Electoral College or Popular Vote?

[Dr. MB]

Here is an ancient thread that shows a pretty clear majority in favor of the EC.

I'd probably imagine that now a majority are against it.

This basically sums up my view on it:

The EC is more fun to predict, it makes this forum much more interesting, but a popular vote makes more sense.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Popular vote (sane)

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Popular vote (sane)

[Greedo punched first]

Popular vote

[Vern]

Electoral College...

[OSR stands with Israel]

Electoral College...

This but I would support  ending winner take it all for the electoral votes

[YE]

Electoral College...

[Hydera]

Popular vote (sane)

[Lechasseur]

Electoral College...

This but I would support  ending winner take it all for the electoral votes

I think that's reasonable. Allocating electoral votes the way Maine and Nebraska do I think could be good.

[Clarence Boddicker]

I'm tired of the electoral college giving us sh**tty presidents.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Popular vote (sane)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I have never heard a non ridiculous excuse for the EC.

[kelestian]

Popular vote with second tours

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Electoral College.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  And to those of you who beg to differ with that second statement, there are numerous reasons why a national popular vote would NOT be a good idea: 

First, and most obviously, is the fact that there have only been a handful of elections where the winner of the EC was a different candidate from the winner of the national popular vote (anywhere from three to six, depending on who you ask). 

Second, it could easily result in candidates being elected by carrying one or two large states.  Case in point: Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin in California was wider than her margin in the national popular vote.  If it weren't for the Electoral College, California could have made Hillary president all by itself.  That's not fair or democratic by any measure.

Third, it provides for clearer mandates.  There have been many presidents throughout history who, although they won the popular vote, only received a plurality.  Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton were all elected without winning a majority of the popular vote, yet few people would claim that any of these presidents lacked a clear mandate, because they all won majorities in the Electoral College (the one exception would be those who falsely accuse Perot of being a spoiler, or more legitimately make the claim for Roosevelt in 1912).  If we were simply to go by popular vote, we would almost certainly have to institute a runoff system between the top two candidates in order to ensure a clear mandate for the winner, but this would result in longer, more expensive, and potentially more negative campaigns.

Fourth and finally, there have been numerous cases in Congressional elections where the party that won the most votes failed to win the most seats, such as in the 2004 Senate elections.  There have even been parliamentary elections in other countries, including Canada, Australia, and the UK, where the party that won the most seats was a different party from the one that won the popular vote. (Churchill and the Conservatives' victory in the 1951 British general election is one notable example.) 

We can debate all you want about the merits of having a winner take all system for EVs, and whether various forms of proportional allocation are better (after all, the Constitution doesn't mandate any specific method for awarding EVs), but the simple fact is that as long as we have states (and as long as we have the Senate, where every state gets equal representation), the EC is the best system for electing the president.  No electoral system is entirely perfect or "fair," but just because they are not perfect does not mean they are bad.

I'm tired of the electoral college giving us sh**tty presidents.

Like Lincoln, Truman, and Clinton?  They were all elected without a majority of the national popular vote.

[Cold War Liberal]

This basically sums up my view on it:

The EC is more fun to predict, it makes this forum much more interesting, but a popular vote makes more sense.

[Cold War Liberal]

Second, it could easily result in candidates being elected by carrying one or two large states.  Case in point: Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin in California was wider than her margin in the national popular vote.  If it weren't for the Electoral College, California could have made Hillary president all by itself.  That's not fair or democratic by any measure.

I've never understood this line of reasoning as anything other than hatred for California and other populous states. "If we elected Presidents by who gets the most votes, and Hillary won the states where people actually live, she'd win!!!" How is that undemocratic? What doesn't make sense to me is that a person in Wyoming has far more political power in choosing the President under the current system than a person living in the state with the highest number of actual people, California. That's undemocratic.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Ideally, we would elect the president by a national alternative vote; but then, in an ideal world, the presidency would be a ceremonial office and executive power exercised by a prime minister. That will never happen, of course, because it would require Americans to have a serious conversation about constitutional systems instead of parroting vapid talking points they learned in eight grade civics.

[Sirius_]

PV with ranked voting.

Second, it could easily result in candidates being elected by carrying one or two large states. 

The combined populations of California and Texas are nowhere near 50% of the national population, so the "California would choose the president" thing is nonsense. Under PV candidates still have to care about the whole electorate.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Clinton only needed California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey to win the NPV.

[Former President tack50]

Electoral College...

This but I would support  ending winner take it all for the electoral votes

Honestly that would be a good compromise. Keep the EC but make vote allocation proportional at the state level.

Also add a runoff like France or remove the majority requirement, otherwise "Hung electorall colleges" would be too common.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

PV with ranked voting.

Second, it could easily result in candidates being elected by carrying one or two large states. 

The combined populations of California and Texas are nowhere near 50% of the national population, so the "California would choose the president" thing is nonsense. Under PV candidates still have to care about the whole electorate.

Exactly. These eleven states get one to exactly 270 votes, and Trump won seven of them.
California
Texas
Florida
New York
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Michigan
New Jersey

[world.execute(me)]

I have never heard a non ridiculous excuse for the EC.