When will US introduce direct election system for President?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : When will US introduce direct election system for President?

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Mark Lybeck
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 209
Credit: 103,409,038
RAC: 79,988
Finland
Message 1304631 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 21:05:56 UTC

Any idea when US citicens would choose their president directly among candidates, ommitting any intermediary-electors who may or may not change their mind.
Also another peculiarity is that in the current indirect election system one candidate gets all the votes of the eletors in the state, although the actual voted outcome is different.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12736
Credit: 7,273,687
RAC: 17,745
United States
Message 1304641 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 21:34:21 UTC - in response to Message 1304631.

Any idea when US citicens would choose their president directly among candidates, ommitting any intermediary-electors who may or may not change their mind.
Also another peculiarity is that in the current indirect election system one candidate gets all the votes of the eletors in the state, although the actual voted outcome is different.

I expect it won't change at all. Gives the pundits something to complain about.

____________


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 49,973,986
RAC: 306,525
Message 1304655 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 21:59:31 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 17:13:36 UTC

--

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8686
Credit: 25,018,546
RAC: 29,976
United Kingdom
Message 1304657 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 22:09:39 UTC - in response to Message 1304655.

After we make it through our 2nd ever constitutional convention, the electoral college system will probably go away.

The always Republican House is going to allow that, pull the other one.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12736
Credit: 7,273,687
RAC: 17,745
United States
Message 1304677 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 22:50:26 UTC - in response to Message 1304657.

After we make it through our 2nd ever constitutional convention, the electoral college system will probably go away.

The always Republican House is going to allow that, pull the other one.

WK, What does the house have to do with a constitutional convention?

____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1304684 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 23:02:11 UTC - in response to Message 1304631.
Last modified: 10 Nov 2012, 23:03:37 UTC

Since it's only the losers of each election who want to do so, and the losers by definition tend to be less numerous than the winners, it is unlikely to ever happen. Anyway, the winner of this election also won a popular majority, so this particular election doesn't make the electoral college particularly problematic.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/
____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8686
Credit: 25,018,546
RAC: 29,976
United Kingdom
Message 1304685 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 23:05:08 UTC - in response to Message 1304677.

After we make it through our 2nd ever constitutional convention, the electoral college system will probably go away.

The always Republican House is going to allow that, pull the other one.

WK, What does the house have to do with a constitutional convention?

Sorry you are correct, my bad thinking, it is Congress decision, but requires a two thirds majority, so still not going to happen soon.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12736
Credit: 7,273,687
RAC: 17,745
United States
Message 1304690 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 23:08:16 UTC - in response to Message 1304685.

After we make it through our 2nd ever constitutional convention, the electoral college system will probably go away.

The always Republican House is going to allow that, pull the other one.

WK, What does the house have to do with a constitutional convention?

Sorry you are correct, my bad thinking, it is Congress decision, but requires a two thirds majority, so still not going to happen soon.

WK, What is the other way to have one? What is the present status of that other way?

____________

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1597
Credit: 932,316
RAC: 2,944
United States
Message 1304780 - Posted: 11 Nov 2012, 4:53:26 UTC - in response to Message 1304690.

After we make it through our 2nd ever constitutional convention, the electoral college system will probably go away.

The always Republican House is going to allow that, pull the other one.

WK, What does the house have to do with a constitutional convention?

Sorry you are correct, my bad thinking, it is Congress decision, but requires a two thirds majority, so still not going to happen soon.

WK, What is the other way to have one? What is the present status of that other way?



If I may answer:

From the US Constitution:


Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


Last I saw, we were just 2 states away from the mark (32 out of 50) on calling a convention.

But in any case, I don't see this happening. Current constitution gives the total power to elect the president to the several state legislatures. Now, by custom, the states hold elections to determine which way to allocate its electors, but they are not required to. Any change to this will require a constitutional amendment, and these amendments require 3/4 of the states' legislatures (currently 37.5 -> 38 states) to agree before they are valid.

