• 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!

Electoral College

S

SomeRandomGuy

The Electoral College should be abandoned?

-your opinion please!
 
SomeRandomGuy said:
The Electoral College should be abandoned?

-your opinion please!
Click to expand...
Nope, it's there for a reason. I'd like to see it changed a bit, but abandoned, no.
 
There's no reason that votes cannot be tallied nationally. In the past such an endeavor would have been very ambitious, but it is entirely feasible to count votes for the nation as a whole. It should definitely be abolished

P/N said:
Nope, it's there for a reason.
Click to expand...

Such as?

I'd like to see it changed a bit, but abandoned, no.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
I'd like to see the Maine/Nebraska method of the electoral college iimplemented by more states.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'd like to see the Maine/Nebraska method of the electoral college iimplemented by more states.
Click to expand...


Where is the Electoral College... my wife wants to see it.
 
Everyone's vote should count for the same, why should someone's vote in say FL count more than someone in CA or TX?? It's stupid it's time that everyone's vote count the same.
 
No, the Electoral College serves a purpose.
The People were never meant to vote for the President.
To allow this would be unfair/unequal representation of the States.
The People already have their representation through Congress.
 
Coolguy said:
No, the Electoral College serves a purpose.
The People were never meant to vote for the President.
To allow this would be unfair/unequal representation of the States.
The People already have their representation through Congress.
Click to expand...
Then why bother having a general election? Just let the representatives of the states vote.
IF the people are to vote in a presidential vote, then there is no reason that my vote should be worth more or less than someone elses vote. Yet today that is exactly the case. Ppl in "swing states" or "battle ground" states have their vote worth more than people in "safe states". So the candidates pander to them and not us.
I see no reason for this whatsoever.
 
jfuh said:
Then why bother having a general election? Just let the representatives of the states vote.
IF the people are to vote in a presidential vote, then there is no reason that my vote should be worth more or less than someone elses vote. Yet today that is exactly the case. Ppl in "swing states" or "battle ground" states have their vote worth more than people in "safe states". So the candidates pander to them and not us.
I see no reason for this whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So you fix the electoral college, you don't abandon it. If there were no electoral college, do you really think the candidates would campaign or take an interest in states like Maine, North or South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia or Delaware? They would go after states like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. There is a purpose to the electoral college, but it needs to be fixed.

I'm fine with the electoral college voting based on how those in their state voted, but instead of winner takes all, it needs to be based by percentage. If Illinois (21 electoral votes) is won by candidate A by a margin of 52% to 46% with the other 2% going to third party candidates, then candidate A gets 11 electoral votes and candidate B gets 10 electoral votes. Now what about the third party candidates? I propose that they need to get 5% of the votes in that state to be eligible for electoral votes. This makes Illinois no less important than any other state because everyone's vote does count. It isn't a perfect system, but with some minor changes, I think we can make the election more "fair".
 
P/N said:
So you fix the electoral college, you don't abandon it. If there were no electoral college, do you really think the candidates would campaign or take an interest in states like Maine, North or South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia or Delaware? They would go after states like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. There is a purpose to the electoral college, but it needs to be fixed.

I'm fine with the electoral college voting based on how those in their state voted, but instead of winner takes all, it needs to be based by percentage. If Illinois (21 electoral votes) is won by candidate A by a margin of 52% to 46% with the other 2% going to third party candidates, then candidate A gets 11 electoral votes and candidate B gets 10 electoral votes. Now what about the third party candidates? I propose that they need to get 5% of the votes in that state to be eligible for electoral votes. This makes Illinois no less important than any other state because everyone's vote does count. It isn't a perfect system, but with some minor changes, I think we can make the election more "fair".
Click to expand...

If you do it that way why have an electoral college at all? The EC totals would just be proportional to the popular vote percentages, except that third party candidates get the shaft by being unrepresented in every state except those they can manage 5%+ in. All that the electoral college does under that system is make the point totals less precise, it offers no benefit over using the popular vote
 
P/N said:
So you fix the electoral college, you don't abandon it. If there were no electoral college, do you really think the candidates would campaign or take an interest in states like Maine, North or South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia or Delaware? They would go after states like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. There is a purpose to the electoral college, but it needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...
The president is representative of the people, not the states. One citizen, one vote, a citizen resident in the state of texas should have as much weight and bearing as a citizen resident in Florida.
The president is supposed to carry the intentions of the people at heart, not the states.
The states have their own representation as governors.

P/N said:
I'm fine with the electoral college voting based on how those in their state voted, but instead of winner takes all, it needs to be based by percentage. If Illinois (21 electoral votes) is won by candidate A by a margin of 52% to 46% with the other 2% going to third party candidates, then candidate A gets 11 electoral votes and candidate B gets 10 electoral votes. Now what about the third party candidates? I propose that they need to get 5% of the votes in that state to be eligible for electoral votes. This makes Illinois no less important than any other state because everyone's vote does count. It isn't a perfect system, but with some minor changes, I think we can make the election more "fair".
Click to expand...
You still have the problem of delegation of number of votes to the total number of electoral college per state. To which why bother with an electoral college at all?
Direct popular vote, whoever wins the most number of people wins, plain and simple, there should not be any additional buffer between the vote cast by the citizen and who wins the office.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
If you do it that way why have an electoral college at all? The EC totals would just be proportional to the popular vote percentages, except that third party candidates get the shaft by being unrepresented in every state except those they can manage 5%+ in. All that the electoral college does under that system is make the point totals less precise, it offers no benefit over using the popular vote
Click to expand...
Exactly, it discourages 3rd party candidates and disenfranchises the vote of the individual.
If I'm a republican in California, I'm screwed; if democrat in Texas, I'm screwed.
Governors are elected directly by popular vote, why should the presidency be any different?
 
Ah, because the State itself needs to be recognized separately from the People?
We are a Nation of States, not a Nation of individuals.

Why should a minority of States with the largest populations be able to dictate to a majority of States who will be the President?
The Electoral College strikes a balance. Does it not?

From the Electoral College's site.
... The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Coolguy said:
Ah, because the State itself needs to be recognized separately from the People?
We are a Nation of States, not a Nation of individuals.

Why should a minority of States with the largest populations be able to dictate to a majority of States who will be the President?
The Electoral College strikes a balance. Does it not?
Click to expand...
Why should my vote count for less weight than that of someone across state line? We are a nation that is built on the foundation of individuals, not of states.
The state lines can all disappear and the nation would still be around, the reverse does not work.
 
Last edited:
We are a Nation that was built the foundation of Federalism, or in other words, "We are a Nation of States, not individuals", within a Federal Government.

I understand what you are saying, but that isn't the case per se.

The People of the States were never meant to elect the President in the first place, and even today they do not.
It was always the Electoral College who initially is designed to elect the President.

The State can decide how it wishes to allow the Elector's to be chosen, such as with a toss of a coin.
And not in every State do the Electors have to vote the will of the people.

As it is, your vote only counts in your State as it should, because you are actually voting for how the Elector's are going to vote.

Have you read Wiki's entry on the Electoral College?
 
Coolguy said:
We are a Nation that was built the foundation of Federalism, or in other words, "We are a Nation of States, not individuals", within a Federal Government.

I understand what you are saying, but that isn't the case per se.

The People of the States were never meant to elect the President in the first place, and even today they do not.
It was always the Electoral College who initially is designed to elect the President.

The State can decide how it wishes to allow the Elector's to be chosen, such as with a toss of a coin.
And not in every State do the Electors have to vote the will of the people.

As it is, your vote only counts in your State as it should, because you are actually voting for how the Elector's are going to vote.

Have you read Wiki's entry on the Electoral College?
Click to expand...

Congress represents the states individually, shouldn't the presidency be a representation of the nation as a whole?
 
Coolguy said:
We are a Nation that was built the foundation of Federalism, or in other words, "We are a Nation of States, not individuals", within a Federal Government.

I understand what you are saying, but that isn't the case per se.

The People of the States were never meant to elect the President in the first place, and even today they do not.
It was always the Electoral College who initially is designed to elect the President.

The State can decide how it wishes to allow the Elector's to be chosen, such as with a toss of a coin.
And not in every State do the Electors have to vote the will of the people.

As it is, your vote only counts in your State as it should, because you are actually voting for how the Elector's are going to vote.

Have you read Wiki's entry on the Electoral College?
Click to expand...

You are correct about the intent and function of the Electoral College. It is my understanding that the states needn't even offer a popular vote for President, but could, for example, allow the state legislature to decide which Electors would be sent to vote for President.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

This, by the way, was why it was so ludicrous for "Strict Constructionists" on the Supreme Court to interfere with a State's process for selecting Electors. Their loosy goosy interpretation of the 14th is just further evidence that they are not, nor were they ever, really, strict constructionists. Convenient Constructionists, perhaps, but not Strict.(sorry, off topic).

The broad interpretation of the commerce clause, which has been upheld and applied by our "not so strict Strict Constructionists" on the Supreme Court, has obliterated much of the Federalness of our Federal System.

The purpose the Electoral College served applied to a young nation comprised of separate former British Colonies. These colonies had each been formed by groups of like minded people who wanted to retain as much independence from each other's influence as possible.

The change in demography, the de-facto manner in which we have largely blended into regions rather than states, and the changes to the way the Central Government relates to the States, makes the original purpose of the Electoral College system fade into a meaninglessness that should certainly not trump the notion of 1 citizen, 1 vote.

You are arguing for the continuation of a relic that well served a system that is no longer in place.
 
Arguing that the Electoral College is somehow a relic in my opinion disregards the intent and purpose it serves.
The purpose it serves is just as applicable today as the day it was established.

No one's vote is more valuable than another's.
A person's vote counts equally, as do all others within a specific State as intended.
That is "1 citizen, 1 vote"!

The States also need to be represented. There is no reason why (the most extreme circumstance) 11 States should be able to dictate to the other 39 States who should be President.

re: Strict Constructionists
The problem does not reside within the Supreme Court.
The problem starts with the Founders not putting in place an enforceable guiding document as to what the Constitution actually means and also resides with the laws that the Congress has passed, causing the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the laws the way it does.
 
What I'm about to say is going to be more archaic, I think, compared to what everyone here is discussing.

The writers of our constitution never wanted a direct democracy. It has always been about being a representative democracy. Despite it's rhetoric of everyone is created equal, at the time this was empty rhetoric anyhow (i.e. Property owning white males). The privilege of voting has always been kept away from the "uneducated" or the "uncivilized." Representative democracy prevented mob rule. To put it more bluntly, power should not be in the hands of the people, at least not totally.

As for my position on EC, I'm undecided whether I favor it or not. I wanna eat the cake dammit!
 
It's obsolete, so yes, end it and have proportional representation.

But more important than that issue is the lack of a verified
voting system. For example, Americans can't prove that
their votes are actually recorded as voted. Try it and see.
This flaw leaves America, and any other nations that use electronic
vote machines, open to vote rigging.
 
jfuh said:
Everyone's vote should count for the same, why should someone's vote in say FL count more than someone in CA or TX?? It's stupid it's time that everyone's vote count the same.
Click to expand...

Because here in the U.S. we are a Federal Republic that believes in states rights and proportional representation, not disproportional representation for more populous states at the Federal level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom