• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York does away with Electoral College

Rainman05 said:
I'll let CGPGRey to explain to you all how you can win the Presidency of the USA with just a bit over 22% of the popular vote. That's not democracy.

Click to expand...


Most western- democratically elected heads of government are not elected "democratically" (only a few people voted for the prime minister of the UK or Canada, for example). On the continent, the tradition is that the government in power did not win 50% of the vote, rather they owe their victory to coalitions formed of which the voter has no say.
The electoral college is far more "democratic" than those arrangements.
 
Paschendale said:
One of the main reasons for the electoral college is because information traveled at the speed of horse in 1789. No accurate winner could be selected with any haste and the potential for mistakes was enormous. Putting the election in tiers (electoral district > state > nation) helped ensure an accurate result. In the age of telephones, computers, and the internet, there is no such need.
Click to expand...

This great push is on the heels of the "outrage" of 2000. Its happened four times in 230 years. In most of Europe, its the standard feature of government, not an anomaly. The man who wins the election almost always has had majority of the votes. This is something which the folks of a Spain or an Italy CANNOT claim.

regarding the tech "advancements": It wasn't simply the result in Florida that was in dispute. New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania all had disputes. The advantage of an electoral college is that it avoided the monstrosity of a recount of a 100 million votes nationwide that a direct election would saddle the country with. This is no small thing because GOOD government is something to be expected as well, which folks such as Al Gore or Samuel Tilden recognized.
 
sawdust said:
The electoral collage was crafted so that heavily populated northern industrial states couldn't abuse thinly populated agricultural southern states. It's not outdated and serves the same useful purpose today.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if ever there was a group of states that deserved to be abused, it's those thinly populated agricultural southern states.
 
mvymvy said:
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Click to expand...

Under the Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes wins. If Bush carries Florida, he gets the votes of Florida, if Gore wins California, he gets the votes of California. And onward and onward.

It does not preserve state control of elections (I realize you are talking here about the actual mechanics of the polls). They lose control of elections, because , as you mentioned elsewhere, nobody would have cared about a 537 vote discrepency in Florida.
Except the voters of Florida...

That is why it will not last.
 
mvymvy said:
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
Click to expand...

Obama won the majority of the votes in 2012. As did every other president save four. It is not clear why he, or any other one, would have campaigned any differently under the proposed revision.
 
BobbyO said:
Obama won the majority of the votes in 2012. As did every other president save four. It is not clear why he, or any other one, would have campaigned any differently under the proposed revision.
Click to expand...
Obama also won the dead vote.
 
BobbyO said:
This great push is on the heels of the "outrage" of 2000. Its happened four times in 230 years. In most of Europe, its the standard feature of government, not an anomaly. The man who wins the election almost always has had majority of the votes. This is something which the folks of a Spain or an Italy CANNOT claim.

regarding the tech "advancements": It wasn't simply the result in Florida that was in dispute. New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania all had disputes. The advantage of an electoral college is that it avoided the monstrosity of a recount of a 100 million votes nationwide that a direct election would saddle the country with. This is no small thing because GOOD government is something to be expected as well, which folks such as Al Gore or Samuel Tilden recognized.
Click to expand...

Four times in 57 (really only 56, 1820 was unopposed) elections. That's a 7% failure rate. How can we be alright with 7% of elections for the most powerful office in the world not going to the real winner?

It's doubly upsetting that the same people who are constantly trying to prove electoral fraud are supportive of the college. They lose their minds even though not a single election has ever been show to have been decided by people illegally voting in person, but this method that screws up 7% of presidential elections is just fine. A system that doesn't elect the real winner is fine so long as it skews towards them. That's messed up.
 
BobbyO said:
Most western- democratically elected heads of government are not elected "democratically" (only a few people voted for the prime minister of the UK or Canada, for example). On the continent, the tradition is that the government in power did not win 50% of the vote, rather they owe their victory to coalitions formed of which the voter has no say.
The electoral college is far more "democratic" than those arrangements.
Click to expand...

Keep lying to yourself because that'll fix the problem.
 
ernst barkmann said:
what is a republican form of government,?....it is a mixed government.[federalist 40]

what is mixed government?..... it is a monarchy, aristocracy, and a democracy rolled into 1 government[American government], with 2 non democratic votes and 1 democratic vote...making it republican.

the electoral college, and the senate are non democratic votes, vs the 1 democratic vote of the house.

what is the difference, between a republican form of government and a democratic form?........a republican form has NO dominate factor, vs a dominate factor in democratic forms which is "the people".

to the founders a "democratic republic" is an oxymoron, ......because no form of government exist in 1787......a republican form and a democratic form are conflicting forms of government.

the founders created American government on the Roman Republic which was a good and stable form of government, were as democratic governments are bad and unstable forms of government.

the word "republic" has changed since the founders created the constitution, in 1789 the french revolution was a democratic movement of the people ,however they called France a republic, which it was not, ...however again the term stuck, and republic today means anything which is not a monarchy.

you see the people's republic of china, the USSR, these are not republics to the founders.

in constitutional law, all states and the federal government must be republican in their form, ...to be anything other than republican is unconstitutional, and any state changing it form of government to any other form would have to leave the union, this is constitutional law.

however constitutional law is not being followed.


i welcome questions!
Click to expand...

As I understand it mixed government is about separation of powers between the people - the House of Representatives, the aristocracy - the Senate, and the monarch - the President. Nothing I read indicates that a particular method of election is required.

We'd remain a mixed government even if we went to popular vote because the President retains his veto power. And the founders were fine with that by virtue of the fact that they left it up to the states to decide how to apportion their electoral votes.

By your definition the Roman Republic was not a republic since consuls were popularly elected.

There is no mechanism to kick states out if the union. One states signed on and the Constitution became enforceable they were in for good. They can't leave nor can they be kicked out. The provisions of the Constitution you speak of give the federal government the right to enforce republican government in the states. It does not give the federal government the right to remove states. See "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" Joseph Story, sections 1807 to 1819.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
Four times in 57 (really only 56, 1820 was unopposed) elections. That's a 7% failure rate. How can we be alright with 7% of elections for the most powerful office in the world not going to the real winner?

It's doubly upsetting that the same people who are constantly trying to prove electoral fraud are supportive of the college. They lose their minds even though not a single election has ever been show to have been decided by people illegally voting in person, but this method that screws up 7% of presidential elections is just fine. A system that doesn't elect the real winner is fine so long as it skews towards them. That's messed up.
Click to expand...

98.2% of the Presidential Elections were decided by the person who got the most electoral votes and only the electoral tie of 1800 kept it from being 100%. You may want your vote to go directly to your presidential candidate, but it doesn't. A bigger travesty would be to have the electoral votes of your state go to a person who didn't win your state just because of this proposed electoral suicide pact.

So now you are lowering your threshold to judge voter ID initiatives? It used to be there there were no cases of voter fraud, and not it just has to be that the amount of voter fraud has to have decided an election. I don't care if there truly is no voter fraud, you should be required to show an ID to vote and mechanisms should be in place so that you only get to vote once. We are Americans, and we are very mobile people. A move of 5 miles can put you in another county or even another states. Apparently enough people take advantage of that fact to vote more than once on election day. "Vote early, and vote often" is a joke today, but it has basis in history.

Just like sports, political elections involve getting the most votes (wins) in each election (series) participated. There are 52 elections for president. 51 to decide electors and then the vote of the Electoral College. If there is a tie, the House decides. Imagine the outrage that would ensue should there be the need for a recount as a result of the initiative. You can't force every state to do a recount because they are state elections, but are we going to do a recount in California even though the D won 60% of the vote because the national D candidate needed it to be 61% to win the national election?

Think people and be a bit more practical and think things through.
 
Gaius46 said:
As I understand it mixed government is about separation of powers between the people - the House of Representatives, the aristocracy - the Senate, and the monarch - the President. Nothing I read indicates that a particular method of election is required.

We'd remain a mixed government even if we went to popular vote because the President retains his veto power. And the founders were fine with that by virtue of the fact that they left it up to the states to decide how to apportion their electoral votes.

By your definition the Roman Republic was not a republic since consuls were popularly elected.

There is no mechanism to kick states out if the union. One states signed on and the Constitution became enforceable they were in for good. They can't leave nor can they be kicked out. The provisions of the Constitution you speak of give the federal government the right to enforce republican government in the states. It does not give the federal government the right to remove states. See "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" Joseph Story, sections 1807 to 1819.
Click to expand...


here is why you are incorrect:

first you agree we have a mixed government...good

a mixed government ...is a ...democracy - aristocracy - monarchy......why is it those 3?, because in the times of the founders that was the types of governments that existed, and each of them as a separate type of government were failures.

the house is elected by the people, by a direct vote making it a democracy, and the house presents 330 million Americans and their .......interest.

the senate [pre17th] is elected by the state legislatures of the states, it is an aristocracy, and it presents 50 state governments, and their interest....... which is state interest.........not the interest of the people.

NOW!....right there you have a separation of powers.......the people have power, and the states have power...... in congress.

why did the founders separate power this way?

because when the people of the house get together, people ALWAYS act collectively, it is part of human nature of people, and acting collectively, they will ALWAYS work in their own interest, even that the expense of other people, this is "MOB RULE"......which is why the the people are not given all power.

the senate is given the other half of power, why?......to cool the sudden passions of the "MOB"[the house], ....people because of emotions can act on sudden passion and do things without thinking, finding out later it was a mistake, and then its to late.

the senate serves as a BLOCK on the sudden passion of the people to create things [laws], which could [violate the rights of other people], create laws [which are not federal power but state powers], create social laws which involves the federal government in the personal life's of the people, as James Madison states in federalist 63, that the senate acts in America government to "exclude the American people from their collective capacity in government"

so the senate, with its power keeps the house in CHECK........TO PREVENT A DEMOCRACY FROM TAKING HOLD IN AMERICA.

the house with its power, and the constitution barring the senate from creating any law which appropriates money, keeps the senate in CHECK ......TO PREVENT AN ARISTOCRACY TAKING HOLD IN AMERICA.

both sides of congress CHECK and BALANCE the other.............AND THEY BOTH SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THE PRESIDENT...............TO PREVENT A MONARCHY TAKING HOLD IN AMERICA.


the president is a monarchy, he is elected by electors, an even smaller numbers of people who are picked today by party line........in the past....it was done 3 different ways...1. the people of the states would popular vote for the electors state wide 2. they would elect them by districts.3 the state legislature would pick the electors.

the president represents the UNION, and he serves as a CHECK on the house and senate, with his veto power.

so you have the 330 million people electing the house

50 state legislatures electing the senate........and i don't know how many people are in all 50 states legislatures....so i just put 50 states

538 electors electing the president.

so each of our 3 elected officials, .....IS ELECTED BY A DIFFERENT BODY OF PEOPLE.....................the people, the states, the electors.......this is what is known in republican form of government as ....."spreading power out".........were as in democracy, "power is concentrated into only 1"...... "the people".....and when only the people have all power, that leads to "MOB RULE"


ROMAN CONSULS.......were NOT elected by the people.........they were elected by the "The Assembly of Centuries" (comitia centuriata), which was composed of all members of the army, elected consuls annually.

the people of Rome are the........... The Assembly of Tribes (comitia tributa), composed of all citizens, approved or rejected laws and decided issues of war and peace...........
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
Four times in 57 (really only 56, 1820 was unopposed) elections. That's a 7% failure rate. How can we be alright with 7% of elections for the most powerful office in the world not going to the real winner?

It's doubly upsetting that the same people who are constantly trying to prove electoral fraud are supportive of the college. They lose their minds even though not a single election has ever been show to have been decided by people illegally voting in person, but this method that screws up 7% of presidential elections is just fine. A system that doesn't elect the real winner is fine so long as it skews towards them. That's messed up.
Click to expand...

People who push for voter ID cannot substantiate any sort of fraud numbers at all at anythign more than 1/100th of 1% - imagine how crazy they would go at a 7% fraud rate.
 
Excon said:
But the fact that you later did it again, is highly suggestive that you meant it as a personal attack.
Click to expand...

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd...we're done here.

Enjoy your weekend.
 
Gaius46 said:
There is no mechanism to kick states out if the union. One states signed on and the Constitution became enforceable they were in for good. They can't leave nor can they be kicked out. The provisions of the Constitution you speak of give the federal government the right to enforce republican government in the states. It does not give the federal government the right to remove states. See "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" Joseph Story, sections 1807 to 1819.
Click to expand...


the constitution guarantees that the federal government and state governments will be republican forms of government.

however every state in the union has in its constitution has the right of the people to alter or abolish their states government, ...but if the government of a state is changed, it has to be in a republican form.......it cannot be a democracy, aristocracy, or a monarchy or any other.

if the people of a state change the form to any one of those, then the state CANNOT STAY IN THE UNION, IT MUST LEAVE......because it is violating the .....guarantee

the constitution gives the federal government the power to quell insurrections or those who would try to cease control in states, it does not give the federal government power to stop the people from changing their state's form of government.

federalist -39 Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.


no state is bound to the union, because every state has the power to alter its form of government......you will find this in every state Constitution.

Article 4, Section 4

William Rawle, WROTE "A View of the Constitution of the United States " 1829 (2d ed.)

William Rawle is George Washington's DA, for the state of PENN.


The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.


Not a word in the Constitution is intended to be inoperative, and one so significant as the present was not lightly inserted. The United States are therefore bound to carry it into effect whenever the occasion arises, and finding as we do, in the same clause, the engagement to protect each state against domestic violence, which can only be by the arms of the Union, we are assisted in a due construction of the means of enforcing the guaranty. If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union. If a faction, an inferior number, make such an effort, and endeavour to enforce it by violence, the case provided for will have arisen, and the Union is bound to employ its power to prevent it.
 
Last edited:
soot said:
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd...we're done here.

