How should the US President get elected?

[Flagg]

I don't know about that. The basis of the argument in not literally about the cities themselves and the people inside their borders in the strictest sense. It's about being able to appeal to Urban dwellers as a whole over rural dwellers. The big flaw there is treating Urban and rural voters as distinct monolithic blocks that somehow will all think and vote the same.

-

I've little right to an opinion but Popular vote seems the way to go to me and for goodness' sake the weirdest thing about the American system is the possibility of faithless electors. That electoral college can vote against what they were told to and somehow it would still count. There's no need any more for them to anything more than theoretical entities even if you go with the first past the post-esque system.

The biggest misnomer is this stupid, and I mean the incredibly stupid, notion that urban areas = liberal votes and rural areas = conservative votes, when in reality there are both. Yeah, urban centers will likely have far more liberal votes and vice versa, but I'd rather they all carry equal weight so that it's not enshrined as the law of the land that people in high population states essentially get disenfranchised.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ironically, the only reason that certain areas are all blue or all red is because of the winner-take-all bullshit of the Electoral College. Under a popular vote, yeah, New York and California might be more blue, but they're not going to be all blue. A Republican would still have to campaign for the red votes in those Democratic urban areas to keep their opponent from running up too big of a lead, and a Democrat would need to campaign in redder areas to make up for the fact that they're not going to get every single vote in the safe blue areas, not by a mile. Everyone's vote would matter, which, except for symbolic purposes, they currently don't.

[Lonestar]

Keep the EC, implement the Wyoming Rule in Congress, and have a interstate compact where the ECs go to whichever the candidate is the most popular...with the caveat that any candidate/party that wins an EC by popular vote(say, if McMullin had taken Utah this cycle) would get Federal matching funds next cycle.

[Flagg]

Not only that, but the whole EC thing costs taxpayer dollars better spent on blowing up Arabs educating children. And it's just an extra step taken for no apparent reason in modern America except as a useless step that too often goes counter to the will of the people.

[Knife]

Popular vote. POTUS represents the country, not a region or state. Issues about a single state are the province of the congress and the actual representative of that state, not POTUS.

[Tsyroc]

Popular vote. POTUS represents the country, not a region or state. Issues about a single state are the province of the congress and the actual representative of that state, not POTUS.

The only reservation I have with going that way is that the POTUS nominates the Supreme Court Justices.

Of course I'm generally screwed either way when it comes to them. I'm pro-gun rights but also strongly in favor of access to abortion.


I guess my hope with going with proportional voting and ranked voting that we'd get more options who actually have a chance at impacting the election than we currently.

[The Romulan Republic]

Switch to the way we in Canada do it, but Americanize it.

Link the Presidency to Congressional elections. The head of the party that controls the senate is automatically President of the United States.

Fuck no.

Speaking as someone with duel citizenship, who has voted in both US and Canadian elections, as much as I think that the US system, in practice, is an embarrassing, overly-complicated, easily manipulated cluster fuck, at a very basic level I prefer the US system (aside from the EC, at least). And here's exhibit A as to why.

Under the Canadian system, the PM is the leader of whichever party gets the most votes. This may reduce the risk of gridlock between the executive and legislative branches, at the price of undermining one of the central checks and balances present in the US government. However, it has a couple very undemocratic side effects in terms of reducing the choices of the voters.

1. If a voter likes the candidate from one party for their local representative, but the candidate from another party for PM, they have to choose. You cannot vote Liberal for PM and NDP or Green for your member of Parliament, for example (a choice I might well make/have made if given the option).

2. It is literally impossible for an independent to ever win the office of PM under these rules. Not unlikely. Impossible.

[The Romulan Republic]

My view, in brief, is that voting should be as simple and easily accessible as possible, while offering the most freedom of choice to the voter.

My preferences lean towards keeping the legislature and executive separate, and towards elections being limited to no more than a few months duration with a minimum of voting restrictions, with the results being determined by popular vote conducted with paper ballots (mail ballots should be available). A run-off should be held to determine the winner if no one gets a majority. Or maybe we could go with ranked ballots, though I admit I'm not very clear on how that works.

This all applies to primaries as well.

[aerius]

Speaking as someone with duel citizenship, who has voted in both US and Canadian elections, as much as I think that the US system, in practice, is an embarrassing, overly-complicated, easily manipulated cluster fuck, at a very basic level I prefer the US system (aside from the EC, at least). And here's exhibit A as to why.

Under the Canadian system, the PM is the leader of whichever party gets the most votes. This may reduce the risk of gridlock between the executive and legislative branches, at the price of undermining one of the central checks and balances present in the US government. However, it has a couple very undemocratic side effects in terms of reducing the choices of the voters.

1. If a voter likes the candidate from one party for their local representative, but the candidate from another party for PM, they have to choose. You cannot vote Liberal for PM and NDP or Green for your member of Parliament, for example (a choice I might well make/have made if given the option).

2. It is literally impossible for an independent to ever win the office of PM under these rules. Not unlikely. Impossible.

Let's look at results. If we're gonna talk about democracy this translates to approval ratings, in other words, do the people agree with what the government and President/Prime Minister are doing. Which gives us some interesting data.

President Obama's approval rating has averaged 48% for his current term. For reference, GWB averaged 37% for his 2nd term.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barac ... roval.aspx

Congress approval is currently at 20%, and has been stuck in that range for most of the last 10 years. It hasn't gone above 40% since 9/11 and the Iraq invasion
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

Now let's look at Canada. Unfortunately there's not much data on historical approval ratings, but it's currently sitting at almost 60%.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2 ... d-is-back/

Compared to the US, confidence in government is far better, and that was during the hated HarperCon government
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/detai ... ament.aspx

PM approval ratings have been mostly above 50% other than Mulroney & Campbell


I'd argue that the Canadian system better represents the people since a larger proportion of citizens approve of what the government and its leader are doing compared to the US.

[Lonestar]

POTUS represents the country, not a region or state.

Sooo...you want to make it so a regional candidate (NE/NY + California) can carry the entire country?

[The Romulan Republic]

POTUS represents the country, not a region or state.

Sooo...you want to make it so a regional candidate (NE/NY + California) can carry the entire country?

Sigh...

No matter how many times you debunk this fallacy, they trot it out again as if its self-evident fact.

No, a candidate will not be able to win with just New England, New York, and California, for a couple of major reasons.

First of all (at least according to Wikipedia), the entire combined population of those areas is less than 74 million, or less than a quarter of the US populace.

Second of all, no candidate will win all, or even nearly all, of the votes in those areas. They might win the majority in all those areas, but they'll have to win votes elsewhere to make up for the fact that they won't win all the votes their, and unlike under the current system of state by state, winner take all, every single individual vote will count directly towards the total.

It always amuses me, in a face-palming kind of way, how EC advocates seem to be so used to thinking in regional winner takes all terms that they don't get that without the EC, that shit wouldn't matter.

Its also interesting that the bogeyman on which your argument is based is that under a popular vote system, candidates favoured by liberal parts of the country will have an advantage.

Hmm... could it be that what your really concerned about is not a regional candidate being able to win, but that the popular vote favours liberal candidates while the EC weights the scales in favour of Republicans?

[The Romulan Republic]

Speaking as someone with duel citizenship, who has voted in both US and Canadian elections, as much as I think that the US system, in practice, is an embarrassing, overly-complicated, easily manipulated cluster fuck, at a very basic level I prefer the US system (aside from the EC, at least). And here's exhibit A as to why.

Under the Canadian system, the PM is the leader of whichever party gets the most votes. This may reduce the risk of gridlock between the executive and legislative branches, at the price of undermining one of the central checks and balances present in the US government. However, it has a couple very undemocratic side effects in terms of reducing the choices of the voters.

1. If a voter likes the candidate from one party for their local representative, but the candidate from another party for PM, they have to choose. You cannot vote Liberal for PM and NDP or Green for your member of Parliament, for example (a choice I might well make/have made if given the option).

2. It is literally impossible for an independent to ever win the office of PM under these rules. Not unlikely. Impossible.

Let's look at results. If we're gonna talk about democracy this translates to approval ratings, in other words, do the people agree with what the government and President/Prime Minister are doing. Which gives us some interesting data.

President Obama's approval rating has averaged 48% for his current term. For reference, GWB averaged 37% for his 2nd term.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barac ... roval.aspx

Congress approval is currently at 20%, and has been stuck in that range for most of the last 10 years. It hasn't gone above 40% since 9/11 and the Iraq invasion
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

Now let's look at Canada. Unfortunately there's not much data on historical approval ratings, but it's currently sitting at almost 60%.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2 ... d-is-back/

Compared to the US, confidence in government is far better, and that was during the hated HarperCon government
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/detai ... ament.aspx

PM approval ratings have been mostly above 50% other than Mulroney & Campbell


I'd argue that the Canadian system better represents the people since a larger proportion of citizens approve of what the government and its leader are doing compared to the US.

