• 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!

Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    Votes: 41 45.1%
  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    Votes: 39 42.9%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 11 12.1%

  • Total voters
    91
One argument is: Decided states get no attention. They get nothing in the form promises, etc.

The next logical question is: Why does anyone think that the eventual winner will actually follow through with the promises they made to the swing states? :shrug:
 
Don't kid yourself. North Dakota has 3 electoral votes and hasn't voted democrat since Lydon Johnson took office. Nobody is going to invest resources on a forgone conclusion for that few votes. ND had 500k in campaign ads during the 2008 election, which is less than 1 dollar for each person living in the state. A swing state like Nevada was getting 5 dollars per person. The electoral college doesn't benefit small states.

This is amusing. A Californian trying to educate me about North Dakota politics. First off, we had more than 500,000 people living here. I gave you the ability to look at what the Democratic Party did in 2008 here and what the Republican Party had done during the primary season this year. Look at that election again, please.
 
Last edited:
The next logical question is: Why does anyone think that the eventual winner will actually follow through with the promises they made to the swing states? :shrug:

Come on, the winner rarely makes good on any promises they make during the campaign, promises are only there to get people to vote for them, then they pretend they never said anything.

So, Obama, close Gitmo yet? Get our troops out of Afghanistan yet? When did you get out of Iraq? On your schedule or Bush's? :roll:
 
This is amusing. A Californian trying to educate me about North Dakota politics. First off, we had more than 500,000 people living here. I gave you the ability to look at what the Democratic Party did in 2008 here and what the Republican Party had done during the primary season this year, but you seem to want to do the quick Google search, tell me that I am kidding myself, and that no one would spend resources on a foregone conclusion. Look at that election again, please.

I am not trying to educate you about North Dakota politics. My point is that the electoral college does not benefit smaller states, including north Dakota. In the 2008 election, North Dakota received a per-person spending for campaign adds that was half the national average. North Dakota would have an equally limited impact on the presidential election using the the electoral college or with a popular vote.
 
I am not trying to educate you about North Dakota politics. My point is that the electoral college does not benefit smaller states, including north Dakota. In the 2008 election, North Dakota received a per-person spending for campaign adds that was half the national average. North Dakota would have an equally limited impact on the presidential election using the the electoral college or with a popular vote.

Why do you insist on the campaign ads? North Dakota was a potential swing state and both Hillary and Obama campaigned hard here during the primary season with that in mind. After the primary season the same effort continued with the DNC campaign lasting until September when it was finally clear that a potential swing state moment was not to come to fruition-but it was close enough to make the entire DNC think so!
 
Why do you insist on the campaign ads? North Dakota was a potential swing state and both Hillary and Obama campaigned hard here during the primary season with that in mind. After the primary season the same effort continued with the DNC campaign lasting until September when it was finally clear that a potential swing state moment was not to come to fruition-but it was close enough to make the entire DNC think so!

Campaign ads are a tangible measure of resources dedicated to given a state. Saying that Hillary and Obama campaigned in North Dakota is nice, but provides no useful basis for comparison. They both campaigned in California as well, but California is an obvious example of state that is spurned by the electoral college. The ad money reflects that lower priority at around 20 cents per person.
 
In today's media and information age a candidate doesn't need to travel to a particular locale to get their message heard. Everybody everywhere can hear it just fine. What campaigning and the constant pep rallies do is whip up emotion for the relative few who might remain undecided. Here's pretty much how the pep rallies go...

I will strengthen America and bring jobs to your state. <yaaayyyy!!!> :usflag2:
That other candidate will crash the economy and make you all serfs. <boooooooo!!!> :naughty
I believe in America! <yaaaayyyyy!!!!> :ind:

Blah blah blah. And some people actually eat that stuff up. :roll:
 
The electoral college wont go away any time soon sadly. Problem is that is highly favourable to the GOP and with the gerrymandering of rules they can see that if they do it "right" then they will be able to easier win elections in the future, despite the majority of the population not voting for them.

Also it gives far far more power to individual states and often low population states than to states where people actually live. As it stands now, something like 12 counties, not states, will make or break the 2012 election...
 
We should keep the electoral college. I do not like the idea of New York,California and a handful of other densely populated states being able to screw the rest of the country.This is why our forefathers went with the electoral college.

I never understood this argument, because it works the other way too: Like it is now, the small, sparsely populated states and their countryside voters "screw" the rest of the country (especially those living in the larger cities).
 
Good news :
In the current system, every vote cast by the general public counts exactly the same: Exactly zero.

While that's technically true, in practice the electors no longer decide for themselves who to cast their votes for. They vote for the candidate they've been chosen to vote for. Meaning that the votes cast by the general public do indeed count, since winning gets you that state's electors, who will vote for who they're told to vote for. And the votes of people in small states count for more than the people in large ones.
 
I am not American, so it's definitely not up to me to decide this or to tell Americans how they are supposed to organize their elections.

But if I were American, I would probably prefer a system similar to that in France: Skip the EC and have two turns of Presidential elections. In the first turn, all candidates from both sides are running (which would replace the primaries). Then, the two best from the first turn run against each other in the second turn of the elections.

This system would also make sure that the votes for third party candidates are not "lost".
 
The electoral college allows for minority rule. I think it should be disbanded.

These 2 videos can explain it all better than I would care to.



 
Going from Electoral College to Direct Democracy just exchanges one set of concerns for another. For our two party system (which is all it really is these days) it changes the political strategy from key swing states to key voting groups in core areas of population density. Technically it is possible for majority popular vote to lose out to Electoral College, and that has a concern I agree.

However the underline real problem we face regardless of method to elect is people voting themselves money from the treasury or less contribution to in tax. If you conclude that we are at a point now where political party ideology really comes down to vote buying by either a promise of more from the treasury or less contribution to then you have to conclude that going from the Electoral College system to a Direct Democracy could very well exacerbate the problem. It would turn the politics of elections to a flat out appeal to 50% + 1 based upon who's votes were purchased one way or the other. If we ever got to a point where just over 50% of the population existed off government (either through job, or social safety net, just support the idea, etc.) then that would truly end the republic.

Now I am not so sure that we are not there anyway with an Electoral College mashed with today's political climate, but would a direct Democracy speed up the process placing the US on a path to say Greece, or Spain in terms of fiscal demands of the public who also cannot seem to fill the demand through tax? You could argue well that we are there anyway sitting on $1 Trillion in new debt each year going forward for a while. Not intended to derail the thread but simply add into the conversation what I believe is our core problem in electing at the federal level.
 
Discussing the Electoral College in the context of how much campaign money spent in each state is the most irrelevant argument against.

Also, saying that a state "always" votes one way or the other is short sighted. A state voting the same way 5 elections in a row doesn't mean "always."

I'm against full direct popular vote and it isn't happening anyway because the Constitution would have to be changed. Also, a recount could be a major fiasco.

The effort to block vote states is a horrible idea. A majority of the citizens in one state could vote for candidate A while the block forces an electoral vote for Candidate B.

What is done in Maine and Nebraska is a very legitimate alternative and Constitutionally valid. Here in PA, the republicans brought it up in the State House, but the Democrats shut it down. They didn't want Obama possibly losing electoral votes with some districts likely voting for the R candidate.
 
The electoral college allows for minority rule. I think it should be disbanded.

These 2 videos can explain it all better than I would care to.






Okay, you convinced me. A huge problem in America however if there's a huge portion of the population who see "change" as innately a bad thing. Then add changing the constitution and even though it makes all the sense in the world, there will be those who will resist it as if their lives depended on it. I've been on a soapbox for almost a decade over freeing ourselves from petroleum, something that makes sense on numerous levels but people hate change. Just stopped myself from posting an offtopic tangent. :lol: But is was a good tangent. :lamo Sent it to some friends privately. If anyone wants to see my oil rant, just PM me.

