Why NOT popular vote?

While I understand and appreciate the vast logistics of counting the half-a-gadzillion theoretical votes from the population of the US, why not go back to the "popular vote" as a way of choosing such minor office holders such as the President?

What spawned this: we live in a blighted little town of 329. The town is "governed" by a mayor and Board of (4) Aldermen. These four individuals vote to change (or not) or amend whatever strikes their fancy regardless of the wishes of the citizens - and this can't be changed until the term is over unless a gross illegality can be proven, of course. This is how it has always been as far as I can ascertain looking through records. It should be noted that here, as I'm sure is the same elsewhere, it is generally only certain families who 'rule' (altho this Board doesn't follow that rule, they still kowtow to those families, so same difference).

In fact, case in point: Fourteen years ago, a new mayor was elected. The very night she was sworn in, the Board passed an ordinance outlawing anything but cats, dogs and up to 5 rabbits within city limits. Hmmmmm. Guess the other mayoral candidate wasn't too concerned about the few animals there were here. Now, the original records of that meeting have strangely disappeared, but six years ago, an emergency meeting was called to --- pass an ordinance to outlaw all but cats, dogs and up to 5 rabbits within city limits. The legality of both are in question.

Recently, we the citizens, thinking we had some say in how our government should serve us (must've forgotten to take our meds, huh), tried to get an ordinance introduced so we could have poultry. Heck, we even agreed to have inspections, population controls, etc! Finally we pushed for a public meeting even though we were told time and time again that ONLY their 4 votes counted (and one alderman--the one who sleeps with the mayor who is said to be a felon--is vehemently opposed to *any* animal, even dogs). I have never seen so many people show up to a city meeting, the vast majority in support though some said they didn't want animals themselves! We're talking standing room only for most of two hours - and this in a town where barely three show up to the monthly meeting. But, predictably, the Board said there wasn't enough interest in having poultry and dismissed the request. Hmmmm.

We contacted the county about the suspected illegalities of our Board's doings (violation of Sunshine Law, illegal passing or enforcement of numerous ordinances, for example). They said to contact State 'cause, well, it wasn't their problem. Ok. State said sorry, you're on your own, it isn't the state's responsibility to oversee towns' and cities' governance. Finally our Senator's office called (which was a surprise) and listened - only to say it needed to be handled on a state or county level.

Now then, if this happens on the micro scale, balloon that to the macro. We all see and bitch about the government's idiocy and rampant bulldozing of our rights. We all moan about various candidates and elected officials. Our system is BROKEN. Why are we waiting for someone else to fix it?!?

Why not take back the popular vote with all its trouble, inconveniences and pitfalls. At least then we finally, legitimately, have someone to blame if/when it all goes to hell again--ourselves if we're complacent and less-than-diligent. A friend says it would never work - we're too ignorant and slow to know what's best for us (he's a die-hard Repug, too, who supports Bush ).

But why NOT?

(I'd like to say rant-off, but I know me better.)

 

Geeze you can't figure this one out ?

It's rather simple , they can't afford to buy enough votes from the population but with delegates , now thats a different story .

What do you want to do wreck the whole system ?

Just like the song by Glen Frey "Smugglers Blues" says .

"It's the payoffs and the ripoffs and things nobody saw."

 

...choosing to read sarcasm in above post...

Yes, I understand that. But in the end, WE the PEOPLE are supposed to be the ones who are being represented and 'served' (wonky word) by OUR chosen officials. I personally do not give a fat rat's ass whether Big Business agrees or not. And yes, I know that bucking Big Business brings all sorts of bad juju and discomfort to the average American.

Seems to me that we were in a similar situation about 230 years or so ago...........

 

I'm frustrated justhearing about tinhorns' from community associations to nonresponsive govt on all levels...Even the tax code is a means of tinkering with the economy by people who want to nudge you into thinking"right" (like they do). Its the system; and your place is to consume and pay taxes...it sux.I say bollocks...,I try to work my life around thinking outside "their" box. Probably park my vehicles for good one day, no more Insurance,registration, bs..Will it limit my life ?Perhaps. bad corporate juju? bring it on.think of all the money and influence you would remove from the current system if we went to one citizen one vote, See but you don't understand all the complexities ( liberal view)."You can't have a tax cut, "you wouldn't spend it right( quote hilliary rodham).
ctrl+alt+del ???

 

Why not?

Mainly because this would mean the bought and paid for welfare voter in the major urban areas would vote us into a complete nanny state in the next election. The leftist pols would be tripping over each other promising them bread and circuses with MY money.

This is the democracy of the masses the Framers feared, it is the reason we were set up as a Republic from day one.

Basically, the interests of us rednecks in MS don't agree with those of the "citizens" in NYC. With popular vote, we would have zero influence, zero control vs. the little we have now. We would have no choice but to secede.....

Wait a minute, this could be a good thing!

 

Don't give up the first time and continue to press the issue. We had something similiar but different happen in our town. A well-known wealthy family wanted to build apartments on our block which is nothing but residences. We oppossed apartments being built in our neighborhood and the owner (family member) of the property who inherited it didn't even live in our town. They were trying to get permits and change the zoning laws in our neighborhodd besides trying to skirt the current ones. Our entire neighborhood showed up to the meeting at City Hall and shut them down. It can happen but you have to be persistent and patient, that's the hard part patience because the wheels of bureacracy turn slow.

