elect.

I love France's electoral system. In my eyes, they're world #1. And they got it figured out. They're a rich country with a media every bit as voracious as ours. They have one rule I love in particular: elections have a fundaraising cap. For the Presidency it is $100 million. If a candidate or an affiliated group (in the US, this would include SuperPACs by the way... it's that broad) raise over the cap, the candidate can be disqualified. In fact, Former President Sarkozy is being investigated for just that right now.

It's also things like this: allowing C-SPAN into the Senate. Now some people think openness... ALL OPENNESS is good. Hogwash. The Senate in particular, is an institution where relationships need to be formed, and trust needs to be built, because democracy does not function without back room deals so that all stakeholders get their fair cut. Senators most of all, need to talk to each other. With C-SPAN, that doesn't happen. Which is why Senators show up with with these posterboards scaled to look good on TV to show them off to a barely filled senate (with their back to the Senate desks by the way). Because with C-SPAN, senators aren't talking to each other. They are talking to C-SPAN. They are protecting their political asses and shouting out to their political base as often as possible.

Toss C-SPAN out of the Senate, ban the "Majority of the Majority" rule in the House, and throw in a fundraising cap, and you'd find our politics a lot less dysfunctional. A dysfunctional system of rules will encourage people to be dysfunctional, rather than paragons of democratic virtue.

Bingo. The vast, vast majority of US political problems are systemic, not social.

As much as I love France, they do have their problems which I believe the US could improve on. The US has a clearer distinction between its executive and legislative branches than France (owing to its transition from a parliamentary republic rather recently) for example; I also think that some aspects of the Australian system (such as the voting methods of single transferable and alternative preferential voting) would be excellent additions to Legislative elections.

But I agree with the spirit of your point; that Americans need to look at their brother and sister nations across the water for inspiration as to how to fine tune the system to be better.

[darkwarrior42]

With good reason? No.

The rather trite justification is that it preserves the interests of smaller states. In reality, it shifts importance to swing states that are typically of medium population and size.

It does still give the smaller states a greater say than they would have in a pure popular vote; that the states have become so partisan that swing states exist at all is not the fault of the system itself.

*shrug* Popular vote is logical on some levels... but I was born in New York state. Not the city, the state. Guess how much my vote counted for? Guess how much my county's votes counted for? Pretty much nothing. Our entire county could be unanimously against an idea, have it shoved down our throat by people that live on the other side of the state, whose lives bear virtually no resemblance to ours.

It wouldn't take very long, I think, before a system based on popular vote, which would ultimately just let all the big cities decide who gets to be president led to a huge amount of discontent and unrest in the rest of the country. Not that I think the electoral college is a great system, I just don't think a raw popular vote would be that much of an improvement.

[Elegiac]

It does still give the smaller states a greater say than they would have in a pure popular vote; that the states have become so partisan that swing states exist at all is not the fault of the system itself.

*shrug* Popular vote is logical on some levels... but I was born in New York state. Not the city, the state. Guess how much my vote counted for? Guess how much my county's votes counted for? Pretty much nothing. Our entire county could be unanimously against an idea, have it shoved down our throat by people that live on the other side of the state, whose lives bear virtually no resemblance to ours.

It wouldn't take very long, I think, before a system based on popular vote, which would ultimately just let all the big cities decide who gets to be president led to a huge amount of discontent and unrest in the rest of the country. Not that I think the electoral college is a great system, I just don't think a raw popular vote would be that much of an improvement.

Welcome to democratic government.

And no, raw popular vote would not be an improvement. Preferential or runoff voting such as the French use would be an improvement since any elected President has a popular mandate by definition.

[De Lupe]

Right, because being popular obviously makes them the best choice. My vote went to Dr. House. He doesn't even exist and he's a better President than any we've had in the last 30 years.

We need to extend the Presidential term from 4 years to 10. No body can get shit done in 4 years.

[NYC17]

Right, because being popular obviously makes them the best choice. My vote went to Dr. House. He doesn't even exist and he's a better President than any we've had in the last 30 years.

We need to extend the Presidential term from 4 years to 10. No body can get shit done in 4 years.

Yes, fictional characters are much better than actual people.

I agree with you on the term length, but for the House. If we aren't going to get serious about limiting monetary influence, then making it so reps actually have time to focus on representing their constituents would be a very small step forward.