• 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

How should presidents be elected

  • Popular vote

    Votes: 27 45.8%
  • Electoral college

    Votes: 32 54.2%

  • Total voters
    59
It does not keep elections fair. I live in a blue state so when I vote Republican my vote just gets thrown away. Maybe if the electoral college was ended, candidates would focus their attention on the whole country instead of just swing states which would cause people to be influenced differently.

You also realize to change it you have to change the Constitution? Good luck with that.
 
Agreed. Each elector go with his district, wasn't that how it was supposed to work?

No, they were not mandated to follow popular vote and, while rare, the EC could vote differently than the popular vote of the State
.
 
No, they were not mandated to follow popular vote and, while rare, the EC could vote differently than the popular vote of the State
.

Right, I know it wasn't mandated, but wasn't that the idea?
 
I think the electoral system is fine, but it needs to be tweaked a bit. I'd rather see it done by say, Congressional district. Give each district equal weight so that you can't win simply by getting a few population centers in big states - and get rid of the idea of safe states altogether so that they have to compete in each of them.

States have that ability to decide on that method today and two have chosen it.
 
Right, I know it wasn't mandated, but wasn't that the idea?

The idea was actually so that they could oppose popular vote if need be. It was a protection against popularism, there are a few such protections put in because the founders knew too well the follies and downfalls of popularism (which is also why we aren't a pure democracy in general).
 
The idea was actually so that they could oppose popular vote if need be. It was a protection against popularism, there are a few such protections put in because the founders knew too well the follies and downfalls of popularism (which is also why we aren't a pure democracy in general).

Ah yes, you are correct. I think people forget that we are not a pure democracy. Federated Republic is what we are. Although we don't do a lot of the things the way they were intended, but that was bound to happen.
 
We don't really need candidates to focus anywhere. We have TV and the internet now, people can find out about candidates no matter where they campaign.

They can. But campaigning and focused advertising are still very effective. And the candidates would continue to simply ignore the people in much of the United States.
 
Ah yes, you are correct. I think people forget that we are not a pure democracy. Federated Republic is what we are. Although we don't do a lot of the things the way they were intended, but that was bound to happen.

That's what happens when you don't properly restrain government. It will do what it's not supposed to do, government loves doing things it's not supposed to do.
 
If we get rid of the electoral system, candidates will be forced to focus on all states instead of just swing states

Why would they do that? You just need to focus on getting the most votes possible, which means spending even more time in the most populated areas.
 
You also realize to change it you have to change the Constitution? Good luck with that.

Unfortunately you wouldn't. Since states control their own method of choosing electors, once enough states that add up to 270 votes sign on to this, they can effectively make it a popular vote system.
 
Last edited:
Under the current system the state with the America's highest population, California gets ignored and all of the attention is placed on Florida, Ohio, Virginia and maybe Pennsylvania. Plus American citizens living in the US territories cannot vote for President even if they were born on the mainland, lived in Texas their whole lives and recently relocate there.

I don't feel sad that the 3rd biggest economy in the world doesn't get even more attention than it already does. If California had more political diversity, they would concentrate more on it. When North Dakota was looking like it could be a swing state, both Hillary and Obama came over. Of course, we were Romney country (and eventually McCain) here, but when things got interesting to their pollsters, they diverted more attention and resources to the area than they had in decades.
 
It does not keep elections fair. I live in a blue state so when I vote Republican my vote just gets thrown away. Maybe if the electoral college was ended, candidates would focus their attention on the whole country instead of just swing states which would cause people to be influenced differently.

Except they wouldn't. Rural areas would probably be completely ignored. It costs a lot to campaign or advertise in rural areas, and with so few people living there that it would only affect the vote a little, a politician would never do anything to try and win their votes.
 
I don't feel sad that the 3rd biggest economy in the world doesn't get even more attention than it already does. If California had more political diversity, they would concentrate more on it. When North Dakota was looking like it could be a swing state, both Hillary and Obama came over. Of course, we were Romney country (and eventually McCain) here, but when things got interesting to their pollsters, they diverted more attention and resources to the area than they had in decades.

I understand your concern. If we went to popular vote instead of winner take all swing states, a lot of the focus would be on big cities. Puerto Rico would instantly be as important as Atlanta, which would be funny considering Puerto isn't presently represented in the EC and Atlanta is part of a winner takes all red state where metro Atlanta is outnumbered by the rest of the state.

What might also happen is states like North Dakota could possibly start to get attention and treated like medium sized cities if media outlets in Fargo for example reach their entire state in hopes of getting a lot of smaller populated areas to win against fewer bigger cities. Who knows. One man one vote just seems more fair.

