• 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 system

Should we keep it or get rid of it?

  • I think we should keep it.

    Votes: 36 47.4%

  • I think we should get rid of it.

    Votes: 33 43.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 9.2%
  • Total voters
    76
Re: The electoral college

Iamjesus said:
Why not? Do Canadians do it? No. Your head of state is a foreign monarch. However, your system is simpler. Not rocket surgery. First born child.
Click to expand...

Heheh!
Yeahright.
 
Re: The electoral college

Grand Mal said:
Why complicate things unnecessarily? Count votes. Whomever got the most, wins. You can devise innumerable twists and twerks and whatabouts but why not just vote for who you want to be President? It's not rocket surgery, folks, and you don't need to reinvent the wheel.
Click to expand...


....and a good thing its not rocket surgery. They're hard to cut
 
Re: The electoral college

FluffyNinja said:
Unfortunately, we can place most of the blame on the 12th amendment for that "reinvention" of the wheel. 1804.....essentially took the election out of voters' hands and made it virtually impossible for third parties to compete.
Click to expand...

True but there is also an irony today. It is more difficult for a Third party with an extensive 50 state infrastructure at all levels but way easier for an individual. Thus the Ross Perot phenomenon.

In 2020 or 2024 we may see the demise of the two parties at the Presidential level. Trump is more or less bypassing it now although he is using the GOP label. There could be 2 or 3 Trump like billionaires or celebrities 'marketing' themselves as President. They just need the signatures to get on the State ballots...easier today with mass attention via Twitter, Facebook, etc. Create a following (could be positive or negative).

A few are going to emulate the Trump phenomenon. We could end up with a 4 or 5 person race in a Presidential election...some Senator for the Dems, a governor for he GOP , two billionaires and a celebrity. Not this mix necessarily but who knows what variations?
 
Last edited:
Re: The electoral college

Iamjesus said:
True but there is also an irony today. It is more difficult for a Third party with an extensive 50 state infrastructure at all levels but way easier for an individual. Thus the Ross Perot phenomenon.
Click to expand...

And yet Perot's achievement is only impressive when looking at the popular vote. Nearly 20% of the popular vote, but zero electoral votes.
 
Re: The electoral college

Greenbeard said:
And yet Perot's achievement is only impressive when looking at the popular vote. Nearly 20% of the popular vote, but zero electoral votes.
Click to expand...

True, and the reverse in 1968 with Wallace sweeping the segregationist states and winning a higher percent of electoral votes than his election percent. (My father was happy).

Anyways, the dynamics will be interesting in coming elections.
 
Re: The electoral college

FluffyNinja said:
But more and more centralization is unfortunately what has happened with two parties entrenched in Washington. This will not change until the electoral process changes. It is quite the conundrum.
Click to expand...

the electoral college once was elected by the people either by two ways, 1 by state wide election the other by district, however today it is by the parties, which is not a good thing.

however IMOP is that we return to a true republican form of government which is a mixed government to stop faction/special interest from CONTROLLING it, those that call for a democratic form of government are playing into the hand of the rich and powerful along with big business.


federalist#10

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
 
Re: The electoral college

ernst barkmann said:
sorry no, because during the CAMPAIGNING PROCESS the president will not venture to states that do not have many people, they will only visit states with large populations, like CA, TX, IL and others...the small population states shall be neglected.
Click to expand...

thats just nonsense you made up. A candidate could go anywhere and campaign in any spot they desired to.
 
Re: The electoral college

haymarket said:
thats just nonsense you made up. A candidate could go anywhere and campaign in any spot they desired to.
Click to expand...

why would the candidate looking to get votes based on the popular vote, waste time in a state with a low population in instead campaigning in states the larger populations.

it would make no sense to campaign in South Dakota or other states and those states would be neglected.

this is not rocket science!
 
Re: The electoral college

Iamjesus said:
Why not? Do Canadians do it? No. Your head of state is a foreign monarch. However, your system is simpler. Not rocket surgery. First born child.
Click to expand...

