What would go wrong with a direct vote (US)?

[Conspicuous Cultist]

For those of you that are europeans, you can't actually win an election solely on having more votes. You have to have people vote in the state and the majority in that state awards points to that party, which does work but it can cause states to be firmly in a certain side and any vote that isn't that is a waste. (I.E a democrat vote in Texas is a waste, a republican vote in cali is a waste.) and the party with the most points win.

As opposed to a direct vote where whomever has the most votes wins. Simple as that. We have computers now that can calculate this stuff and I think we could handle it since we already count out the votes and it would probably encourage more people to actually vote (and vote third party) and it'd also get rid of gerrymandering and politicial fuckery with presidents only focusing on a few swing states.

So what would go wrong with this? Why isn't this given more support?

[Independent voter]

All but a tiny group of presidents were the pick of the popular vote. Only one that wasn't that I can think of is Bush the Younger who lost the popular vote but won the presidency in the electoral college. His opponent was Gore.

Maybe it's happened twice in US history.

[Blueobelisk]

Because each state also has their own state-level laws. Extreme example: 50 states. One state has a billion people. That state then just decided the federal laws for 49 other states.

[The Crapster]

2 reasons: First, it goes against the constitution. Second, neither the democratic nor republican parties themselves want this, so it will never happen.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Because each state also has their own state-level laws. Extreme example: 50 states. One state has a billion people. That state then just decided the federal laws for 49 other states.

That makes sense, but is that really so bad or is the state by state culture just that great that they'll always vote a certain way?

- - - Updated - - -

2 reasons: First, it goes against the constitution. Second, neither the democratic nor republican parties themselves want this, so it will never happen.

How does it go against the constitution?

[GennGreymane]

actually pretty rare for the electoral college to really go against the popular vote

going to direct vote would be a non-issue.

[Reg]

Personally I am for popular vote. I could see a middle ground between the two being what certain states do and split up the electoral votes depending on the percentages within their own state. But it's not a huge issue really as it has only really affected one election that I can think of, Bush v. Gore. That election had more issues than that though.

[Captainn]

Because each state also has their own state-level laws. Extreme example: 50 states. One state has a billion people. That state then just decided the federal laws for 49 other states.

This.


And the fact that after seeing the senator and house members these people elect ... After 30 years, I'm glad it isn't like that. It's already bad enough. Although it rarely happens where popular vote doesn't trump.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

actually pretty rare for the electoral college to really go against the popular vote

going to direct vote would be a non-issue.

It is rare but I was thinking more about the other parties besides dems and republicans. Yeah, a third party can come to power the same way the dems and republicans can but it doesn't seem likely one will happen, let alone a majority of points going to them.

[Captainn]

It is rare but I was thinking more about the other parties besides dems and republicans. Yeah, a third party can come to power the same way the dems and republicans can but it doesn't seem likely one will happen, let alone a majority of points going to them.

The way the election finances work are pretty rough toward third parties, so I doubt we'll ever see it in our lifetime. It would take a huge scandal/people waking up and realizing the two main parties are garbage. Which won't happen easily

[Stormdash]

Can't happen in the US without a huge overhaul of the Constitution and, really, the philosophical underpinnings of our entire society and system of government. And thank goodness, because I can't imagine a bigger recipe for frivolity and venal plunder than trying to minister a direct democracy of over 300 million citizens.

[Xar226]

is that really so bad or is the state by state culture just that great that they'll always vote a certain way?

Yes. States can change demographics over time, but the reality is that without even knowing who the Democratic or Republican nominees for president are right now, we could probably tell you the outcomes for the next presidential election in about 40 states.

How does it go against the constitution?

The Electoral College is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. It would require a Constitutional amendment to elect a president in any other way.

As far as the original question, nah, I wouldn't have a problem with a direct vote system. But, as somebody else pointed out, there have only been a few times in the history of the United States that the winner of the Electoral College was not the winner of the popular vote: George W. Bush in 2000, John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. The margins of difference were ranged from 38,000 for Adams to about 500,000 for Gore. (Adams is a fun historical fact. No candidate won a majority in the Electoral College, which means that the House of Representatives chose the president. They selected Adams despite him losing the popular vote and the electoral vote.)

- - - Updated - - -

It is rare but I was thinking more about the other parties besides dems and republicans. Yeah, a third party can come to power the same way the dems and republicans can but it doesn't seem likely one will happen, let alone a majority of points going to them.

If that's your goal, you want what I've pushed for for a long time: Preferential voting.

[Stormdash]

What would really blow people's mind is if any of the states decided to change the way their electors are chosen beyond all-or-nothing vs. proportional, but instead, say, to be selected by the state legislature or appointed by the state Governor. That would be a real civics lesson for a lot of people.

[Rukentuts]

And thank goodness, because I can't imagine a bigger recipe for frivolity and venal plunder than trying to minister a direct democracy of over 300 million citizens.

You mean, the thing we already do with an extra layer added in?

[Stormdash]

You mean, the thing we already do with an extra layer added in?

Which is a smarmy and ignorant way to say, the thing we don't do at all.

[Rukentuts]

Which is a smarmy and ignorant way to say, the thing we don't do at all.

Yes, because of the "extra layer" that I totally didn't say. Read the post before responding.

The electoral college was meant for a different century, not unlike quite a few of our policies we refuse to update.

[Stormdash]

Yes, because of the "extra layer" that I totally didn't say. Read the post before responding.

Maybe you should refamiliarize yourself with what the word "direct" in the phrase "direct democracy" means. The US isn't a direct democracy, isn't one degree removed from direct democracy, is not in any material or factual way a direct democracy, and it would be abjectly ignorant to insist otherwise. You are probably exactly who I have in mind that would just go full BSOD if, say, Montana decided they'd just have their state legislature send a slate of electors for the 2016 election.

[Rukentuts]

Maybe you should refamiliarize yourself with what the word "direct" in the phrase "direct democracy" means. The US isn't a direct democracy, isn't one degree removed from direct democracy, is not in any material or factual way a direct democracy, and it would be abjectly ignorant to insist otherwise. You are probably exactly who I have in mind that would just go full BSOD if, say, Montana decided they'd just have their state legislature send a slate of electors for the 2016 election.

Maybe you should familiarize with the text contained in the opening post. He means an electoral system by popular vote.

Direct democracy was literally added by your misinterpretation of the thread.

[lockedout]

Maybe you should familiarize with the text contained in the opening post. He means an electoral system by popular vote.

No he literally means:

a direct vote where whomever has the most votes wins. Simple as that.

[Stormdash]

There will be no national electorate in the US. We are a union of states. You'd think the name of the country might be a giveaway, plural that it is and all.