Any serious campaign finance reform probably ought to include language that spends money in a way that give relative equal focus on all regions of the country where dollars spent is commensurate with in each region's populations, especially if the EC is done away with.
 
Except they wouldn't. Rural areas would probably be completely ignored. It costs a lot to campaign or advertise in rural areas, and with so few people living there that it would only affect the vote a little, a politician would never do anything to try and win their votes.

Exactly
 
The idea of the electoral college is the perfect example of "democracy" gone wrong. Presidents should be elected based on the popular vote, not the electoral vote. I want the president that more people voted for, not the one that was supported by bigger states. I live in a blue state and I'm Republican which means when I vote, my vote just gets thrown away and I'm forced to support the democrat because that's who more people in the state vote for. Even if one person wins the popular vote which would mean the majority wants that person, the person that less people want can still win the electoral vote and then we're stuck with him/her. The electoral college is just pure stupidity and it should be abolished.

sorry my friend, you have got your wires crossed.

it is the electoral college and pre-17th amendment.... which is Republican government. or mixed government of the founders...federalist 40.

a direct vote is democracy, and it is the .............most vile form of government--James madison
 
I think the electoral college serves a decent purpose in that it limits democracy and gives additional incentive to cover numerous regions that would otherwise be further ignored. One could also tweak the formula for either representation per state or by the electoral votes for each state.

the electoral college was another preventive to democracy, as was the appointment of senators by the state legislators, with the house being a direct vote of the people.....this is mixed government of the founders.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [CONSTITUTIONAL] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
 
the electoral college was another preventive to democracy, as was the appointment of senators by the state legislators, with the house being a direct vote of the people.....this is mixed government of the founders.

I also think we should go back to state legislator election of senators, but there would have to be regulation on the States to ensure that they seat senators. The reason it broke down was partisan politics at the state level led to some states not seating senators for years.
 
That's the perfect idea, who gave you it Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-un, a book by Josef Stalin. If that happens, the people will have no say in government and the same party would win every election.

pre-17th amendment-----The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
 
I also think we should go back to state legislator election of senators, but there would have to be regulation on the States to ensure that they seat senators. The reason it broke down was partisan politics at the state level led to some states not seating senators for years.

well if they dont send someone to the senate, then their state does not get representation.

by having senators appointed again, ...we again divide power, between the states and the people, and this prevents the federal government from stealing state powers...and stops the spread of democracy, lobbying of the senators by the rich and powerful/ special interest groups
 
Without the Electoral College you do realize that Gore would have been President right?

Without the Electoral College, we still would very likely not have resolved that to anyone's satisfaction. For all intents and purposes, the popular vote was a tie, in 2000. Remember all the theatrics in Florida, over “hanging chads” and “pregnant chads”, and all the other minute details they were trying to examine, to determine which way Florida ought to go? Imagine if all the votes, nationwide, needed to be examined in that much detail, to determine who really won that election.

The Electoral College turned an unresolvable tie, in this case, into a meaningful result.
 
The Electoral College turned an unresolvable tie, in this case, into a meaningful result.

It's not unresolvable, in case of a "tie" (no one gets 270), the Congress selects President.
 
The idea of the electoral college is the perfect example of "democracy" gone wrong. Presidents should be elected based on the popular vote, not the electoral vote. I want the president that more people voted for, not the one that was supported by bigger states. I live in a blue state and I'm Republican which means when I vote, my vote just gets thrown away and I'm forced to support the democrat because that's who more people in the state vote for. Even if one person wins the popular vote which would mean the majority wants that person, the person that less people want can still win the electoral vote and then we're stuck with him/her. The electoral college is just pure stupidity and it should be abolished.

Yep, ditch it. It's an outdated idea. No one person should have more of a say in who the president is than any other person just because of where they live.
 
Without the Electoral College, we still would very likely not have resolved that to anyone's satisfaction. For all intents and purposes, the popular vote was a tie, in 2000. Remember all the theatrics in Florida, over “hanging chads” and “pregnant chads”, and all the other minute details they were trying to examine, to determine which way Florida ought to go? Imagine if all the votes, nationwide, needed to be examined in that much detail, to determine who really won that election.

The Electoral College turned an unresolvable tie, in this case, into a meaningful result.

B/S!!! "For all intents and purposes" Al Gore got 500 thousand more votes than George Bush. Had it not been for the Electoral College he would have been elected President. Period!

United States presidential election, 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom