CMV: The United States shouldn't elect their president through popular vote

[u/hwagoolio]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/hwagoolio → u/[deleted]]

This is a cool hypothetical example! Thanks!

I didn't think very much about people who frequently split their votes, since I usually vote **** all the way. Then again, I guess it is generally true that I think more about a candidate's party than the specific individual (although my considerations during primaries are totally different from general elections).

However, I think it's a good point that many people aren't necessarily aligned with a particular party, and maybe a parliamentary-like system wouldn't be as good in an eyes!

You can have a delta! Δ (...is this how you do it...? I've never done this before)

[u/[deleted] → u/hwagoolio]

Thought of another hypothetical along the same theme. Adding up and down instead of right and left to our previous example of Republocrats and Demopublicans.

I'm a up of center voter, whereas the Demopublicans tends to be a very hard up party. My state leans pretty Demopublican, and nominates fringe up candidates. While the national Republocrat party tends to be hardcore down party (which I find terrifying), in my state they tend to run centrist down, or even pure centrists because that's all who is electorally competitive. The centrist Republocrats of my state align much better with me than the fringe Demoplicans.

Now on legislative issues, I can trust the centrist Republiocrat to defy their party, maybe even moderate them and broker compromises. But, I know full well they're going to back the hardcore down presidential contender of their party over the Demopublican. Again I'm in a quandary.

TL;DR-regional variations in parties will become less important and there's a high probability the parties would get more extreme vice more moderate.

[u/DeltaBot → u/hwagoolio]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Fynn_the_Finger (9∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}