• 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!

Do you like the electoral college voting system?

Do you like the electoral college voting system?

  • Yes, I think it serves its purpose very well.

    Votes: 19 33.9%
  • No, I think there are better alternatives.

    Votes: 23 41.1%
  • I think it has legitimate rasoning but could use some reform.

    Votes: 14 25.0%

  • Total voters
    56

bigchief

New member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's a few extreme scenarios I came up with. Granted this would never happen, but it's within the realm of possibility with our current system. Also I'm sure that my numbers aren't 100% percent accurate but they're close enough to give you the general idea why I'm opposed to the electoral college.

Scenario #1
11 states vote for the winner with a 1 vote victory in each state. Half of their voting pop. in 2012 was roughly 32 million.
(California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas)

39 states and the District of Columbia vote 100% for the loser. Their voting pop. in 2012 was roughly 56 million + all the people in the other 11 states that voted for the loser = 88 million.

32 million win with 270 electoral votes
88 million lose with 268 electoral votes

Scenario #2
39 states and D.C. vote for the winner with a 1 vote victory in each state. Half of their voting pop. 28 million.

11 states vote 100% for the loser. Their voting pop. 64 million + all the people in the other 39 states and D.C. that voted for the loser = 92 million.
(CA,FL,GA,IL,MI,NY,NC,OH,PA,TX, and Washington in exchange for New Jersey)

28 million win with 270 electoral votes
92 million lose with 268 electoral votes

Scenario #3
11 states vote 100% for the winner. voting pop.= 64 million (270 electoral votes)
(CA,FL,GA,IL,MI,NJ,NY,NC,OH,PA,TX)

39 states and D.C. vote 100% for the loser. voting pop.= 56 million (268 electoral votes)

Scenario #4
39 states and D.C. vote 100% for the winner. voting pop.= 56 million (270 electoral votes)

11 states vote 100% for the loser. voting pop.= 64 million (268 electoral votes)
(CA,FL,GA,IL,MI,NY,NC,OH,PA,TX,WA)
 
The system definitely needs reformed, I think instead of by state they should do it by county even.
 
Popular vote winner should get elected. Flush the Electoral College.
 
I think states should allocate by total state vote with rounding going in the favor of the winner. Since most districts should be about the same size, doing it by CD wouldn't work much different than popular vote. I am not in one of the smaller 30 states or so who would get shafted by popular vote only but I do not want any state to have no voice in the election, which is what would happen to Wyoming and places like that if it were straight popular vote.
 
I wouldn't go so far as to go by each county having one vote. The population centers should have more say because there's more people.

What I would support is to do it by Congressional district (which are supposed to be roughly equal in population) with the statewide winner getting the 2 remaining votes.

Unfortunately, none of how the vote is actually split is in the Constitution. That's all by state. So we'd need 51 different laws changing it. I don't see that happening, as both parties benefit from winner take all, or at least have benefited from it. So they're likely to keep it as is.
 
oops, misspelled reasoning :3oops:
 
At most I would reconsider the winner take all model. I do not want the popular vote to determine the winner.
 
I think states should allocate by total state vote with rounding going in the favor of the winner. Since most districts should be about the same size, doing it by CD wouldn't work much different than popular vote. I am not in one of the smaller 30 states or so who would get shafted by popular vote only but I do not want any state to have no voice in the election, which is what would happen to Wyoming and places like that if it were straight popular vote.

I've never understood how individuals in smaller states believe they would get shafted if we went by popular vote.

In a popular vote system, each vote is equal to any other vote.

Do they believe that because they live in a smaller state, they should have more say in who becomes president than a person from a bigger state?

I truly just don't understand why they would be upset...
 
Do they believe that because they live in a smaller state, they should have more say in who becomes president than a person from a bigger state?

Per person? In one word: yes. It's a check, however small, against the masses and urbanites.
 
NO...... popular vote for senator of president, that is democracy and the founders hated democracy.

go back to indirect vote of the people...not direct.
 
I've never understood how individuals in smaller states believe they would get shafted if we went by popular vote.

In a popular vote system, each vote is equal to any other vote.

Do they believe that because they live in a smaller state, they should have more say in who becomes president than a person from a bigger state?

I truly just don't understand why they would be upset...

Because Brooklyn would have more say than their entire state, candidates would go to, spend money in, and advocate for policies that favor Brooklyn because it is a more efficient use of resources. Losing the Tri-State area would get you more votes than winning wide swaths of the terrain elsewhere so elections would focus even more on urban voters and issues than they already do IMHO.
 
NO...... popular vote for senator of president, that is democracy and the founders hated democracy.

go back to indirect vote of the people...not direct.

The vast majority of the sainted Founders have been dead for two centuries now. Their world is long gone never to return.
 
The vast majority of the sainted Founders have been dead for two centuries now. Their world is long gone never to return.

that is true haymarket, but they created the government the way they did ,for a REASON.

if you give people popular vote, that is democracy, and the founders wanted to avoid that type of government, because of the democracies of the past, and they have failed.

they did not want America to fail, so they give us a constitutional republic based on law, not the will of the people
 
that is true haymarket, but they created the government the way they did ,for a REASON.

yes and the reason was it fit rather well into the world they lived in.

We no longer live in that world.
 
yes and the reason was it fit rather well into the world they lived in.

