Electoral College vs. Direct Democracy (Popular Vote)

Offshoot from the "what will this decade be remembered for?" topic.

So, here's the debate in hand - should American politics be changed to a popular vote plurality system, instead of the current Electoral College system.

American Politics 101 -

The Electoral College is an "indirect democracy" system. Each state has a number of "Electors" equal to (I think) the number of senators + the number of representatives. The populus of the state votes for the Electors at election time. Six weeks later, these electors vote for their choice of presidential candidate (which is normally made clear up front by party loyalty, etc...). Currently there are 538 Electors, hence to gain a plurality, 270 votes are needed. If no one gains a plurality, then congress votes for the president. Interestingly, an Elector need not vote for the candidate they pledged to support (this has happened on a non-trivial number of occassions), though usually they do.

The direct democracy system, as utilised in the UK, for example, is simpler. Everyone over the age of 18 can vote directly for their candidate of choice. The winner in a direct democracy can be determined in one of two ways - majority or plurality. A majority is winning more votes than any other candidate. A plurality is winning more than half the votes.

So - which is the better system? And why?

Discuss! (My views to follow, I don't want to skew anything by putting them in the opening post)

The Electoral College system should be maintained, because it philosophically maintains the reality of a *federated* nation, meaning that the states themselves have importance in elections through virtue of being members of the union.

Maybe I need to phrase this question in a more provocative way -

Notwithstanding the system that was in place at the time, who should have won in 2000 - Bush or Gore? And why? Answers need to be substantiated by comment on why the method used to determine that winner is a better indication of support than the alternative. Expect opposition - this is a debate after all.

Who had the most votes as in how many people voted for them.

So you believe direct democracy to be superior to the electoral college. What are your reasons for this?

In my opinion.. to be leader it should be a popularity contest.. who gets the most votes.. not which area of your country is more important than another.. thats how i see it anyhow...

How would you respond to the counter that unlike the UK, the US is made up of a series of federated states, each with distinct needs, political landscapes and population densities. In a popular vote system, a candidate could win the nation with a large majority in just one large state such as california or Texas, while losing the popular vote in all other states.

By the way, contrary to popular belief, the number of Electors is not determined by the "importance" of a state. It's based on the number of senators + the number of representatives. Each state has 2 senators, and the number of representatives is based on the population of the state.

But will it be fair on the rest of the country? because in my opinion, the areas you win will be the areas you will look after, so you can win second time round... the other areas will IMO, suffer?

Who should have won? According to whom?

I assume you mean "with the votes that were cast, what method should we have used for determining the winner of the election?"

According to the method we currently use, Bush won. He got a small percentage fewer votes overall, but the popular vote doesn't matter. The Electoral College, which weights votes from small states slightly more than votes from large states, is fundamentally a manifestation of a *federal* government. The United States is heavily invested in the concept of a federal government, with many rights and responsibilities left to the states themselves. The State, as a unit, is somewhat independent and itself has a role in the governing of the nation and the citizenry.

It would be wrong IMO to whittle away at the autonomy and power of the State as a governmental unit.

Mark, here is some reading to introduce you to the concept of a *federal* government made up of a union of individual governing bodies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation

You know full well what I meant - that's why I said "notwithstanding the system that was in place at the time". I used a convenient short hand in order to try to stimulate debate by giving context of a recent controversial occurance.

Of course I know what you meant.. that's why I tried to clarify it in the very next line

But would this really be any different in a popular vote scenario? The popular vote can actually accentuate this issue, since a candidate could campaign hard in only the larger states and not represent the interests of the smaller states at all, and still win. California alone has >12% of the population of the US, so gaining a plurality there gains >6% of the total popular vote - easily a winning margin. Wyoming on the other hand has less 0.2% of the US population, so winning a plurality there wins less than one tenth of a percent of the popular vote. Where is the incentive to represent the interests of these smaller states?

The electoral college method actually does the opposite of what many claim. Smaller states are actually better represented than they would be in a direct democracy.

Unlike countries such as the England, France, Germany, etc.. the US is a collection of semi-autonomous states with their own laws and tax structures, governed by an over-arching federal government. The states elect representatives and senators to represent them and their interests to the Federal government. In my opinion, the electoral college, while at first glance being complicated and unfair to the common man, is by far the best way to ensure that the feeling of the general populace as spread across the country is properly represented.

Bingo.

That's why it needs to stay.