But yeah, do away with the EC. Direct vote for POTUS and create a runoff system. I like the instant runoff the best but it confuses some people. Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Okay, you convinced me. A huge problem in America however if there's a huge portion of the population who see "change" as innately a bad thing. Then add changing the constitution and even though it makes all the sense in the world, there will be those who will resist it as if their lives depended on it. I've been on a soapbox for almost a decade over freeing ourselves from petroleum, something that makes sense on numerous levels. Just stopped myself from posting an offtopic tangent. :lol: But is was a good tangent. :lamo Sent it to some friends privately. If anyone wants to see my oil rant, just PM me.

Yes... I acknowledge the fear of change.

Anyway. You oil rants... why not start a thread?
 
I don't hate I just don't want to be held hostage to the will of the mob. If you think the country needs to be fundamentally transformed amend the constitution or leave.

The mob is made up of other Americans, whose will you apparently can't stand. Since they're the majority of this nation, they are the character of this country, not you. The only people who have to fear the mob are those who make their way by trampling on them.
 
The President does not represent the people in our government - which explains, in part, why the people neither elect him nor a right to vote for him.
The President is the President of the United States, not the People if the United States, and thus the states rightly determine who hold that office.
I agree that this is the anti-democratic status quo caused by the obsolete aristocratic attitude enacted in the elitists' 18th Century Constitution. Lincoln omitted a last paragraph referring to that document, "But four score minus six years ago, government of the people, by the people, and for the people did perish from the earth."
 
Giving it thought, it should be on a Congressional district level, not purely democratic. But not this "key states and no one else matters" BS.
 
I agree that this is the anti-democratic status quo caused by the obsolete aristocratic attitude enacted in the elitists' 18th Century Constitution.
Not sure what you mean. The Constitution provides a voice for both the people and the states in the federal government, and was amended to provide a greater voice at the expense of the states.
 
You just pointed out the solution to the problem with the the Electorial college. I live in California it is winner take all. Thats why its seems as though your vote dont count. Make it to where the winner gets the amount of delegates they won plus two and the loser gets their delegates. Winner take all is a bastardization of a very good compromise. Nebraska has proprotional representation as does Minnesota I believe. Not positive on Minnisota. Anyway even though Nebraska is very conservative the Omaha Lincoln area is not so much and they generally get a represinative at the College. If winner take all was eliminated I have feeling people would be more inclined to vote because it would actually count for something. It would also put many more states in play as you would have more to make up for the delegates you didnt get. California would go from 54 delegates to 30 for the winner. The winner would have to win else where now to get the votes they need to win office.

The least populous states would give three votes to the winner and none to the loser, no matter how slight the margin of victory. Allowing fractional votes, it still would be an unrepresentative two and a half + votes to the winner and approximately a half vote to the loser. So I think the winner shouldn't get the senatorial votes. In 2000, Bush would have gotten 15 and Gore 14 of Florida's vote, or Bush 14.51 and Gore 14.49. Fractional votes may look strange, but that's only because we are not used to it.
 
IOW, you don't like One man, One vote.
You want to continue the DISproportionate power of the Sparser Western RED States.. of course.

This disproportionate power also, and related, weighs on the day-to-day running of our Government through the Senate.
1 Million People in Wyoming have 2 Senators, while 20 Million people in NY have only the same 2 Senators.
20 Million People living in Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc, Totaled together, have far more power than the same number living in one Larger state.
Thus, Laws are made, Judges approved, and money distributed, Unequally in favor of sparser RED States.
People from Wyoming could also say that they are just as much of a state as New York, so why should New York have so much more representation in the House? What you are asking for is to get rid of the Senate. The balance of power is still with the more populous states, so this equal representation in the Senate is a compromise. Although I do have trouble with quota systems.
 
Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

Not just a compromise, but The Great Compromise.
 
Back
Top Bottom