We no longer live in that world.


reason, remember that word.

it was to prevent the senators from, being self serving on their own, meaning stops them from being lobbied by entities.

people are complaining that our politicians are bought off, WELL, their is the problem, senators listen to lobbyist, rich and powerful corporations, and anyone who has money.

before the 17th, the senate had to vote the way the state wanted him to vote, he could not listen to lobbyist, because the state had power of the senator, so as to protect the interest of the state.

after the 17th , you see, senators being bought by outside groups of special interest, and you start seeing senators serving for long periods of time.

senators like Robert Byrd, of 51 years, woulds have never been reappointed to the senate that long by a state legislative body, these were built in term limits.

states have no protection from the federal government anymore, and the government is imposing things on them, they have to pay for....obamacare.

because people are selfish , they when voting for their senator today, vote for what is good for them, and not the state......this kind of thinking is popular government, and that kind of government will destroy itself in time.
 
I work in the state legislature. Please do not attempt to educate me about who can be bought and who cannot be bought.
 
Here's a few extreme scenarios I came up with. Granted this would never happen, but it's within the realm of possibility with our current system. Also I'm sure that my numbers aren't 100% percent accurate but they're close enough to give you the general idea why I'm opposed to the electoral college.

Scenario #1
11 states vote for the winner with a 1 vote victory in each state. Half of their voting pop. in 2012 was roughly 32 million.
(California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas)

39 states and the District of Columbia vote 100% for the loser. Their voting pop. in 2012 was roughly 56 million + all the people in the other 11 states that voted for the loser = 88 million.

32 million win with 270 electoral votes
88 million lose with 268 electoral votes

Scenario #2
39 states and D.C. vote for the winner with a 1 vote victory in each state. Half of their voting pop. 28 million.

11 states vote 100% for the loser. Their voting pop. 64 million + all the people in the other 39 states and D.C. that voted for the loser = 92 million.
(CA,FL,GA,IL,MI,NY,NC,OH,PA,TX, and Washington in exchange for New Jersey)

28 million win with 270 electoral votes
92 million lose with 268 electoral votes

Scenario #3
11 states vote 100% for the winner. voting pop.= 64 million (270 electoral votes)
(CA,FL,GA,IL,MI,NJ,NY,NC,OH,PA,TX)

39 states and D.C. vote 100% for the loser. voting pop.= 56 million (268 electoral votes)

Scenario #4
39 states and D.C. vote 100% for the winner. voting pop.= 56 million (270 electoral votes)

11 states vote 100% for the loser. voting pop.= 64 million (268 electoral votes)
(CA,FL,GA,IL,MI,NY,NC,OH,PA,TX,WA)

I don't like the fact that the electoral college doesn't even have to vote the way their state voted. I'm not sure that's ever happened, but it could. They can choose to do something else. I also think the votes should be split depending on the popular vote in any particular state.
 
The system definitely needs reformed, I think instead of by state they should do it by county even.

I don't like the system and it MUST be reformed. I was thinking this too. If you look at CA for example. The population centers and liberal coast livers vote D and almost the entire rest of the state votes R. All of those millions living in the heartland of CA have their vote count for nothing every single year. It is pathetic. The system is horrible. Voting by county would solve much of the issue. I have a friend from Ark. His vote never counts as he is a D. Just makes people not want to vote.
 
I don't like the fact that the electoral college doesn't even have to vote the way their state voted. I'm not sure that's ever happened, but it could. They can choose to do something else. I also think the votes should be split depending on the popular vote in any particular state.

It has happened at least three times that I know of and the last was the Washington DC electoral voter (they have three) that abstained her vote negating a million or so voters votes. Unbelievable!!
 
It has happened at least three times that I know of and the last was the Washington DC electoral voter (they have three) that abstained her vote negating a million or so voters votes. Unbelievable!!

Thanks, Bodhi -- I wasn't aware it had ever been done. I hate it more. ;)
 
Thanks, Bodhi -- I wasn't aware it had ever been done. I hate it more. ;)
in 2000 elector Barbara Lett-Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation. That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia actually it has happened 150 times with the latest in 2004... Faithless elector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Being intellectually objective as possible the only justification to keep using the Electoral College would be to give one side an unfair advantage over another if and when the votes aren't there. One man, one vote is the most fair, IMHO.

1. Scrap the Electoral College
2. Implement the instant runoff

Possibly up for consideration:

- Give state legislatures some say, some way independent of popular votes; 1 state vote per state legislature.
- Lift the band on out of market TV so all Americans can have access to every city's political TV ads and news coverage or at the very least local newscasts. Lexington can watch Los Angeles TV, New Yorkers can watch Little Rock TV.
- Since its a Constitutional adjustment, go ahead and fix campaign finance reform at the same time. And while we're at it, corporate and union lobbying too so that wealthy and powerful interests often with foreign participation won't be able to pour money into our election outcomes exploiting their unfair wealth advantage.
- One national ballot format with an online verification so each voter can verify how they voted and fill a complaint if their vote has been altered. Any American can vote in person at any library or polling place nationally sending their local choices back to where they live as if this were the twenty-first century. No more confusing butterfly, hanging chad, ballots, etc. Early voting everywhere.
 
Being intellectually objective as possible the only justification to keep using the Electoral College would be to give one side an unfair advantage over another...

That's dumb. It's like the senate, a matter of federalism.
 
Get rid of it. It was implemented because back in the day there were nearly no educated voters, there was no mass media, and essentially the biggest states had the best chance because they had the most people to vote for their hometown guy. Now we all know that we have means of becoming informed and we are not just going to vote for the guy we know. There is no need for it.
 
We must keep the electoral college.

If we switched to the popular vote, states like Montana and Wyoming would be completely ignored during the presidential election.
 
Back
Top Bottom