• 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!

The Electoral College

Ganesh

Ganesh

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
2,028
Reaction score
1,329
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Considering that Clinton actually won the popular vote, but lost the election, and a similar event occurred with Gore/Bush 2, isn't time to do away with the anachronism known as the electoral college?

It seems nuts that citizens one of the longest running democracies in the world must have their vote interpreted by a responsible adult before being applied. It's not really democratic to win but actually lose.
 
Ganesh said:
Considering that Clinton actually won the popular vote, but lost the election, and a similar event occurred with Gore/Bush 2, isn't time to do away with the anachronism known as the electoral college?

It seems nuts that citizens one of the longest running democracies in the world must have their vote interpreted by a responsible adult before being applied. It's not really democratic to win but actually lose.
Click to expand...

So you want cities to rule the rest of the country? How about no.
 
Ganesh said:
Considering that Clinton actually won the popular vote, but lost the election, and a similar event occurred with Gore/Bush 2, isn't time to do away with the anachronism known as the electoral college?

It seems nuts that citizens one of the longest running democracies in the world must have their vote interpreted by a responsible adult before being applied. It's not really democratic to win but actually lose.
Click to expand...

Yes. But until it happens to Republicans, there isn't going to be the political will to get this done. So far it has only hurt Democrats.
 
Henrin said:
So you want cities to rule the rest of the country? How about no.
Click to expand...

So rural areas should rule cities?

Land doesn't vote. People do and it should be one person one vote.
 
BrewerBob said:
So rural areas should rule cities?

Land doesn't vote. People do and it should be one person one vote.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about land, but of people. People of different areas deserve a voice and a chance. Why should the people of rural areas be ignored because liberals decided to huddle all up in cities? If you people would just spread out instead of all living in cities you would dominant the electoral college. You would also do better in congress too, btw.
 
Last edited:
I go back and forth on this. Under our current system some people count more than other people. My vote in Missouri is pretty much irrelevant to a close national election. But if we went to a straight popular vote, there would be a good chance of candidates focusing almost entirely on cities and suburbs.
 
Anagram said:
I go back and forth on this. Under our current system some people count more than other people. My vote in Missouri is pretty much irrelevant to a close national election. But if we went to a straight popular vote, there would be a good chance of candidates focusing almost entirely on cities and suburbs.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the issue as I see it as well :(.

Both arguments have pros and cons, but what makes each one better is unique.

Here's an alternate question - what would we have to do to change the electoral college to make it "better"?
 
One Idea I have heard is to give states proportional EC votes based on their populations but then even still candidates would only go to the highest population states to campaign most likely and the center of America would go largely ignored.
 
The Founders were wise men and we were given the EC so that large states would not run roughshod over the smaller states. Get rid of the EC, and you invite even more division.
 
Henrin said:
So you want cities to rule the rest of the country? How about no.
Click to expand...

It would chnage how exactly does the electoral college help rural areas? Even then most of the population of the US is urbanized.
 
It should be abolished because it is a complete failure of a system and serves no purpose. It has a 7% failure rate for something that should have 0%.
 
Ganesh said:
Considering that Clinton actually won the popular vote, but lost the election, and a similar event occurred with Gore/Bush 2, isn't time to do away with the anachronism known as the electoral college?

It seems nuts that citizens one of the longest running democracies in the world must have their vote interpreted by a responsible adult before being applied. It's not really democratic to win but actually lose.
Click to expand...

The best EC reform would be to mandate proportional allocation of each state's EC votes (like NE or ME now allows). It makes no sense that a candidate getting 50% of the state's popular vote gets 100% of that state's EC vote and that "losers" that got 30% and 20% of the popular vote, respectively, get no EC votes at all. It is the winner (by a nose or by a landslide) takes all aspect of the EC system that makes that possible - once a candidate gets a plurality in that state then all other popular votes (for or against them) are totally ignored by the current EC system.
 
Ganesh said:
Considering that Clinton actually won the popular vote, but lost the election, and a similar event occurred with Gore/Bush 2, isn't time to do away with the anachronism known as the electoral college?

It seems nuts that citizens one of the longest running democracies in the world must have their vote interpreted by a responsible adult before being applied. It's not really democratic to win but actually lose.
Click to expand...

i'd argue that it would be better to eliminate gerrymandering nationwide. i also support changing our primary system so that the same states don't always get to pick the nominees.
 
DamnYankee said:
The Founders were wise men and we were given the EC so that large states would not run roughshod over the smaller states. Get rid of the EC, and you invite even more division.
Click to expand...

Even with the system that is still a problem, but it would be much worse without it.
 
Such a lame argument. The merits of eliminating the EC (whatever they may be) notwithstanding, if the EC were not in play candidates would have campaigned differently. Trump would probably have won the popular vote because he would have spent more time in places like LA, Chicago and NY.


Ganesh said:
Considering that Clinton actually won the popular vote, but lost the election, and a similar event occurred with Gore/Bush 2, isn't time to do away with the anachronism known as the electoral college?

It seems nuts that citizens one of the longest running democracies in the world must have their vote interpreted by a responsible adult before being applied. It's not really democratic to win but actually lose.
Click to expand...
 
Carjosse said:
It would chnage how exactly does the electoral college help rural areas? Even then most of the population of the US is urbanized.
Click to expand...

The point is that EC spreads out influence and thus spreads out the voice of the people. Under your system a large percentage of the populatoin would be utterly ignored because they didn't live in a heavily populated area.

Frankly though the EC doesn't even far enough to do that effectively, but it would be much worse under your system regardless.
 
KopeAcetic said:
This is pretty much the issue as I see it as well :(.

Both arguments have pros and cons, but what makes each one better is unique.

Here's an alternate question - what would we have to do to change the electoral college to make it "better"?
Click to expand...

Please see my post #12 below.
 
Henrin said:
The point is that EC spreads out influence and thus spreads out the voice of the people. Under your system a large percentage of the populatoin would be utterly ignored because they didn't live in a heavily populated area.

Frankly though the EC doesn't even far enough to do that effectively, but it would be much worse under your system regardless.
Click to expand...

Name right now all the candidate focus on populated areas in swing states, abolishing the electoral college would at least expand that to all states. Also like I said before most Americans live in large population centres anyways. Does it not make sense that candidates should try to campaign where the most people are regardless? It is like saying a Canadian politician should be spending too much in the GTA.
 
Anagram said:
I go back and forth on this. Under our current system some people count more than other people. My vote in Missouri is pretty much irrelevant to a close national election. But if we went to a straight popular vote, there would be a good chance of candidates focusing almost entirely on cities and suburbs.
Click to expand...

They focus on cities and suburbs anyways, it is where most Americans live. Except right now they only do it in swing states.
 
Henrin said:
So you want cities to rule the rest of the country? How about no.
Click to expand...

This is the sort of anachronism I'm referring to. It is the 18th century notion that dem folks from over yonder just ain't like us, they talk funny and their noses is different. Each village isn't sure of the next one over the hill, so all demand special consideration.

People are people, and in any sizable group you will get a spectrum of opinions and beliefs. Not all New Yorker's are liberals, not all in Mississippi look fondly on the confederate flag. Either one believes in the idea of one person one vote, or they do not. Trying to skew results based on geographical location, or perceived local interests, is fraught with problems and inaccuracies, especially in our modern, tightly wired, highly mobile information age.
 
DamnYankee said:
The Founders were wise men and we were given the EC so that large states would not run roughshod over the smaller states. Get rid of the EC, and you invite even more division.
Click to expand...

So if you lived in Rhode Island, but later found a good job in California, and moved there, you would then consider you vote worth slightly less, not due to any change in yourself, but merely in your geographical location?
 
Carjosse said:
They focus on cities and suburbs anyways, it is where most Americans live. Except right now they only do it in swing states.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. They sometimes barnstorm through the small towns and if you buy time in Iowa or Nevada you're hitting the rurals.
 
Unlike the President, Senators are elected by a straight popular vote. The states elect the President based on a vote of the people. That population of a state gives the state to that degree a number of electorates that, “votes” to one candidate for President or the other (Nebraska and Maine being exceptions). This is an example of state’s rights. It is the state that has the right of deciding how it will elect who, within the Constitution. It is the states people, under the constitution, that elects the President, not the Nation as a whole. Furthermore, as to do with preventing the majority imposing it’s will upon the minority, the least populace state gets as many Senators as the most populace state.

If you applied the logic of how we elect the President to the states and an electoral college via the counties of a state, the Senate would be 100% Republican.
I agree with electing the President by popular vote. What little democracy we have is what we exert in that time every so many years when we get up and go out to vote.
 
Ganesh said:
This is the sort of anachronism I'm referring to. It is the 18th century notion that dem folks from over yonder just ain't like us, they talk funny and their noses is different. Each village isn't sure of the next one over the hill, so all demand special consideration.

People are people, and in any sizable group you will get a spectrum of opinions and beliefs. Not all New Yorker's are liberals, not all in Mississippi look fondly on the confederate flag. Either one believes in the idea of one person one vote, or they do not. Trying to skew results based on geographical location, or perceived local interests, is fraught with problems and inaccuracies, especially in our modern, tightly wired, highly mobile information age.
Click to expand...

Do you think Alabama has the same culture as say Colorado? Hint: They don't. You know, it might just be that people from different lands are just different and that is indeed timeless.
 
Ganesh said:
This is the sort of anachronism I'm referring to. It is the 18th century notion that dem folks from over yonder just ain't like us, they talk funny and their noses is different. Each village isn't sure of the next one over the hill, so all demand special consideration.

People are people, and in any sizable group you will get a spectrum of opinions and beliefs. Not all New Yorker's are liberals, not all in Mississippi look fondly on the confederate flag. Either one believes in the idea of one person one vote, or they do not. Trying to skew results based on geographical location, or perceived local interests, is fraught with problems and inaccuracies, especially in our modern, tightly wired, highly mobile information age.
Click to expand...

Nonsense - it is impractical to put the state of MT or ND on par with a single county in NY, TX or CA.

Half Of The United States Lives In These Counties - Business Insider
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom