Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

People talk about abolishing the Electoral College system. If that happened, how many candidates would run in the general election for president? ~

Seven? Eight? If we had a national popular vote system, lots of people could run and a candidate could be elected with 30% or less of the vote. Never mind what the Trump people are screaming about now, imagine the potential for election cheating and fraud in a system like that.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

DragonFruit · 61-69, M

You could have many people running right now....but a party endorsement from the Republican and Democratic primaries is what singles out the most likely to win a general election (as most will vote for one of the 2 major party nominees). No third party candidate has gotten more than 18.9% of the vote since 1912 (Ross Perot got 18.9% in 1992).
Why would the potential for election fraud increase with more people running?
I don’t see why more people who don’t have the financial backing of a major party would have the funds for any substantial fraud (and votes would still be counted by representatives from at least the 2 major parties, possibly more depending on the rules of the jurisdiction).
Lack of an electoral college wouldn’t mean more people running, but would mean that the election would be truly democratic.
One person, one vote....and the person with the most votes wins.

RedBaron · M

@DragonFruit The chances of cheating and fraud would increase because there would be nothing to prevent more parties from being formed and more candidates running. With more candidates, someone could be elected with, say, 27% of the vote as long as nobody else got more than 26%. If someone needed to swing only a few votes here and there, their supporters would have greater incentive to figure out ways to game the system.

DragonFruit · 61-69, M

@RedBaron That might have been more likely if the 2 party system wasn’t already in place. Those who don’t have the backing of the Republican or Democratic party don’t have the funding of a major party behind them and have little chance of winning because they can’t advertise as well or spend as much on events. There are already safeguards from the major parties in place to keep the major parties in power and to keep third party candidates from winning.
BTW, even with the electoral college there’s nothing to prevent multiple people from running or the formation of other parties....and the same barriers preventing third party candidates from winning would still be there if the electoral college wasn’t there.

luckranger71 · 51-55, M

I think you’d still have the same two major party candidates because there is no way a third party could gain traction in Congress due to winner take all districts. So there would be little ability to fundraise for a 3rd party candidate for President without a party infrastructure below him.

Which is why only Ross Perot -with his own money — was the only person to run a semi credible 3rd party candidacy in the last half century. And he finished 3rd.

RedBaron · M

@luckranger71 But without the Electoral College, it would be easier for individuals wealthy enough to finance their own campaigns, like Perot, Steve Forbes, or Mike Bloomberg, to run and possibly win because they could go straight to the general election without having to win a major party nomination by putting together a coalition of delegate support across the country.

DragonFruit · 61-69, M

@RedBaron Why would it be easier to finance their own campaigns? They can do that now....but their chances of winning without major party support will be very slim (with or without an electoral college).

RedBaron · M

@DragonFruit Not if they only needed, say, 30% of the vote to win. They could bypass the primaries and just run in the general election.

Ozuye502 · 36-40, M

So we let the politicians of New York and California fun the country? Yea that sounds like an absolutely awesome idea. If you’re a moron! There’s a huge reason why states like California New York and New Jersey (just naming a few) and e having mass amounts of people leaving! Get a clue here

View 7 more replies »

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@Ozuye502 If that statement makes sense in your head, I don't think you know what a constitutional republic is.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@QuixoticSoul The only thing about a Constitutional Republic you know is how to destroy it

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@sunsporter1649

Lmao of course you show up 🤣

Hit the books sporty spice.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

It will never happen. But, if it could, then we need to also develop a rank voting system. If more than 2 run, one votes ranking choices. That way third party candidates have a better break and won't pull down another candidate.

Remastered

Getting rid of it sounds like a good idea, but I know it's complicated. I really don't know what would happen. Sometimes I have to admit, I just don't know enough about it.

Tython · 31-35, M

At least the individual's vote will matter more than it does now.

View 2 more replies »

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@RedBaron that doesn't make any sense. Under a system of A popular vote, a single vote represent A a single vote no matter what state one lives in. The electoral college was established in a compromise to give the smaller states more power, that is what it was designed to do, to give a voter in smaller, then more rural, states more power for their vote. So that is how it was designed and how it works. Senators until relatively recently were not elected by popular vote, but now are.

RedBaron · M

@samueltyler2 But my point is that people in states like Idaho and Wyoming wouldn't get their interests and values represented. Candidates could campaign only in and appeal only to voters in bigger states.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@RedBaron they would still have the same number of representative "congresspeople" per population in the house as everyone else. Their congressional delegation will still be in DC to defend their interests. They happen to receive a more favorable return on their tax dollars than the larger population states as well.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

You didn't look at your own ballot did you?! Six were on there anyway, plus a write in option!

View 7 more replies »

RedBaron · M

@DeWayfarer Not for president.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@RedBaron and not for ANY office, president or not!

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@RedBaron why do you believe Bernie ran as a Democrat and not libertarian twice?!

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

There are loads of diffetent voting models.

The french system has a final two run off to ensure the winner gets over 50%

Add a comment...