I highly doubt that you will find 38 state legislatures to agree to give up their power in this regard, and there is NO OTHER way to change it.

The way the constitution was initially set up, the people voted for 'their' member of the House, the Senate was selected by the state executives (the state Governors), and the President was selected by the state legislatures. Checks and balances. The system worked. Some time later the Senate was changed to direct election by amendment. The legislatures agreed... of course it wasn't THEIR power they were giving up.

You expect the state legislatures to give up one of the FEW powers left to them that is exclusively theirs? Dream on!

Oh, and I am sorry I have not been able to post much of late. Been very busy with my kids. I spend the bulk of my days taking care of them, and when night rolls around, all I want is sleep.


____________
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,897,825
RAC: 2,790
United States
Message 1305356 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 14:11:47 UTC - in response to Message 1304780.
Last modified: 12 Nov 2012, 14:41:21 UTC

The way the constitution was initially set up, the people voted for 'their' member of the House, the Senate was selected by the state executives (the state Governors), and the President was selected by the state legislatures. Checks and balances. The system worked. Some time later the Senate was changed to direct election by amendment. The legislatures agreed... of course it wasn't THEIR power they were giving up.


An odd error for you to make MK:

[ETA]Article 1[/ETA]
Section 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9023
Credit: 256,029
RAC: 127
Canada
Message 1305644 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 0:56:51 UTC

Aftermath: A Distorted View of America and Why Seceding Can’t Succeed

"Of course any of the other aforementioned states could, in an act of treason, secede by force to become the world’s newest impoverished nations. Not only are the majority of blue states the most populous, they are also the states with the most wealth, and with that comes the most taxes. And those blue states’ taxes pave their roads, turn on their street lights, run their schools, and make their water drinkable.

While some Republicans in the Great Plains, the Rockies, and much of the Deep South complain about the bright red map, they’ve failed to realize it’s the deceptively small blue cogs that actually keep the machine that is America rolling along — and it’s the blue states’ money that fills the tank."

____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,283,853
RAC: 3,845
United States
Message 1305650 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 1:13:56 UTC - in response to Message 1305644.

Turns out there have been very few elections where the candidate with fewer votes has won.

Going back in history

Bush - Gore -- Gore had more votes (went to the Supreme Legislature and the Republicans won 5/4 (reflecting the composition of the Supreme Legislature)

Hayes - Tilden -- disputed election -- went to the House of Representatives -- resulted in a deal to end Reconstruction.

Jackson - JQ Adams -- there were four candidates -- Jackson had a fairly large popular vote plurality -- but Adams cut a deal with Clay (the 3rd place finisher) and got the election. Jackson won 4 years later in a landslide.


Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12736
Credit: 7,273,687
RAC: 17,745
United States
Message 1305653 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 1:20:19 UTC - in response to Message 1305650.

Bush - Gore -- Gore had more votes (went to the Supreme Legislature and the Republicans won 5/4 (reflecting the composition of the Supreme Legislature)

And then the press went and recounted all the Florida ballots and shock of shock, Bush actually won Florida.

____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,503,564
RAC: 1,622
United States
Message 1305680 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 2:45:51 UTC - in response to Message 1305644.

Aftermath: A Distorted View of America and Why Seceding Can’t Succeed

"Of course any of the other aforementioned states could, in an act of treason, secede by force to become the world’s newest impoverished nations. Not only are the majority of blue states the most populous, they are also the states with the most wealth, and with that comes the most taxes. And those blue states’ taxes pave their roads, turn on their street lights, run their schools, and make their water drinkable.

While some Republicans in the Great Plains, the Rockies, and much of the Deep South complain about the bright red map, they’ve failed to realize it’s the deceptively small blue cogs that actually keep the machine that is America rolling along — and it’s the blue states’ money that fills the tank."


The 53% is PURPLE, baby!

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,283,853
RAC: 3,845
United States
Message 1305697 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 4:31:36 UTC - in response to Message 1305653.

Gary -- I understand that -- but it was the Supreme Court that made the decision without all the ballots counted. I'm really glad this election was much more clear cut on a state by state basis. By the way, in Arizona there are still three House seats undecided and as of today there were still something like 300,000 ballots uncounted. It isn't just a mess in Florida.



Bush - Gore -- Gore had more votes (went to the Supreme Legislature and the Republicans won 5/4 (reflecting the composition of the Supreme Legislature)

And then the press went and recounted all the Florida ballots and shock of shock, Bush actually won Florida.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12736
Credit: 7,273,687
RAC: 17,745
United States
Message 1305721 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 5:55:46 UTC - in response to Message 1305697.

Gary -- I understand that -- but it was the Supreme Court that made the decision without all the ballots counted.

Actually they were all counted and all recounted once. They stopped the second recount of partisan selected counties which due to partisan bickering wasn't going to be finished on time. As it turns out they were right.

I'm really glad this election was much more clear cut on a state by state basis. By the way, in Arizona there are still three House seats undecided and as of today there were still something like 300,000 ballots uncounted. It isn't just a mess in Florida.



Bush - Gore -- Gore had more votes (went to the Supreme Legislature and the Republicans won 5/4 (reflecting the composition of the Supreme Legislature)

And then the press went and recounted all the Florida ballots and shock of shock, Bush actually won Florida.



____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,897,825
RAC: 2,790
United States
Message 1305779 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 12:25:19 UTC - in response to Message 1305653.
Last modified: 13 Nov 2012, 12:35:10 UTC

Bush - Gore -- Gore had more votes (went to the Supreme Legislature and the Republicans won 5/4 (reflecting the composition of the Supreme Legislature)

And then the press went and recounted all the Florida ballots and shock of shock, Bush actually won Florida.


That's one interpretation of what the press found:

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

[…]

In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical -- a statewide recount -- could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.

source.

[ETA]Gore lost on the night, and the strategy his team used would not have changed that result, though it's likely a different strategy, calling on a recount in which all counties employed a single standard to consider whether a ballot should be counted, would have found Gore won in Florida. Seems to me that Gore was not robbed of the election by SCOTUS[/ETA]
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8686
Credit: 25,018,546
RAC: 29,976
United Kingdom
Message 1305795 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 13:21:58 UTC - in response to Message 1305779.
Last modified: 13 Nov 2012, 13:22:08 UTC

There was not just the undervote, other problems were reported. There was the overvote, illegal voter purging, there was also some electronic glitches that deleted votes (not all reported apparently) and there were some illegal overseas votes (680) that didn't get picked up and removed from the totals.

So I guess we will never know who actually won in Florida.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12736
Credit: 7,273,687
RAC: 17,745
United States
Message 1305837 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 21:05:16 UTC - in response to Message 1305779.

Bush - Gore -- Gore had more votes (went to the Supreme Legislature and the Republicans won 5/4 (reflecting the composition of the Supreme Legislature)

And then the press went and recounted all the Florida ballots and shock of shock, Bush actually won Florida.


That's one interpretation of what the press found:

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

[…]

In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical -- a statewide recount -- could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.

source.

[ETA]Gore lost on the night, and the strategy his team used would not have changed that result, though it's likely a different strategy, calling on a recount in which all counties employed a single standard to consider whether a ballot should be counted, would have found Gore won in Florida. Seems to me that Gore was not robbed of the election by SCOTUS[/ETA]


Same source:
For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.


If you change the standards, you can get the result you quote Bobby.

The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.


So with the rules as they were, Bush won. Different rules, Gore could have won, but there weren't different rules. Makes us all realize how important the rules are and why you should care about such things.

____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,897,825
RAC: 2,790
United States
Message 1305852 - Posted: 13 Nov 2012, 22:04:40 UTC - in response to Message 1305837.

So with the rules as they were, Bush won. Different rules, Gore could have won, but there weren't different rules. Makes us all realize how important the rules are and why you should care about such things.



Indeed. Whatever the case, Gore did lose Florida in 2000.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : When will US introduce direct election system for President?

Copyright © 2014 University of California