 

On that note, CC, now they've decided we need to regulate cats - register them with the city and all. You know why? Because farmers outside town are complaining cats are kiling rabbits, quail and other small varmints. Oh, and one citizen is pissed off because a cat keeps sitting on top of his car . Yep, major waste of time, trying to herd cats.

BUT, I've publically announced that I intend to bring in a small laying flock with enough extra to raise for the freezer/canner/dryer and some ducks for meat. This I have said twice to a mayoral candidate and will repeat to anyone who stands still long enough. I know enough of both the state statutes and of the city's questionable law-making to consider the affected ordinances unlawful and thus void.

I am becoming rather vocal about such pesky things as laws and limits therein. So, I guess I shall continue my one person anarchist plot and eventually someone will listen - or effect change just to shut me up!

 

Ok, back to the original topic (sorry about my rather long-winded wind-up to the question).

Can anyone give me a legitimate, concise reason we can't go to Popular Vote? I realize that the origins of the Electoral College go back to the Constitution itself (Art 2, Clause 2 & 3). The Electors are supposed to be determined by popular vote. That does not, however, mean they vote in the end according to popular vote.

We've grown exponentially - and the trend of catering to special groups, in my opinion, detracts from the rest of the populace thus disenfranchising them further.

(Sections 2 and 4 are rather counter-productive and dissonant to the rest of the Amendment.)

 

To answer that question, our country is a Republic, not a Democracy. In a Democracy, fifty-one percent of the people can take the rights of forty-nine percent.

 

That's classic!! Ugh, IMO the highest bidder wins the office.

 

politics and justice here are strongly linked. we have both the best justice your money can buy and the highest rank in office your money can buy. i think thats why there are so many people on anti-depressants in this country.

 

On the surface going from a popular vote would sound like a good thing but as a couple folks have mentioned, if you go with a direct popular vote then any group that dose not represent 51% or more of the voters is screwed. Say for instance, like has happened in many rural areas, a bunch of city folks buy houses in the country and decided the pigs and cows stink up their place when the winds blow wrong. Now its a rural areas and so the 100 transplants make up a BIG part of the votes, they get it on the ballot and 51% say no one should be allowed to have livestock in the county. Its what the majority wanted and got through a popular and direct vote. Its pure democracy. Now on the other hand you break up the county into zones where the town is a zone and the areas where farmers mostly live is a couple zones then the area with the lake where the city folks moved in is a zone, each zone gets a representative vote. Now the farmers get fair representation and the transplants dont get to turn the country into the city.

Another good example is Illinois, most of the state is rural folks with similar conservative ideas and support gun rights, the rub is that they run on more of a direct vote, so Chicago gets to make all the decissions for the state. That being the case their laws are way lib and gun laws are even worse than Komifornia, even Komifornia dont require to the best of my knowledge for gun owners of ANY gun includeing IIRC even BB guns to themselves be registered. In Ill you have to get a FOID (firearms owners identification) card and have it in order to buy ANY gun or ammo that they allow in the state then still go through the same as anywhere else on top of it and if you are found in posession of a single bullet without the FOID card you go to jail. Its NOT representative of the ideas of the folks in most of the area affected but its what gets voted for in the areas with the most people.

So if you put it on a national level then the folks from Komifornia and new england would be the ones to decide how the entire nation was run since those 2 small sections of the nation could muster near 50% of the vote on their own and run over the rights and wishes of everyone in the rest of the country. Then figure if you get a few 'do-gooders' to go along especialy and ANYTHING comes up for giveing more money to the welfare eaters then you get all the folks in all the inner cities across the country AND the welfare eaters outside the big cities are gonna vote for their pay raise and the working folks (those who could get out of work long enouph to make it to the polls) will be near guaranteed to get out voted every time. Now if you work you are a solid slave to those who wont.

Democracy sounds good, kind of like Marxist comunism SOUNDS good on paper, but in practice simply stomps on a large portion of the population and is why the founders set up a constitutional republic with demoraticly elected representation. While this is also not perfect in practice and has been twisted and corrupted to further complicate it, it makes sure the constitution preserves the basic rights of all minorities (any group you fall into thats not over 51% of the whole) from the majorities as well as the government while giveing the people the ability to select their representatives who they believe will truely represent them, the representatives can be destributed to cover areas in a way that best serves all and again preserve the rights of all. Pure democracy is simply 51% of the people dictating to the other 49%.

 

Oh and then there also IS the problem that the people have become to stupid and gulible... Just look at the present election and Ron Paul. Want him or not, the largest argument most folks had why NOT to vote for him was 'he cant win'. MANY would come right out and state that they WANTED him to win but would not vote for him because he wasnt GOING to win. People in general are no longer capable of thought and voteing to properly govern themselves. They decide how to vote like they would a horse race, not who SHOULD win or who NEEDs to win but who they think WILL win. So enter the media to let them know who is GOING to win and now everyone knows who to vote for and it becomes self fulfilling. Media exec dont want something passed? just tell every one it will never pass and everyone knows to vote against it so they can vote on the winning side....becomes problematic for governing.

 

We get the government "we" deserve. I hate that"well he won't win! well of coure he won't if nobody votes for him!!! dumba$$$$"
being on the winning side is more important than being on the right side..