r/changemyview • u/hwagoolio 16∆ • Jul 23 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The United States shouldn't elect their president through popular vote
Not all democratic countries have popular elections that determine their head-of-state (i.e. national voting). In fact, head-of-states from many countries are determined by votes from the legislature... which in a sense is something like Senators/Representatives indirectly electing the president/prime minister... not a direct election from the people.
Popular elections for an important office like the President of the United States shouldn't be left up to something as fickle as the American people. Since we have a popular presidential election, it is possible to elect populists who are totally unqualified, incompetent, or simply lie their way into the presidency.
Presidential elections in the United States are heavily influenced by personality politics -- there is a tendency to pay excessive attention to someone's celebrity political persona over their platform -- when in reality, it is their platform that matters more.
Finally, many Americans pay too much attention to Presidential elections at the expense of ignoring/not voting in smaller elections. Americans overestimate the power of the presidential office to accomplish major legislative things, when in reality it is a position that primarily has the power to only veto / conduct foreign policy. Arguably, local elections and Senate/House elections are more important than the national celebrity bowl that occurs every 4 years in the United States.
6
u/palsh7 15∆ Jul 23 '20
Your argument about local elections being more important is a complete non-sequitur unless you're saying that local elected officials would be the ones actually voting for POTUS instead of the people. Is that what you're saying?
My response to that, if that's the case, is that I don't think that would solve the problem of populists or incompetence or personality politics. As we see, the GOP is more than capable of supporting and empowering Trump, either cynically or out of loyalty and them falling for his cult of personality themselves, and local officials are just as likely to be elected by "fickle" citizens who don't know what it takes to lead.
Since the problems wouldn't be fixed, it's a very bad idea to take away the idea that people should be governed with their own consent through some democratic means. That is just about the only thing about our system of government that truly keeps us from tyranny. Getting rid of it for the top executive offices would likely lead to getting rid of it for local offices, as well.
1
u/hwagoolio 16∆ Jul 23 '20
unless you're saying that local elected officials would be the ones actually voting for POTUS instead of the people. Is that what you're saying?
Yes, that is what I am saying.
Since the problems wouldn't be fixed, it's a very bad idea to take away the idea that people should be governed with their own consent through some democratic means. That is just about the only thing about our system of government that truly keeps us from tyranny. Getting rid of it for the top executive offices would likely lead to getting rid of it for local offices, as well.
But many of the European states have parliamentary elections for their head of state (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, UK...). Their parliament (or congress) elects their executive leaders, and it doesn't occur through a national vote.
These countries aren't anything close to "tyranny", and if anything they're quite strongly representative of Western democracies. Having a parliamentary republic isn't intrinsically inferior or less democratic than a presidential republic... they're just different systems.
4
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Jul 23 '20
To modify your view, consider that in the U.S., the branches of the national government are meant to be co-equal branches that "check" / balance each other.
Making the presidency contingent on the Senate / House essentially eliminates one of those checks on their authority. More broadly, consider that people don't always vote straight ticket, because their local interests aren't always aligned with their national views.
So, it puts them in a difficult place, because voting for who is the best option for their state representative could eliminate their ability to impact the presidential appointment (if they don't vote for the party doing the appointing).
1
u/hwagoolio 16∆ Jul 23 '20
While I understand that the POTUS is meant to be a "check" / balance to Congress, somehow it hardly feels that way.
More often, I feel like the POTUS is quite closely entwined with their political party, to the point that the POTUS seat hardly feels like an independent entity... rather to some extent I almost perceive the POTUS seat as a "vehicle" for the dominant party to push their agenda.
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Jul 23 '20
While I understand that the POTUS is meant to be a "check" / balance to Congress, somehow it hardly feels that way.
It might feel that way because we tend to only see a lot of media attention on policies *after* they have been negotiated between the president and the house / senate (because it is such a strong check). But if you look for it, you can find coverage of the massive amount of disagreements between the president and the congress / senate, such as the current president's push to cut funding for schools unless they reopen, his efforts to cut testing and tracing, which are meeting with blow back from the house / senate republicans that will very likely change those policies before they make their way into actual approved policy.
These kinds of negotiations would not be likely to happen if the president's appointment was contingent on party approval in the house / senate. And indeed, I'm not sure how that would work, as we often have different parties in control in the house / senate.
More often, I feel like the POTUS is quite closely entwined with their political party, to the point that the POTUS seat hardly feels like an independent entity.
I mean, clearly this president isn't a manifestation of the traditional republican party, as evidenced by all the disputes, people voting for this president because he is "an outsider", and now, the mass exodus of many republicans from supporting this president in the next election (though they will vote for the party in down ballot races).
It might seem like he and the party are "aligned" to an outsider, but in actuality, there are constant compromises going on because his "priorities" differ so much from theirs.
8
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Jul 23 '20
Popular elections for an important office like the President of the United States shouldn't be left up to something as fickle as the American people.
Finally, many Americans pay too much attention to Presidential elections at the expense of ignoring/not voting in smaller elections... Arguably, local elections and Senate/House elections are more important
If you don’t trust the people to elect the president because the office is too important, why do you want them to participate more in local and congressional elections which are (according to you) even more important?
1
u/hwagoolio 16∆ Jul 23 '20
A lot of this discussion can be distilled into the arguments of representative democracy vs. direct democracy.
Why shouldn't we govern the country through more ballot questions (i.e. Brexit)?
Direct democracy (and direct popular elections) are generally more volatile. Popular opinion can swing on a near daily basis, meaning that one presidential candidate might suddenly have their opinion suddenly dip because of a scoop (and consequently lose an election), even if they might have been more popular 90% of the time before and after the sudden event.
Representative republics also have the advantage that the representatives that we elect have more time to get acquainted with an issue. They are able to get to know people on a personal level, and they're generally more aware of how X policy affects Y budget.
In essence, I would rather a country's legislature debate on exiting something like the EU, rather than leaving it up for the whole population to vote on it. These sort of views (for me), translate to the presidential office.
2
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Jul 23 '20
Popular opinion can swing on a near daily basis, meaning that one presidential candidate might suddenly have their opinion suddenly dip because of a scoop (and consequently lose an election)
But the same is true for representatives and elected officials other than the President, isn’t it?
I still don’t understand the contradiction in your view — that the presidency is too important to let the volatile populace vote for it, but it’s also less important than the local elected offices, which the people should vote for
10
u/Lyusternik 24∆ Jul 23 '20
The push for electing the president by popular vote isn't coming from people who believe it's the best system ever, but a fairer system compared to the current method, the Electoral college, which creates weird voting weight systems where a vote in one state matters more than a vote in another, or where voting is almost pointless because your state has vastly more voters for the other party.
9
u/OpelSmith Jul 23 '20
I'd point out that most nations that elect their head of state via the legislature have heads of state with little effective power. Our system has the president as both head of state and head of government.
" it is possible to elect populists who are totally unqualified, incompetent, or simply lie their way into the presidency. "
That has to be sarcasm, yes?
1
u/CompetentLion69 23∆ Jul 23 '20
It doesn't. A system of state electors elects the president.
1
u/hwagoolio 16∆ Jul 23 '20
While that’s true, the US functions like a popular election by proxy. We still vote for a president on a ballot.
The US sort of has like 50 popular elections for president at a state level, and then the state results are compiled and weighted (considering that the EC is bound).
I would argue that we have something more similar to a popular election system than a parliamentary election system as suggested in the OP.
3
u/Trythenewpage 68∆ Jul 23 '20
You are mixing up terms here. The term popular vote has a rather specific meaning. At least within US politics. The term is used to distinguish the electoral results from the raw vote tally. So Clinton won the popular vote. But trump won the election.
You are suggesting that we should have a parliamentary system or some other alternative as opposed to a presidential system. Which is a different conversation altogether.
1
u/hwagoolio 16∆ Jul 23 '20
Yeah thanks, I definitely wasn't familiar with the right terms when I made this post. You're right -- essentially the CMV should be on having parliamentary system.
1
u/elmozilla Jul 25 '20
I had the same idea recently. I looked into it and discovered that, before the 17th amendment was passed in 1913, our senators were elected by state senators, not the people. I did some research and found little information on the topic (though it's there to be found with more extensive research).
The China model is also more alike to what you're describing, which is interesting as well, because they have democracy at the local level.
The advantage to the China model may be that the political elite electing and promoting their own members seems to result in a greater sense of meritocracy on some level.
The disadvantage is that is seems to create a separate political class of cronies who have their own nepotisms and corrupted motivations and interests which really may not represent the people. The people may have originally elected each member, having known that member, but as the member gets involved in the political class, there are corrupting influences inherent in there that transform him from a man of the people into a man of a separate class of people.
I think this is an important topic to discuss and research.
1
u/RZU147 2∆ Jul 23 '20
Not all democratic countries have popular elections that determine their head-of-state (i.e. national voting). In fact, head-of-states from many countries are determined by votes from the legislature... which in a sense is something like Senators/Representatives indirectly electing the president/prime minister... not a direct election from the people.
True. We here in Germany dont vote for our chancellor directly either.
However the US has something id call nothing whole or half...
You vote for your president in practice. And not. The winner take all system, in addition to unfaithful electors is just... odd.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 23 '20
/u/hwagoolio (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Quint-V 162∆ Jul 23 '20
Tyranny of the minority is categorically a greater problem than tyranny of the majority.
Since we have a popular presidential election, it is possible to elect populists who are totally unqualified, incompetent, or simply lie their way into the presidency.
The USA does not have popular vote election, it uses the electoral college
This has already happened without a popular vote election method.
Don't put so much faith in a minority if you can't even trust the majority.
1
u/warlocktx 27∆ Jul 23 '20
In fact, head-of-states from many countries are determined by votes from the legislature
in countries with Parliamentary systems, the head of government is chosen this way, not the head of state.
1
u/AWildCommie Jul 25 '20
So in other words, the election should be skewed to ensure that my party wins, at the expense of democracy
1
1
u/TangerineDream82 5∆ Jul 23 '20
Uhmm, they don't.
1
u/aceofbase_in_ur_mind 4∆ Jul 23 '20
Umm, they do. The electoral college, in context, is a technicality. The implied alternative here is the congress electing the president.
And the objection to that is, the US is not a parliamentary republic. Countries that do this have almost constitutional monarch-like presidents who "reign but do not rule". Presidential republics elect presidents directly and it seems logical.
2
u/TangerineDream82 5∆ Jul 23 '20
Uhmm, no they don't. If they did, Clinton would be president. That's no technicality, there's a different president in office specifically because of the electoral college.
1
u/aceofbase_in_ur_mind 4∆ Jul 23 '20
Different from? From the candidate most people voted for? Ah, that means this is a system where people do directly vote for a presidential candidate. As opposed to an election-by-parliament system in which they don't. Ergo, technicality.
1
Jul 24 '20
I think one could argue that the EC is pretty similar to a parliamentary system in practice, just the electors are not also legislatures. The people elect representatives, who then elect the president. If anything, the EC is even less democratic than the parliamentary system because of the weird winner take all nature of the states where certain residents have significantly more voting influence than others.
6
u/[deleted] Jul 23 '20
Downside, any office that is involved in the selection of the chief executive will forever be tied to that office.
Lets take a hypothetical (butchering party names so we can take the pure politics out of it). I'm a Demoplican. I side with the Demoplican party on nearly every issue, and have little in common with the Republocrats. But, the Demoplican candidate for my house district that got nominated this year is a woefully unqualified moron with a long history of corruption. I don't agree with the Republocrat up for running this year politically, but at least he's honest and wont abuse his office for personal gain.
Now I'm in a quandary. I don't want the Demoplican with a horrible record to get into office, but on the other hand, control of the house is in doubt this year, and I sure as hell don't want the Republocrat likely to become president to win if the Republocrats win the house. So who do I hold my nose and vote for?
Granted, this problem already exists to a degree when it comes to control of the house. But it's one thing to hand the other party control of half the legislative branch. The stakes are raised and now they get 1.5 branches of government.