• 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
H. Lee White said:
All you need to do is have your state change its laws as to the allocation of electors.
Click to expand...
Typical disinformation about what constitutes a right by limiting it to part of the whole, when only if the whole nation adopts representation of the local losing vote will it benefit anyone at all. In 2000, Florida had the power to create a 50+ vote swing, deciding the election. With voluntary representational voting, it would have produced from .02 to 2 vote swing. It is as ineffective a right as voluntary taxes. De facto no such right exists because no one should be asked to vote against his own interest when that is the case only because others can refuse to.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Enshrined might be the wrong word, but I agree there is nothing really in the constitution about a two-party (or any other number) political system. It is just the nature of the political landscape we find ourselves in. At that same time there is nothing really in the constitution preventing them either.
Click to expand...
"Enshrined" is the exactly the right word because the Constitution is a superstitious religious document, glorifying absolute power as if it were a god. Such submissive and worshipful thinking belongs in the Dark Ages or with medieval peasants bowing down before the self-appointed superiority of the upper class.
 
PrometheusBound said:
"Enshrined" is the exactly the right word because the Constitution is a superstitious religious document, glorifying absolute power as if it were a god. Such submissive and worshipful thinking belongs in the Dark Ages or with medieval peasants bowing down before the self-appointed superiority of the upper class.
Click to expand...

What bunk.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you have to say...I voted to get rid of it however they would have to figure a way that works in the interest of the peoples vote. Here in Ca. it makes me not want to bother to vote because my vote does not count at all. Even my 18 year old son who can vote this year has no interest here to vote because no matter who he voted for it will be Obama...even if he voted for Obama...I explained to him that that may be true but the local and state elections are important along with the propositions....but he is away at college and did not change his address there to vote so he is not going to. He is not informed enough about the topics at hand to make a decision anyway....so I have no problem with it.

I would like to see a way where all votes count for all sides in red or blue states but for now the EC is the best we have.....so yes I would like it gone however a way to make all of us count in a fair way should be found before just going with the popular vote.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
What bunk.
Click to expand...
You mean "heresy." No wonder it disestablishes religion; it establishes itself as a secular religion, complete with an infallible Vatican (the Supreme Court) and saintly Apostles (the Founding Fathers). Its articles are treated like the Ten Commandments, and the Constitutionalists refer to the whole document the same way that Fundamentalists refer to the Bible or the Koran.
 
Federalist said:
Well, think it through. The American people don't vote for Federal justices. Do you regard them as having been stripped of their right to vote? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

So you are going to hang your hat on the technicality that the American people have really NOT been voting for the President all these past three centuries but instead have merely been voting for nameless and faceless electors who they really have heard of nor know nothing about and who are in reality not even bound to vote for the candidate they are pledge to?

And once that sinks in you are going to tell them that you are going to now deny them even that intermediate step since you are giving it to the state legislature. But its okay since they are not really losing anything anyways since they never really had it to begin with?

Lotsa luck with that.

I think such a campaign should be the centerpiece of all Republican and Libertarian campaign materials from now until you get it accomplished. Every Republican, every Libertarian, every Conservative, and every Constitutionalist should take the equal of the Grover Norquist pledge on taxes to support this.

Go for it and go for it big time. I enthusiastically endorse you doing this.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
So you are going to hang your hat on the technicality that the American people have really NOT been voting for the President all these past three centuries but instead have merely been voting for nameless and faceless electors who they really have heard of nor know nothing about and who are in reality not even bound to vote for the candidate they are pledge to?

And once that sinks in you are going to tell them that they are not really losing anything anyways since they never really had it to begin with?

Lotsa luck with that.

I think such a campaign should be the centerpiece of all Republican and Libertarian campaign materials from now until you get it accomplished. Every Republican, every Libertarian, every Conservative, and every Constitutionalist should take the equal of the Grover Norquist pledge on taxes to support this.

Go for it and go for it big time. I enthusiastically endorse you doing this.
Click to expand...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_electors,_2008
 
haymarket said:
I do not understand why you reproduced my post and then this wiki article.
Click to expand...

That's ok. You said that they were nameless and faceless. I figured you didn't know where to look who they are.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
That's ok. You said that they were nameless and faceless. I figured you didn't know where to look who they are.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I do appreciate it. :) When I said that I was referring to the reality - sad or otherwise - that to 99.% of voters who think they are voting for the President, they do not know these people.

But thanks for the latest list. it is interesting. :2wave:
 
haymarket said:
Thank you. I do appreciate it. :) When I said that I was referring to the reality - sad or otherwise - that to 99.% of voters who think they are voting for the President, they do not know these people.

But thanks for the latest list. it is interesting. :2wave:
Click to expand...

No problem, I wasn't familiar with the specific individuals, but I thought everyone learned about electors in school civics class. At least they should know how their own state selects electors. Citizenship is important.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
No problem, I wasn't familiar with the specific individuals, but I thought everyone learned about electors in school civics class. At least they should know how their own state selects electors. Citizenship is important.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I taught Government for 33 years and always spent a good deal of time on the Electoral College each term.
 
If you only used the popular vote no candidate would ever campaign in a smaall state with a small population. Not a good idea. You Libs love it because the big states like New York, California and Illinois always vote left.
 
haymarket said:
So you are going to hang your hat on the technicality that the American people have really NOT been voting for the President all these past three centuries but instead have merely been voting for nameless and faceless electors who they really have heard of nor know nothing about and who are in reality not even bound to vote for the candidate they are pledge to?

And once that sinks in you are going to tell them that you are going to now deny them even that intermediate step since you are giving it to the state legislature. But its okay since they are not really losing anything anyways since they never really had it to begin with?
Click to expand...

Yes, as I said before, I think that a lot of confusion has been created with the practice of voting for electors. It gives the mistaken impression that the president is elected by a plebiscite. I would prefer that the electors for president were chosen by the state legislature, as prescribed in the constitution, and would support such a proposal in my own state.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, as I said before, I think that a lot of confusion has been created with the practice of voting for electors. It gives the mistaken impression that the president is elected by a plebiscite. I would prefer that the electors for president were chosen by the state legislature, as prescribed in the constitution, and would support such a proposal in my own state.
Click to expand...
I, personally, would have them see who can hit more pigeons on a sporting clays course.
 
solletica said:
Irrelevant. Ballot access laws, and the influence of wealthy institutions (PACs, corporations, hedge funds, oil cos) over the government's police forces effectively suppress any possibility of democracy (or a Republic) in the US.

The US is as much a democracy as Iran is. In the US, PACs, oil cos, hedge funds, etc. are the Ayatollahs.
Click to expand...

If this was the case, then why did Enron fail?
 
Federalist said:
Yes, as I said before, I think that a lot of confusion has been created with the practice of voting for electors. It gives the mistaken impression that the president is elected by a plebiscite. I would prefer that the electors for president were chosen by the state legislature, as prescribed in the constitution, and would support such a proposal in my own state.
Click to expand...

I would love to see a campaign from Republicans and Conservatives and Libertarians and Constitutionalists to carry out your ideas. Let the American people know what you think about the importance of their vote. Let them know what you want to take it away from them. Let them know that you want a teeny tiny number of government officials to have the power that hundreds of millions of citizens now have.

Say it loud and say it proud. Folks pushing that sort of elitist nonsense could not get elected in their lives depended on it.
 
direct democracy is a vote by the people on every issue, in a union our size, that is not possible, and it would destroy America.

the founders have the electoral college, because the USA was not created as a democracy, but a republic, with a republican form of government, article 4 section 4 of the constitution, federalist paper #39 and 43.

democracy is the enemy of man!...its shame most people do not know this.
 
There is nothing to take away, for the vote for President/VP, because it was never there. Not in our lifetimes and not in our parents lifetimes. It was always the states who decided how the electors are chosen. No reason to be over dramatic about this. Of course those who say their vote doesn't count because they tend to vote opposite their states tendencies are the real drama queens.

It is at the individual state level where these folks can seek change.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
There is nothing to take away, for the vote for President/VP, because it was never there. Not in our lifetimes and not in our parents lifetimes. It was always the states who decided how the electors are chosen. No reason to be over dramatic about this. Of course those who say their vote doesn't count because they tend to vote opposite their states tendencies are the real drama queens.

It is at the individual state level where these folks can seek change.
Click to expand...
Correct. Per the constitution, each state may direct the manner of choosing its electors.
 
I don't see any reason for it. I read before that the only reason an electoral college exists is because some of the founders wanted congress to vote for the president and others wanted the people to do it, so they compromised with an electoral college.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't see any reason for it. I read before that the only reason an electoral college exists is because some of the founders wanted congress to vote for the president and others wanted the people to do it, so they compromised with an electoral college.
Click to expand...

Great. Change it. These folks that compromised left us with a mechanism for changing it too. What a country!
 
Excon said:
It isn't because of the Electoral College, it is because of the Constitution.
You don't like the constitution?
You don't understand that the State as a separate entity needs to be represented also?
Click to expand...

I don't like everything about the Constitution. I don't like that did its part to keep slavery alive. I don't like that it was designed to limit democracy as much as possible without being authoritarian. It isn't the Bible. It can be changed, and in this instance it should be changed.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Great. Change it. These folks that compromised left us with a mechanism for changing it too. What a country!
Click to expand...

So...therefore, we shouldn't change it because the Founders were infallible...?
 
MadLib said:
I don't like everything about the Constitution. I don't like that did its part to keep slavery alive. I don't like that it was designed to limit democracy as much as possible without being authoritarian. It isn't the Bible. It can be changed, and in this instance it should be changed.
Click to expand...
All you need is Congress and a supermajority of the states to agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom