Should Election Day be made a national holiday?

[wiegeabo]

The Electoral College has been mathematically proven to be the more fair way to elect The President. It increases the power of people's votes. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny

The most apt analogy is the World Series. Should we give the championship to the team with the highest score, or the one that won the most games?

Now, the EC could be more fair if we got rid of the winner-take-all method of giving votes. Either give it proportionally or by congressional district (and maybe give the 2 senate votes using winner-take-all). I think only 3 states do that today.



To get back on track, the National Holiday idea has a lot of merit. I do think a lot of people would use it as an excuse to go party, or on a short trip, or whatever (take the Monday off and make it a long weekend) and end up not voting. Although, I'm not sure we'd want anyone who does that to vote anyway . But I do think that would be vastly outnumbered by the increase in able participants, especially with the uptick in mail-in votes and early voting.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think it should be. Definitely. I'm not sure exactly how they would go about it since I'm pretty sure in order to make in a national holiday it would have to be declared at the federal level. Which essentially would mean the Federal Government would be telling the State how to conduct an election, which is unconstitutional.

However I'm all for it. I think it would take some of the angst out of American politics too. Sure he may be Democrat and he may be Republican, but give them both a day from work and they'll make it an excuse to celebrate.

 

[BestGirl]

It doesn't matter. There is no point to an electoral college. It is not the will of the people. Popular vote is the will of the people. Places like Wyoming and Alaska, don't mean crap with their allotment of electoral votes. It would also stop these politicians from bombarding places like Ohio or Colorado 24/7. They don't give a crap about Alaska. See how that is idiotic? We have Presidents that lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote. It's stupid.

It would also give more incentive for people in heavily partisan states to vote. I know it would bug me if I were a Democrat in Alabama or a Republican in Massachusetts that my vote was essentially a throwaway vote.

 

[BestGirl]

The only thing that's over the top is your attitude in pretty much any conversation, anywhere on the Hype.

I agree that the electoral college is problematic but a system that is 97% effective is arguably one of the most successful parts of our political process.

But wouldn't a popular vote system be 100% effective in selecting the leader that the majority of the country wanted?

I would like to do away with the electoral college. The only way I'd be content to see it stick around would be if a state's votes were split proportionally between the candidates rather than winner-take-all.

To keep my comments on topic I'll say that I wouldn't mind of election day were declared a national holiday.

 

[chaseter]

...Or perhaps the fact that you went completely off topic just to say something controversial to rile up posters. C'mon dude. The topic is "should this be a national holiday" not "listen to Chaseter get all ******** about the electoral college". Grow up and learn to have an adult conversation.

What's off topic? Me saying no and here are the reasons why?

If you feel I did it to rile up posters, why did you feel the need to respond?

Democracy in our country is an illusion, a false dichotomy. A choice between one polar opposite or the other. A choice that some of us can't make because others can supersede us. To think we deserve a holiday for that day is silly. Some people's votes don't matter. That's not Democracy nor is that a big day for those people.

 

[Schlosser85]

Please discuss the question of the OP and save debates about the electoral college for elsewhere. Also, let's skip personal jabs.

 

[Marvolo]

I dont see your logic. You say we shouldnt make it easier for people to get to the polls because in your mind the system is broken. By that logic we should just not vote at all and let congress choose the president like the Constitutional Convention originally wanted. it is a big day and the system isnt broken. And once again we are a constitutional republic and our constitution sets up our electoral process.

Anyways, whether election day is a holiday has little to do with the system of voting. Whatever helps more people get tot the polls should be considered whether it is a democracy or not.

 

[redhawk23]

But wouldn't a popular vote system be 100% effective in selecting the leader that the majority of the country wanted?

I would like to do away with the electoral college. The only way I'd be content to see it stick around would be if a state's votes were split proportionally between the candidates rather than winner-take-all.

To keep my comments on topic I'll say that I wouldn't mind of election day were declared a national holiday.

Please prove that every single vote has been counted in every election. It's true that to a certain degree the electoral college can lessen the relative value of the individual vote, but really that serves a purpose in terms of logistics.

As for the constitutionality of making election day a holiday, I don't think declaring a day off would constitute a federal decision on the election itself.

 

[Kelly]

In answer to the question of the thread.....as long as there is early voting, absentee voting, etc........no.

 

[Marvolo]

In answer to the question of the thread.....as long as there is early voting, absentee voting, etc........no.

Is there a specific reason?

 

[Kelly]

Is there a specific reason?

Opportunity....if the opportunity was not there for people to have a chance to vote, then I would say, make it a holiday. But there is ample opportunity, so therefore, its not needed IMO.

 

[The Riddler]

Its not as if the other states don't contribute towards the winner's 270. The problem is the degree to which voting habits can be taken for granted.

the point isn't that the other other states don't contribute, it's that a huge portion of the people within those other states aren't contributing. the fact that in a non-swing state your vote for the winner is redundant or your vote for the loser is a complete waste is precisely the reason why voting really isn't worth your time if you don't live in a swing state. in a winner take all electoral college, millions of votes literally mean nothing.