Enjoy your weekend.
Click to expand...
It was over the moment you started spouting bs, and you are just now figuring that out?
Figures.
 
ernst barkmann said:
here is why you are incorrect:

first you agree we have a mixed government...good

a mixed government ...is a ...democracy - aristocracy - monarchy......why is it those 3?, because in the times of the founders that was the types of governments that existed, and each of them as a separate type of government were failures.

the house is elected by the people, by a direct vote making it a democracy, and the house presents 330 million Americans and their .......interest.

the senate [pre17th] is elected by the state legislatures of the states, it is an aristocracy, and it presents 50 state governments, and their interest....... which is state interest.........not the interest of the people.

NOW!....right there you have a separation of powers.......the people have power, and the states have power...... in congress.

why did the founders separate power this way?

because when the people of the house get together, people ALWAYS act collectively, it is part of human nature of people, and acting collectively, they will ALWAYS work in their own interest, even that the expense of other people, this is "MOB RULE"......which is why the the people are not given all power.

the senate is given the other half of power, why?......to cool the sudden passions of the "MOB"[the house], ....people because of emotions can act on sudden passion and do things without thinking, finding out later it was a mistake, and then its to late.

the senate serves as a BLOCK on the sudden passion of the people to create things [laws], which could [violate the rights of other people], create laws [which are not federal power but state powers], create social laws which involves the federal government in the personal life's of the people, as James Madison states in federalist 63, that the senate acts in America government to "exclude the American people from their collective capacity in government"

so the senate, with its power keeps the house in CHECK........TO PREVENT A DEMOCRACY FROM TAKING HOLD IN AMERICA.

the house with its power, and the constitution barring the senate from creating any law which appropriates money, keeps the senate in CHECK ......TO PREVENT AN ARISTOCRACY TAKING HOLD IN AMERICA.

both sides of congress CHECK and BALANCE the other.............AND THEY BOTH SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THE PRESIDENT...............TO PREVENT A MONARCHY TAKING HOLD IN AMERICA.


the president is a monarchy, he is elected by electors, an even smaller numbers of people who are picked today by party line........in the past....it was done 3 different ways...1. the people of the states would popular vote for the electors state wide 2. they would elect them by districts.3 the state legislature would pick the electors.

the president represents the UNION, and he serves as a CHECK on the house and senate, with his veto power.

so you have the 330 million people electing the house

50 state legislatures electing the senate........and i don't know how many people are in all 50 states legislatures....so i just put 50 states

538 electors electing the president.

so each of our 3 elected officials, .....IS ELECTED BY A DIFFERENT BODY OF PEOPLE.....................the people, the states, the electors.......this is what is known in republican form of government as ....."spreading power out".........were as in democracy, "power is concentrated into only 1"...... "the people".....and when only the people have all power, that leads to "MOB RULE"


ROMAN CONSULS.......were NOT elected by the people.........they were elected by the "The Assembly of Centuries" (comitia centuriata), which was composed of all members of the army, elected consuls annually.

the people of Rome are the........... The Assembly of Tribes (comitia tributa), composed of all citizens, approved or rejected laws and decided issues of war and peace...........
Click to expand...

You're right about the Comitia Centuirata, but those were assemblies of citizens - not active members of the army. All citizens who met the requisite property qualifications were members of the Comitia Centuriata. The confusion with soldiers I think comes from the fact that the Centuriata was organized along military lines (a century was the basic Roman army organizational unit) and citizens acting in the centuriata were considered soldiers and as such could not act within the city walls - hence the fact that voting took place on the Campus Martius which was outside the city. But they weren't active duty. The Romans also considered all comita to be democratic organizations that represented the will of the Roman people regardless of whether all citizens were members or not.

Looking at it closer I realize I am wrong about the "popular election" comment. Each century had one vote and that vote was cast based on the majority of votes within century - superficially similar to the electoral college.

Comitia Tributa was open to all citizens - there were no property qualifications as far as I know.


I have to think more about the rest of your post. I had started drafting a response disagreeing with you about the nature of democratically elected bodies - like the House of Representatives - but realized there were some serious inconsistencies in my position so I have to go back to the drawing board.
 
Excon said:
It was over the moment you started spouting bs, and you are just now figuring that out?
Figures.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you have yourself the best weekend ever.

:)
 
soot said:
Well that's just swell to hear.

You make sure you enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Like I said; "It will be great without your bs."

Yet you continue to spew. :doh Figures.
 
Paschendale said:
Four times in 57 (really only 56, 1820 was unopposed) elections. That's a 7% failure rate. How can we be alright with 7% of elections for the most powerful office in the world not going to the real winner?

It's doubly upsetting that the same people who are constantly trying to prove electoral fraud are supportive of the college. They lose their minds even though not a single election has ever been show to have been decided by people illegally voting in person, but this method that screws up 7% of presidential elections is just fine. A system that doesn't elect the real winner is fine so long as it skews towards them. That's messed up.
Click to expand...

It does elect the real winner-- this is a federal system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom