Many here (not me) believe that presidential elections should be determined by the popular vote.

[Nye Bevan]

For those who believe that, should presidential nominations also be determined by the total popular vote for each candidate (in the primaries and caucuses)? If not, why not?

[JaneyVee]

1. Im for scrapping the EC, mostly because...

With the exception of 2004, Democrats nearly always lock up the pop vote: Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Obama, Obama, Hillary

It would keep them away from the WH.

[NurseJackie]

2. "Adam Ruins Everything" - Why the Electoral College Ruins Democracy

[NCTraveler]

9. Commenting to mark for later.

[potone]

3. Yes, I do think that we need to abolish the Electoral College.

We should have a straight up one person, one vote election. It is the only way for every person's vote to carry the same weight. As for the primaries and caucuses, I am not sure what I think, except that they should all be held on the same day so that citizens in every state have an equal chance to participate in choosing the nominee. As for primaries vs. caucuses, I prefer primaries, but I suppose it is up to each state to choose their preferred system. Caucuses just seem to me to have a lot of problems.

[EndElectoral]

4. Well, my name stands for what I believe. If we're a true democracy let the people vote.

The original reasons for the electoral college are antiquated.

Most people believe one vote per person, (excluding corporations, although they are people now as well.)

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Yes but it requires a complete comprehensive finance reform.

Take the money out entirely and then have national primaries and national elections. No more than 6 weeks for each campaign. No pacs. No dark money. Limited individual contributions and public financing only.

[NCTraveler]

8. "No more than 6 weeks for each campaign."

That would be disastrous. Six weeks to sell yourself to millions across a large country.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Eh? Other countries do it this way just fine

This isn't 1920. Campaigns reach people via mass media. Geographic size is mostly irrelevant.

[NCTraveler]

13. "Other countries" does not an argument make.

Let's see Clinton with a hundred million, Sinema with a hundred million, and six weeks.

At the end of six weeks a majority of the people would still be saying Sinema who. On top of that they wouldn't have the time to address regional issues. More one blanket theme of a campaign. That doesn't fly when you have fifty diverse states.

Edit: WS This is being written with little emotion. I enjoy conversations/debates about how we vote.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Of course, just because other countries manage to do things better than us is no reason we should

look and see how they do that. That's worked quite well for us with health care.

Six weeks of debates and ads is plenty.

A better question is how to qualify parties and candidates and how to determine winners. Personally I think plurality elections are horrible.

[NCTraveler]

15. Again, other countries isn't an argument.

What country are you looking to emulate in this respect. One with the size, regional differences, etc. there has to be one you are thinking of.

This might be a good option for State houses. Where was Sanders six weeks in?

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Of course it is. How other societies organize and do things

is entirely relevant to how we could better our own systems. We are not some unique society unlike any other.

[Nonhlanhla]

6. Yes, the electoral college no longer makes sense

It effectively disenfranchises millions of people and probably contribute to people not voting. If you're a Democrat in Tennessee or a Republican in California, you have less incentive to vote than vice versa. And the nonsense that it makes candidates pay attention to less populated areas makes no sense. It also makes candidates ignore most states in favor of the swing states that they need to win.

Overall, I don't find the American system to be very democratic, although I realize it was purposefully designed not to be.

[NCTraveler]

7. I have issues with the current primary system.

I don't have as big of an issue with the rules of the general.

[MineralMan]

10. The Electoral College, however, does

help to preserve some power for our less-populated states. It's not much, but in the same way each state has two senators, the electoral system is a bit of a safeguard to protect states like Vermont or Wyoming, which have a small population.

The popular vote could also be used, of course, but we might end up with a President who won in a three-way race with only a plurality. That probably wouldn't be a great idea. The Electoral College helps to preserve our majority rule concept for Presidential elections to some degree, as well.

We have one system. Changing it would require a constitutional amendment. I think such an amendment would be very unlikely to succeed, frankly.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. I see some opinions on this and wonder if people think we have a natl government not a federal one.

We are 50 states, each a member of the federal government. As it is, each state determines who gets its electoral college votes by itself with no interference from other states OR the federal government.

My idea is to give each state and DC one vote. If "Candidate X" wins the popular vote in your state, your state gets one vote for the presidential race in the GE. 51 votes in all. No ties, and no state is more important than any other due to its population.

We have a federal government, not a national one. Sometimes I wonder if most people even understand what that means.

[bigwillq]

19. Good ideas (nt)

[polly7]

16. Wtf shouldn't 'any' election anywhere be determined by the popular vote??

Aren't the people the ones who are to be represented?

[Vinca]

17. Speaking about popular votes - how about those superdelegates?