 

[StrainedEyes]

We do it by mail in WA. So very convenient.

 

[Baramos]

This is not the most important day for American citizens. One, our votes don't count as the electoral college makes the decision for us. Two, the people you vote into office don't give a dump about you. Three, the American political system is polar system where your only choices are the idiot on the left or the idiot on the right thanks to campaign finance laws.

Your votes don't count because the electoral college votes for you? What, do you think that they just vote for whoever the want? The delegates are pledged to vote for the one candidate or the other. When the popular vote for that state is counted, the one with the most has their delegates vote for them. The system is called a Republic or Representative Democracy, as opposed to a Direct Democracy. The idea that the votes don't count doesn't make any sense, though. That is what decides who wins the electoral votes. You could argue they count slightly less than in a Direct Democracy, or point out that sometimes a candidate wins the popular vote by a tiny margin (which in most other countries would lead to a run-off election, anyway) while losing the electoral college, but saying that the votes don't count is blatantly untrue.

Can't really argue with the other two as they are just opinions, but please get statements about facts right in the future.

About making it a national holiday: fine by me. They can get rid of Columbus Day to make up for it.

 

[chaseter]

It's not that hard...if someone wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote or vice versa then the electoral college has not done it's job as you mentioned. Every vote counts in a popular vote. Bush wouldn't have beaten Gore in 2000. Do you support that?

 

[wiegeabo]

Why the Electoral College actually increases voting power

 

[Marvolo]

It's not that hard...if someone wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote or vice versa then the electoral college has not done it's job as you mentioned. Every vote counts in a popular vote. Bush wouldn't have beaten Gore in 2000. Do you support that?

We are NOT a direct democracy. What dont you get about this? We are a constitutional republic with a representative democracy. The elctoral colleges are our representatives. Their vote represents our vote.

 

[chaseter]

We are NOT a direct democracy. What dont you get about this? We are a constitutional republic with a representative democracy. The elctoral colleges are our representatives. Their vote represents our vote.

I understand what it is, doesn't meant I can't disagree with it. It can be called whatever, it's not a democracy. Basic majority rule is democracy. An electoral vote representing more than one or less than one vote is not democracy. It curtails democracy. Everyone's vote should count the exact same. You can argue otherwise I do not care. Every vote should be weighted the same. That's it. That is democracy.

 

[wiegeabo]

I understand what it is, doesn't meant I can't disagree with it. It can be called whatever, it's not a democracy. Basic majority rule is democracy. An electoral vote representing more than one or less than one vote is not democracy. It curtails democracy. Everyone's vote should count the exact same. You can argue otherwise I do not care. Every vote should be weighted the same. That's it. That is democracy.

That's also tyranny of the majority. Where the will and needs of the minority is completely suppressed. Hence why we use representation, to equal out everyone's voting power.

 

[The Riddler]

We are NOT a direct democracy. What dont you get about this? We are a constitutional republic with a representative democracy. The elctoral colleges are our representatives. Their vote represents our vote.

saying we are not a direct democracy (which is true) doesn't answer the argument against the electoral college.

the fact that millions of votes are inconsequential to the result of the election is a clear indicator to me that the electoral college needs to be replaced.

 

[chaseter]

That's also tyranny of the majority. Where the will and needs of the minority is completely suppressed. Hence why we use representation, to equal out everyone's voting power.

What one group today has a tyranny of majority? If a tyranny of majority were true on the national election stage, there would always be a different outcome between the popular vote and the electoral vote.

 

[Marvolo]

I understand what it is, doesn't meant I can't disagree with it. It can be called whatever, it's not a democracy. Basic majority rule is democracy. An electoral vote representing more than one or less than one vote is not democracy. It curtails democracy. Everyone's vote should count the exact same. You can argue otherwise I do not care. Every vote should be weighted the same. That's it. That is democracy.

It doesnt matter if that is democracy because we are not a direct democracy. Now im not saying that is an argument FOR the electoral college but it is the argument against the popular vote. If you want the popular vote to become the deciding factor it will take an amendment.

 

[Baramos]

Yeah, I'm not for the electoral college. They could go with the popular vote in my opinion (direct democracy). BUT the electoral college is still more than within the bounds of representative democracy.

 

[Kelly]

Another option: Count the counties within the state....the one that wins the most counties, wins the state.


Just throwing it out there....

 

[Smashlilman]

Another option: Count the counties within the state....the one that wins the most counties, wins the state.


Just throwing it out there....

So what happens if the 1 county has the population of 10 other counties. The election should be about people not land area. It's like you looked at the Ohio map and realized that there was more red counties than blue counties. Even though the blue areas have a higher concentration of actual people.