• 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
Great. Change it. These folks that compromised left us with a mechanism for changing it too. What a country!
Snail-mail amendment process. It is typical of Constitutionazis to point to a weak right as all we deserve.
 
Snail-mail amendment process. It is typical of Constitutionazis to point to a weak right as all we deserve.

Thankfully we can work within the courts to change the Constitution much more expeditiously.
 
Snail-mail amendment process. It is typical of Constitutionazis to point to a weak right as all we deserve.

Well if you think it is so slow, you better start now! Grab a pen, keyboard or gun and get started. I suspect you would rather associate words with the nazis than actually fight for your belief.
 
So...therefore, we shouldn't change it because the Founders were infallible...?

If that's what you believe, fine, but that isn't what I believe.
 
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.

so you don't like you rights?

the constitution sought to end slavery, by prohibiting slavery importation by 1808, the founders believed slavery would end after there deaths.

the u.s. was not created as a democracy, democracy is mob rule, and there are ---->no individual rights in a democracy.

there are no biblical accounts in the constitution, how does it need too be changed?.............too suit your personal needs and what you personally want?

before you talk about the constitution, you need to read it, know what it means, and read the federalist papers which explains the constitution is detail.

and that is the problem with our union, you heard correct union, the USA is not a country but a union of states.

people do not understand what our union is, how is is supposed to be run, and it has NOT been run according to the constitution for over 100 years.

so no one living has never lived under the ideas of the founders and what they created, which is why we are having the problems we have.
 
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.

So, is the Electoral College an accident? If yes, then a splendid one. I risk to say, that to this day, the American Electoral College is the only administrative equalizer between political groups of varied sizes. Without it, it would be just the largest group monopolizing everything once for all, like it is in Europe.
 
So, is the Electoral College an accident? If yes, then a splendid one.

An accident? Absolutely not. It was done on purpose as a compromise between founders who had different ideas. Something you don't hear about too often nowadays.

I risk to say, that to this day, the American Electoral College is the only administrative equalizer between political groups of varied sizes. Without it, it would be just the largest group monopolizing everything once for all, like it is in Europe.

You make a good point, but isn't that what democracy is about? I think I'd rather see the largest "group" running everything as opposed to the group with the largest amount of money.
 
An accident? Absolutely not. It was done on purpose as a compromise between founders who had different ideas. Something you don't hear about too often nowadays.



You make a good point, but isn't that what democracy is about? I think I'd rather see the largest "group" running everything as opposed to the group with the largest amount of money.

Are you saying that these 2 exhaust all possibilities?

And what if you don't belong to the largest or richest group and don't want to forget yourself to join the largest group either?

I wonder if you have an opinion about that the USA is already gone as the country we learn about in class. There will be a "new" country in its place that will be controlled by groups different from what we know today. If we get the Electoral College accepted as a principle all over the world, then we may save face as one of those constituent groups in the future under such control. I am afraid that a majority status is never permanent, and that includes us too.
 
Are you saying that these 2 exhaust all possibilities?

And what if you don't belong to the largest or richest group and don't want to forget yourself to join the largest group either?

I wonder if you would agree that the USA is already gone as the country we learn about in class. There will be a "new" country in its place that will be controlled by groups different from what we know today. If we get the Electoral College accepted as a principle all over the world, then we may save face as one of those constituent groups in the future under such control. I am afraid that a majority status is never permanent, and that includes us too.

What the heck? Like it isn't already controlled by certain groups? Individual votes would mean a lot more if we got rid of the electorals. Voting would be super-important, and everyone would realize that. I am of the belief that there are SO MANY different "groups" out there with so many different beliefs, that this would not be a problem.

What do you mean by "I am afraid that a majority status is never permanent, and that includes us too." Who is "us?"

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with the rest of the world.
 
That's what President Jefferson did when acquiring the Louisiana Territory.
Exacrtly, how?
He had the power to negotiate a treaty with France.
The Senate ratified the treaty w/ France
Congress, pursuant to its power to spend in providing for the general welfare, appropriated the money to send to France.

Looks legit to me. Show me how the Constitution was ignored.
 
What the heck? Like it isn't already controlled by certain groups? Individual votes would mean a lot more if we got rid of the electorals. Voting would be super-important, and everyone would realize that. I am of the belief that there are SO MANY different "groups" out there with so many different beliefs, that this would not be a problem.

What do you mean by "I am afraid that a majority status is never permanent, and that includes us too." Who is "us?"

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with the rest of the world.

So do you mean that if you were born in Rhode Island or Montana you would still not appreciate that the Electoral College elevates your votes before the much more populous Californians and New Yorkers vote you down constantly? Without the Electoral College, Bush would never have become president, for example.

By "never permanent", I mean that every populous majority is permanent only within its world. But globalization keeps expanding everything, so the new players will "kill" them off. For example Austria-Hungary had the German-Hungarian majority, until globalization flooded them with Slavs and Romanians, today that country doesn't even exist. Or for another example, the Native American Comancheros(?) were a solid long term majority Texas group, but the white settler group eliminated them. We introduced the Chinese Exclusion Act to "defend" our group 100 years ago, but now there is nothing to stop that either.

We white Americans may contain many political groups, yes, but now globalization have extended over us too, and external groups (e.g. the Chinese) can potentially make us history like the others above. Then, protecting group rights generally, and specifically the rights of the American identity against an international (Chinese?) majority will be the key for our survival.

Does this logic work?
 
So do you mean that if you were born in Rhode Island or Montana you would still not appreciate that the Electoral College elevates your votes before the much more populous Californians and New Yorkers vote you down constantly? Without the Electoral College, Bush would never have become president, for example.

I am specifically talking about for presidential elections here, so I think that everybody is voting as an individual then it wouldn't really make much difference about the size and population of a state.

By "never permanent", I mean that every populous majority is permanent only within its world. But globalization keeps expanding everything, so the new players will "kill" them off. For example Austria-Hungary had the German-Hungarian majority, until globalization flooded them with Slavs and Romanians, today that country doesn't even exist. Or for another example, the Native American Comancheros(?) were a solid long term majority Texas group, but the white settler group eliminated them. We introduced the Chinese Exclusion Act to "defend" our group 100 years ago, but now there is nothing to stop that either.

That isn't globalization. That is immigration.

We white Americans may contain many political groups, yes, but now globalization have extended over us too, and external groups (e.g. the Chinese) can potentially make us history like the others above. Then, protecting group rights generally, and specifically the rights of the American identity against an international (Chinese?) majority will be the key for our survival.

I completely disagree with your above assessment, and how would you know if I am a white American? (I am, but how would you know that?)

MOST of us are very sensitive to the needs of minority groups and would NEVER vote to intentionally harm a minority group.
 
I am specifically talking about for presidential elections here, so I think that everybody is voting as an individual then it wouldn't really make much difference about the size and population of a state.

Your point is VERY interesting here, although I must admit that I don't fully understand it. Is it a fair assumption that your vote (individually) is as per how well you think your business will do under the 4 year administration of your candidate? If yes, then your vote is not really individual but a vote "of" the community that your supplier/buyer relationships operate under. I think the "indirect" half of the Founding Fathers had this particular circumstance with their lives and so they pushed for something like the Electoral College.

That isn't globalization. That is immigration.

I agree, supporting an immigration of a neighbor group by undercutting domestic labor rates and having them live under a dollar-a-day over the border, will be suicideous to the host group's identity. (For example the white Los Angeles guys who are now a minority.)

I completely disagree with your above assessment, and how would you know if I am a white American? (I am, but how would you know that?)

MOST of us are very sensitive to the needs of minority groups and would NEVER vote to intentionally harm a minority group.

I just guessed that you are a white American :) because the USA is still ~70% white and your posts never mention non-white life experiences. HAHAHA People's identities shine through their thinking even without an explicit statement, and that's how it should be, instead of the modern popular aggressive assimilation.

I would like to propose, that the word "minority" was invented in its legal and political sense, to isolate and assimilate lesser populous groups. I think it is interesting that the Electoral College is uniquely suited to halt that.
 
Exacrtly, how?
He had the power to negotiate a treaty with France.
The Senate ratified the treaty w/ France
Congress, pursuant to its power to spend in providing for the general welfare, appropriated the money to send to France.

Looks legit to me. Show me how the Constitution was ignored.
Jefferson was authorized by Congress only to purchase New Orleans. Monroe saw the chance to double the size of the country, so he went far beyond what he was sent to France to do, knowing that Jefferson would approve. Later, when Monroe became President, he used General Andrew Jackson to do the same thing with Florida, "Take what you can get and we'll settle the Constitutionality later," knowing that Congress or the Supreme Court would back down if faced with an accomplished fact.

The Federalists, who saddled us with this obstructive Constitution, were the chief opponents of the Louisiana Purchase. How does that make them look now?
 
Jefferson was authorized by Congress only to purchase New Orleans. Monroe saw the chance to double the size of the country, so he went far beyond what he was sent to France to do, knowing that Jefferson would approve.
Did the senate ratify the treaty?
Did congress appropriate the funds?
If yes to both, then there's no issue.
 
The Federalists, who saddled us with this obstructive Constitution, were the chief opponents of the Louisiana Purchase. How does that make them look now?
Sounds as if you're unhappy with the current compact between the states. Have you considered the possibility of getting your state to secede? Or at the very least to have your state interpose between you and the federal government and to nullify unwarranted acts by the general government?
 
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.

What most people know is the date on the wall calendar. That would be 2012 and not 1787.

What most people know is that what fit in 1787 for that nation that no longer exists politically, economically or socially does NOT fit today.
 
Did the senate ratify the treaty?
Did congress appropriate the funds?
If yes to both, then there's no issue.


You badly misunderstand the point that the poster was making. He was NOT trying to turn back the clock and invalidate the Louisiana Purchase made over 200 years ago. The poster was simply observing that the Federalists who claimed to be creating a government of very narrow limits were among the first to abandon their sacred principles of limited government when a very practical benefit arose in the real world necessitating that government go beyond their ideological confines.
 
You badly misunderstand the point that the poster was making. He was NOT trying to turn back the clock and invalidate the Louisiana Purchase made over 200 years ago. The poster was simply observing that the Federalists who claimed to be creating a government of very narrow limits were among the first to abandon their sacred principles of limited government when a very practical benefit arose in the real world necessitating that government go beyond their ideological confines.
Perhaps this is why, when the Nationalists were cooking up their power grab, patriots like Sam Adams nor Patrick Henry decided to stay home, with Patrick Henry famously stating, "I smell a rat."

"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt." -- Patrick Henry
 
Back
Top Bottom