That's a very tenuous conclusion, and it doesn't really address my point, which is that under the Canadian system, voters have less freedom of choice.

Also, while this may be anecdotal, it is my experience that Canadian politics is just generally less contentious, vitriolic, and alarmist than US politics.

[aerius]

That's a very tenuous conclusion, and it doesn't really address my point, which is that under the Canadian system, voters have less freedom of choice.

Also, while this may be anecdotal, it is my experience that Canadian politics is just generally less contentious, vitriolic, and alarmist than US politics.

Who cares if you have more freedom of choice if all the choices are fucking dogshit?
Your Congress is sitting on a 20% approval rating for fuck's sake, up from a low of 11%.

[Terralthra]

That's a very tenuous conclusion, and it doesn't really address my point, which is that under the Canadian system, voters have less freedom of choice.

Also, while this may be anecdotal, it is my experience that Canadian politics is just generally less contentious, vitriolic, and alarmist than US politics.

Who cares if you have more freedom of choice if all the choices are fucking dogshit?
Your Congress is sitting on a 20% approval rating for fuck's sake, up from a low of 11%.

Yet, with an incumbency rate that verges on 90% every 2 years. People hate "Congress", but largely approve of their own representative.

[The Romulan Republic]

An excellent point. Complaints against Congress tend to be more against the gridlock/partisanship than against specific representatives.

Edit: I'm also not sure how much Congressional approval ratings have to do with the EC. If anything, though, its another argument against tying the Presidency to who has the most seats in Congress (aka Parliamentary bull shit).

[Tribble]

Speaking as someone with duel citizenship, who has voted in both US and Canadian elections, as much as I think that the US system, in practice, is an embarrassing, overly-complicated, easily manipulated cluster fuck, at a very basic level I prefer the US system (aside from the EC, at least). And here's exhibit A as to why.

Under the Canadian system, the PM is the leader of whichever party gets the most votes.

Technically no, practically yes. The Governor-General is capable of appointing any MP who can command the confidence of the House. Via tradition and for practical purposes this is usually extended to the leader of the party with most seats first, however it is not actually required.

This may reduce the risk of gridlock between the executive and legislative branches

Technically the Governor-General and the Queen is the executive branch, though yes for practical purposes the PM / Cabinet are.

Back to the point, may reduce gridlock is a hell of an understatement - it effectively eliminates gridlock between the two branches since the PM cannot even hold office without the command of the House. Minority governments are a bit different, though for practical purposes it doesn't change that much (since the other parties are not that keen on defeating the government and triggering an election as this would usually result in the largest party winning a majority the 2nd time around).

at the price of undermining one of the central checks and balances present in the US government.

To be fair, this was a deliberate choice that the Canadian government made - it's a feature, not a bug. YMMV on whether or not this is a good thing - though I believe it is over all.

Of far more concern to me than the PM is the state of the Canadian Senate, which definitely needs reform if it is going to act as an effective check and balance.

1. If a voter likes the candidate from one party for their local representative, but the candidate from another party for PM, they have to choose. You cannot vote Liberal for PM and NDP or Green for your member of Parliament, for example (a choice I might well make/have made if given the option).

While this is true, it's long been the status quo in Canada that the local MP / MPP doesn't matter so much. In my experience most people are voting for the party or the leader of the party rather than their local candidate. In fact, there is a big discussion in Canada right now whether or not the voting system should be switched to a proportional system to reflect this.

2. It is literally impossible for an independent to ever win the office of PM under these rules. Not unlikely. Impossible.

An independent MP is fully capable of becoming Prime Minister should the House decide to go along with him/her. It's extremely unlikely such a thing would happen, but it is technically possible.


On the whole I think House of Commons / Senate (when made effective) / Courts is more than enough of a check and balance without throwing a directly elected and separate executive into the mix. I have no desire to see US style gridlock taking over here, and IMO it's not by coincidence that many of the issues that are still plaguing the US (gun control, universal healthcare, abortion, gay rights etc) were largely settled here decades ago. Instead what I'd like to see change up here is proportional voting for the House, and an elected Senate. Given the present government's latest attitudes towards such things, I'm not getting my hopes up.

[The Romulan Republic]

To your first two points, yes, I suppose you're technically correct, but practically speaking, it generally works exactly as I described.

