Why is it that losers of elections always use popular vote as a fallback?

[msallied]

Our system does not use popular vote to choose its leaders for a reason, to protect against the tyranny of the majority, to make for more equal representation, to ensure that we are a government of laws and not merely of men (as John Adams once said). We do not want a single group or person to rise to absolute power. Take away the representative aspect of our democracy, and this would not be a country worth living in. It might be frustrating to see our favorite candidates get the most votes and still not win the election, but it is this way because the alternative would mean no checks and balances and a system ends up being infinitely more unfair over the long run.

Anyway, I think it's something that we all need to remember, because in this country when elections are close like they are now, people tend to use popular vote as a way to console and validate themselves for picking a candidate who lost, when it really solves nothing and undermines the importance of our system's design.

[provis99]

1. George Bush thanks you; Al Gore and America do not

[msallied]

2. Please

What happened in 2000 was a travesty and perversion of our system that was not allowed to work the way it was supposed to. I don't think I said that the Supreme Court was supposed to select the President.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Gore won both the popular vote and the electoral college. Stolen votes and

the intentional illegal suppression of 50000 black voters along with the weird ruling of the supremes subverted the system.

Not the electoral college.

[jackson_dem]

17. If it weren't for the electoral college 500 votes in FL wouldn't have mattered

There is also 1824, 1876, and 1888.

[msallied]

22. You don't have to abolish the electoral college in order to fix the problems.

Proportional awarding of electors is a possible solution. But eliminating the representative aspect of choosing our leaders would be more harmful to our nation than most people are willing to admit. They just want their people to win, damn the consequences.

[jackson_dem]

23. The reason for the electoral college is no longer valid

The Founders didn't envision the development of parties and thought the president and vice president (second place finisher at the time) would be chosen based on merit. It is time to scrap the electoral college altogether. We don't use such a scheme for any other office except president. Would anyone suggest returning to electing senators by the state legislature or an electoral college for gubernatorial elections based on counties?

[msallied]

27. Actually

A lot of people have suggested that we return to that way of doing things, but I'm not making that argument. There are pluses and minuses to any way of doing things, but the electoral college is to ensure that every state has a say in choosing our President. There are a multitude of reasons that a certain state would have a higher or a lower turnout, be it weather suppressing it or a high-profile Senate or gubernatorial race driving up turn-out. If it weren't for the electoral college, small states would lose their voice and California and Texas would be picking our President every 4 years. Obviously we don't use it in state elections, not that those are simpler matters, especially when you get into districting issues. But given that we are a country that is comprised of 50 states that operate almost as small countries, then the way of electing one person to represent all of us would involve something more intricate.

Also, if you think we have problems with voter fraud now, imagine how bad it would be if we had a direct, winner-take-all vote. Have you seen elections in South America? Do you want that here? I shudder to think.

[Trajan]

3. Some would say that the popular vote is more important in a Democracy ....

And that clunky constructs, like delegate selections and stuff like that, is actually ANTI Democratic ....

So, one might rightly ask: Why is it that politically driven partisan hacks come into DU and spew crap against the supporters of the other candidate, whom also belong to the same party that the hack (allegedly) belongs to ? ...

If you think we aren't tired of this bullshit, you would be wrong ...

[msallied]

5. There are many different types of democracy.

What you describe is a direct democracy, which is not what this country is. Again, our system is designed this way for an important reason.

Second, we aren't hacks. And we aren't a bunch of kool-aid drinkers. If you can't handle dissent within your own party, then perhaps you shouldn't be involved in politics but instead join a cult. Groupthink is for the weak-minded and the Bushies. You or I or any other Democrat has every right to question the tactics and policies of the people who think they are fit to run this country, whether they are from our own party or from another one. To NOT do so would be dangerous.

[Trajan]

10. The question is not what the system currently is ...

But how it might be perceived by citizens, and especially those here whom you chose to insult because they disagree with your particular view ....

In fact: I am quite sure that the MANY of DUers would prefer direct democracy over 'what the country is', and would consider a direct democracy to be MORE reflective of how a Democracy should be than the current system in place, which you apparently choose to defend even to the point of entering as forum in order to criticise those whom support another candidate ....

I would also point out that you entered this forum in order to criticise those who dissent from your view of what Democracy should be, (and which is the current state, which many dissent against), and that you would be cutting against that dissent in this thread .... In fact; this appears to be your primary purpose in this thread .. To criticise that dissenting position ....

So .... Hypocrite much ?

