Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon
Ok let me appraoch this another way. Let's take this thing in reverse. Suppose a president was elected by popular vote. What flaws do you find in this process?
The most obvious is that most voters don't read much beyond the bumper stickers. Secondly, a problem lies in the word itself "popular". Perhaps a candidate is very popular but is he/she really the best candidate. Jesse Ventura was popular. Voter fraud is an issue now and with just a "popular vote" would invite some real incentives and innovation in how to create more votes...if you get my drift.
SoI refer back to my previous post and prefer to shore up the primaries at the state level to provide parity, prevent manipulation and deter fraud.
|
We are in agreement that primaries need to be reformed. However, I don't see the corelation between "popular" or voter fraud, and the electoral college. The popularity argument is just as relevant in the current electoral process as it would be in a popular vote election. Second, manipulating people or perpetrating fraud would, in my eye, be at least as useful in the electoral process as in a popular election. You have not convinced me how there would be any advantage to the perpetrators that is not available in the current system. We may have to agree to disagree.