Regarding gridlock, perhaps my wording was unclear, but my point is that its a trade-off- reduce (or, at least under a majority government, eliminate) gridlock between the Executive and Legislature, in exchange for reduced checks and balances. And yes, I'm sure it was deliberate, though weather its a pro or con depends on how much faith you put in your government.

As to the issue of voter choice...

I can only speak from personal experience, but I have found myself wishing that I had the freedom to vote for a member of one party for MP and a member of another party for PM. A choice I as a voter enjoy under the American system, but do not under the Canadian system (where such a choice would actually mean more, since we have more than two parties that actually amount to something and more than one that aren't totally abhorrent and opposed to democracy and basic human rights).

As to the House picking an independent... well, okay, maybe (I'm not really familiar with the procedure their), but the odds are about the same as the odds of the EC making Jill Stein President tomorrow, and it wouldn't even be terribly democratic since under our system such an independent could not be elected directly by the people.

I agree entirely on the need for Senate reform, but that's rather off-topic here.

[Tribble]

To your first two points, yes, I suppose you're technically correct, but practically speaking, it generally works exactly as I described.

Regarding gridlock, perhaps my wording was unclear, but my point is that its a trade-off- reduce (or, at least under a majority government, eliminate) gridlock between the Executive and Legislature, in exchange for reduced checks and balances. And yes, I'm sure it was deliberate, though weather its a pro or con depends on how much faith you put in your government.

Given the preference between placing more faith in the my government than Americans do (though not unlimited faith obviously, I have no problems voting out a party I no longer agree with) vs practically guaranteed logjams on almost every issue on a daily basis... I'd definitely pick the former. Again, YMMV.

As to the issue of voter choice...

I can only speak from personal experience, but I have found myself wishing that I had the freedom to vote for a member of one party for MP and a member of another party for PM. A choice I as a voter enjoy under the American system, but do not under the Canadian system (where such a choice would actually mean more, since we have more than two parties that actually amount to something and more than one that aren't totally abhorrent and opposed to democracy and basic human rights)

IIRC with mixed proportional voting you would be voting twice- once for your local MP, and once for a political party (which effectively means the leader of the party), and the two would not have to be the same. Not exactly the same as voting for a separate PM - but again, the whole point of a modern parliamentary system is that there is a combined legislature/executive (which should have an effective upper house to act as a check, but that's a separate issue).

As to the House picking an independent... well, okay, maybe (I'm not really familiar with the procedure their), but the odds are about the same as the odds of the EC making Jill Stein President tomorrow,

You were the one who said it is literally impossible, that is simply not the case. And while it may seem incredibly unlikely today... who knows? There could come a time an a place where we have a hung parliament for awhile and an independent eventually is chosen as PM to more or less mediate things.

and it wouldn't even be terribly democratic since under our system such an independent could not be elected directly by the people.

It boils down to whether or not you want the executive branch directly elected; it's more or less possible to directly vote in the PM via mixed-proportional voting (if you agree with the assertion that your vote for the party is de facto voting for its leader).

[Knife]

POTUS represents the country, not a region or state.

Sooo...you want to make it so a regional candidate (NE/NY + California) can carry the entire country?

Not my fault a vast majority live in a few spots. Hell, I don't even live in one of those spots.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hey, I'm a voter for Colorado, one of those oh-so-precious swing states. If I were arguing from self-interest in terms of the power of my vote, I'd be advocating for the status quo, as it gives Colorado disproportionate influence at present.

[blahface]

We should have a national popular vote and a non-partisan primary that uses approval voting. All candidates would run in this primary regardless of party affiliation and the two most approved candidates would move on to the general election.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't like that because it sets a hard limit of two candidates in general elections. No room for other options. Much as I disdain the likes of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, I don't think they should be unable to run, or people should be unable to vote for them, in the general election.

[blahface]

I don't like that because it sets a hard limit of two candidates in general elections. No room for other options. Much as I disdain the likes of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, I don't think they should be unable to run, or people should be unable to vote for them, in the general election.

They could run in the primary. It would essentially be a two round election like in France, but with approval voting.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm... that could be workable, I suppose, though it still seems like narrowing the voters' choices somewhat.

[Mr Hugh Mann]

If I had to think of a voting system I would prefer, it would likely take the form of a nationwide popular election with the condition that all voters would use a ranked ballot and the aggregation mechanism would be one of the Condorcet methods such as Tideman's Ranked Pairs or Schulze Beatpath.

As for the current systems, I cannot support the Electoral College, but in turn I also cannot support the call to simply use the first past the post popular vote as it exists, given that it only allows one to express their first preference among the candidates.