[msallied]

25. I have said nothing hypocritical

I am merely pointing out the facts as they are, that whining about popular vote in our system is ridiculous, since that is not how our leaders are chosen. It shocks and amazes me that you do not understand the importance of the American system. We are not merely a single nation. We are a nation of nations. To suggest a direct democracy would work better for this country is to suggest that you are completely ignorant of how our government works.

[Trajan]

29. Pure nonsense ....

This is fallacious crap .... Done ....

[msallied]

I'm sorry that facts are hard for you to digest.

[RB TexLa]

4. A little different in the presidential primaries than the general election

in the Democratic primaries most states apportion delegates according to previous Democratic support in elections. District A could have 40,000 Democratic voters out of 50,000 voters and a heavy Democratic turnout so they are allocated say 6 delegates, district B could have 40,000 Democratic voters out of 80,000 voters with a powerful incumbent republican and little Democratic challengers and low Democratic turnout and is allocated 2 delegates. Votes are unequal not due to population of a geographical area as the Electoral college is.

[msallied]

6. That doesn't change the basic principle of my post

and that is that we are not a direct democracy, and it would be good for the mental health of all involved if more people would come to understand that and why it is that way. The way primaries work are not steadfast. I know this. There is little to nothing in the Constitution that determines how we select our Presidential candidates, but it still remains the same in that we never choose them directly, and I really wish this didn't have to be parsed back and forth during every election cycle. This is basic Civics 101 stuff.

[jillan]

7. Why don't you ask Al Gore that question?

[msallied]

8. Al Gore understood perfectly well how American Government works.

Which is why he conceded the election rather than drag his party and the rest of the country through the mud. Something Hillary would do well to understand at some point.

[jackson_dem]

18. Gore conceded only after fighting all the way to the rethug Supreme Court

What about 1824, 1876, and 1888 (and almost 1800)? Politics did exist before Obama was present in the Illinois legislature...

[msallied]

21. If I remember correctly

It was Bush who stopped the Florida Supreme Court's decision and went to the SCOTUS to settle the issue. Gore could have kept going, but it would have drug on the election for weeks, if not months, and he knew such a thing would bring more harm than good to the nation and the process.

[jackson_dem]

24. Yes, Gore didn't quit the day after Florida

No, Gore couldn't have kept going. He was done after the Supreme Court's selection, just as the founder of the Democratic party was done after the House selecting to overturn the popular will. They had nowhere to turn after the process played itself out. It is odd in light of the origin of the Democratic party and 2000 to see so many Democrats now thinking it is fine to overturn the popular will.

[msallied]

28. It was not fine for the Supreme Court to overturn the popular will

That isn't their job. I was all for a re-count.

[BzaDem]

9. You are completely wrong on the reasons why we don't have the popular vote in the GE.

The electoral college was designed primarily to protect slaveholders. If there were a popular vote in 1790s, all the slaves who couldn't vote wouldn't count. But with the 3/5 compromise, states got more house seats (and thus more electoral college votes) by having more slaves. This effectively prevented slavery from being ended via the electoral process without the civil war.

There were other reasons for it, but this was a major one, and the Constitution would not have passed were the EC not created for this reason.

Not to mention that all of your other reasons have nothing to do with having a non-popular-vote system. Protect against tyranny of the majority? The tyranny of the majority of the EC still automatically picks the president (electors don't go against the popular vote of the state). Make for more equal representation? No... the entire purpose was to provide for UNEQUAL representation (votes in smaller states count more than votes in larger states). Government of laws and not merely of men? What are you talking about?

Take away the representative aspect of our democracy? Electing the president through the electoral college has nothing to do with the representative aspect of our democracy. Voters vote for electors, who AUTOMATICALLY pick the voters' choice.

Sorry, but that post was a giant spin-fest.

[msallied]

19. I'M spinning?? ROFL

The tyranny of the majority refers to the tendency for direct democracies to not have checks and balances against a faction of voters rising to absolute power within the system. It ensures that everyone's vote counts, at least to a certain extent. Rather than a simple majority of people picking our President, those who would not agree with the majority also have a say. The Founding Fathers were wary of direct democracies leading to monarchies, and they were wise to install a preventive mechanism.

Electors are not bound by the Constitution to vote as they are pledged, although some states do require them to do so, yes. The system is a bit antiquated and flawed, I will admit, and there are ways of addressing the problems that it currently has, but that does not mean doing away with the representative aspect of our system of picking our leaders and resorting to a simple popular vote. To suggest such a thing is preposterous and would destroy the stability of our two-party system.

