TED Conversations

Melissa Seideman

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Direct popular vote should replace the Electoral College.

Please state your opinion here about this debate and respond to one other person.

Pro- Lindy and Miranda
Con- Claudia and Caitriona

Debate is on Thursday.

Topics: Electoral College Presidential Election elections
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Bayley Semple

    • 0
    Jan 2 2013: I think that the electoral college should not be replaced. The electoral college provides states with low populations to have their own say in the election. This gives some sort of equality to the smaller states but the larger states still have a bigger impact on the elections. Also, voters in the electoral college base their votes on the results of the popular vote in each state. Therefore their are still elements of a direct popular vote in the electoral college system. Getting rid of the electoral college would not change election results dramatically. In most elections the winner has had the majority of popular votes.

    • hailey wilson

      • 0
      Jan 2 2013: i agree. i think that states should have a say rather than just the people. if popular vote replaced the electoral college the decision would be left entirely up to the people instead of states.

    • katherine` daponte

      • 0
      Jan 2 2013: In my opinion, the electoral college should not remain, but at the same time i do agree with your point. The fact that small states have equal representation always gives them an opportunity to have a voice.

      • Susan Anthony

        • 0
        Jan 2 2013: Small states do not have equal representation. Delaware has 3 electoral votes. California 55.

        In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

        In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

        Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

        Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

        Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.

    • Ryan Koval

      • 0
      Jan 2 2013: Hello, Thomas is still using Koval's thing here because I haven't gotten the confirmation email thing. It also ensures that the vote of the educated upper class with actual stakes in the outcome of the elections have a bigger voice in electing the President, thus increasing the credibility of elections and stuff.

    • Susan Anthony

      • 0
      Jan 2 2013: The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 14 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

      The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.