[BzaDem]

33. There are checks and balances: Congress.

Our entire legislative body is a representative system; no one is suggesting that we move to a direct democracy. But when it comes to electing a president, there is only one choice. One president. And the people elect the president; the people have the total say (the way our system currently works in practice -- electors haven't decided an election against the people since 1800). The question is, how do you weigh each vote. The minority can and does certainly have checks and balances without having a majority vote in deciding our president. As Chief Justice Warren once said in the one-person-one-vote case,

"Our constitutional system amply provides for the protection of minorities by means other than giving them majority control of state legislatures."

Protecting the rights of the minority was never the reason for the EC for picking our single executive. That is why in so many other countries, there is a de-facto popular vote system. Especially in our primary system, the idea that one delegate from Idaho represents 1000 voters, while one delegate from Texas represents 25000 voters, is crazy. No checks-and-balances argument can justify such a rediculous inequality. I should not be able to move to Idaho to get 25 times the voting power I currently have.

[msallied]

36. Check through the thread

Several people seem to be proponents of direct democracy.

And yes, the EC was in part designed to make sure that smaller, more rural states had a say in electing our President, otherwise California and Texas would be the decider of every election, and they are not. It's been comparatively smaller states like Florida and Ohio. Shit, in the last election, Missouri and Iowa were important states.

The Democrats are awarding their delegates proportionally, which many would say is more fair than the winner-take-all system the Republicans use, and it's one that many Democrats seem to favor switching to as well. But with that, you'd also see problems that abound regularly in places like Israel and Italy, and that is the problem and instability of coalitions. At the very least, you could say that the EC helps to maintain the stability of a two-party system, even if many would agree that we need to be more welcoming to third parties.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. You're confusing two different systems

having an electoral college for presidential elections has nothing at all to do with how primaries work.

[BzaDem]

13. The poster was posting about why in general we don't have a popular vote system for many elections

not specifically about the GE or the primary.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Bullshit

this is General Discussion: Primaries

Why would someone post an esoteric discussion about the 2000 election here? He's talking about the primaries going on right now.

[BzaDem]

34. The topic was "Why is it that losers of elections always use popular vote as a fallback?"

The only other time recently that this has happened that I can remember was with Gore. Sorry if I misinterpreted the post.

[msallied]

31. I was posting basically about the people on here bitching

about the popular vote not counting for anything when it is not the basis how we do things in this country. Electoral college was not the crux of the point. It was the point that whether it is delegates in primaries or the EC, we do not directly elect our candidates or Presidents, and people need to get over this fact.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Obama is leading in popular vote, states won, and delegates. But you make a

decent argument.

Popular vote can always be and often is manipulated by gerrymandering. courts at times have overturned popular vote as anti-democratic as well as anti representational for that reason.

[BzaDem]

16. When have courts overturned "popular vote?"

From what I know, courts have overturned gerrymandering schemes for apportioning Congressional districts. What do you mean, courts have overturned the popular vote?

The popular vote isn't perfect, but it cannot be manipulated by gerrymandering. Non-popular-vote systems have sooo many more flaws.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. Why gerrymander if not to manipulate the popular vote? What's the point of gerrymandering then?

The supreme court in 2000 overturned the popular vote in Florida. They did that by not allowing a correct determination of the popular vote,

The Florida legislature theateneded to overturn the popular vote and select the delegates in 2000, and would have certainly done it and been upheld by the courts if the supremes hadn't done it for them.

In states with initiative, courts routinly overturn the popular vote.

[jackson_dem]

20. Obama may not win the popular vote when it is all said and done

Hence the new Obamite opposition to the very reason the Democratic party was created. States won is meaningless. Land doesn't vote.

[msallied]

35. No, land doesn't vote. Which is why delegates are being awarded

proportionally.

[jackson_dem]

15. Why don't you look at why the Democratic party exists in the first place

Hint: the popular will was overturned.

[boppers]

30. Oh dear, a thoughtful post in GD:P?

Basically, our system was designed for an illiterate, agrarian, land-owner, constituency.

It hasn't been massively reformed since the industrial revolution, the internet, etc. A single corn farmer in Iowa has equal voting power to thousands of individuals living in Manhattan.

This serves two purposes:
1. The rural folk cannot shaft the city folk.
2. The city folk cannot shaft the rural folk.

OTOH, it's not exactly democracy if each person's vote is supposed to be of the same value.

[msallied]

32. Thank you.

You basically understand my point.

It shocks me that more people don't understand this the essence and the importance of a representative democracy.

[Zynx]

38. Because we are Democrats and we believe that our government should reflect the will of the people.

Get used to it.