Just a tad more to it. The Parliamentary system is superior to what you have down south. Also clear cut powers for the provinces.
 
Re: The electoral college

ernst barkmann said:
it would make no sense to campaign in South Dakota or other states and those states would be neglected.
Click to expand...

When was the last time a presidential candidate campaigned in South Dakota during the general election campaign?
 
Re: The electoral college

JANFU said:
Just a tad more to it. The Parliamentary system is superior to what you have down south. Also clear cut powers for the provinces.
Click to expand...

our system of government before the 17th amendment to the constitution, made the senate was body of the states themselves, as a check on federal power...we need to return to that true republican form of government.
 
Re: The electoral college

Greenbeard said:
When was the last time a presidential candidate campaigned in South Dakota during the general election campaign?
Click to expand...

do not know, used that as a general case.

but based on a popular vote, there would be no reason to go there at all or other small state populations ,the candidate would be aiming at the masses which are comprised among large cities.
 
Re: The electoral college

ernst barkmann said:
our system of government before the 17th amendment to the constitution, made the senate was body of the states themselves, as a check on federal power...we need to return to that true republican form of government.
Click to expand...

You system makes for dysfunction. To much power to either is dangerous.
What was the system before the 17nth - Not sure but was it appointment by the State Legislatures?
 
Re: The electoral college

ernst barkmann said:
do not know, used that as a general case.

but based on a popular vote, there would be no reason to go there at all or other small state populations ,the candidate would be aiming at the masses which are comprised among large cities.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to go to those states now, which is why no candidate ever does.

These arguments don't make any sense. "If we had a national popular vote no one would ever campaign in South Dakota" implies that candidates do so now. They don't. Campaigning now takes place almost exclusively in a handful of battleground states.
 
Re: The electoral college

Anomalism said:
I say trash the electoral college and use the popular vote instead. Is it not entirely asinine that the person with the most votes can still lose the election?
Click to expand...

No. We have a federal system. The issues of all states matter, not just those with large populations. The electoral college creates 51 independent elections, with the total result a weighted average (considers population) of those individual elections.

It also makes the election far more manageable as a national election won by less than 1/2 of 1% (which is very possible in the current political environment) would be hard to remedy (a national recount?) and could easily create a confidence crisis in the process.

Frankly, I think the electoral college is rather ingenuous.

Moreover, this is all hypothetical as there is no way you would ever muster the votes to do away with the system. One party or the other, is going to like it because it favors them. It currently favors the Democrats rather significantly.
 
Re: The electoral college

JANFU said:
You system makes for dysfunction. To much power to either is dangerous.
What was the system before the 17nth - Not sure but was it appointment by the State Legislatures?
Click to expand...

yes, you are correct.

before the 17th our government was a "mixed government" [like the roman republic] of dividing up power between 3 elements.

by dividing power 3 ways, it is not possible for 1 single element to cease power in government and take control to cause tyranny.

like the simple game rock - paper - scissors, no single element is more powerful then the other two, this creates a balance of power.

the house represents the people - first element

the senate represents the state legislatures -second element

the president represent the union as a whole - third element

for any law to be passed in america all 3 elements interest must be represented
 
Re: The electoral college

ernst barkmann said:
yes, you are correct.

before the 17th our government was a "mixed government" [like the roman republic] of dividing up power between 3 elements.

by dividing power 3 ways, it is not possible for 1 single element to cease power in government and take control to cause tyranny.

like the simple game rock - paper - scissors, no single element is more powerful then the other two, this creates a balance of power.

the house represents the people - first element

the senate represents the state legislatures -second element

the president represent the union as a whole - third element

for any law to be passed in america all 3 elements interest must be represented
Click to expand...

Having Senators appointed would remove the power of the voter and lead to cronyism would it not?
 
Re: The electoral college

Greenbeard said:
There's no reason to go to those states now, which is why no candidate ever does.

These arguments don't make any sense. "If we had a national popular vote no one would ever campaign in South Dakota" implies that candidates do so now. They don't. Campaigning now takes place almost exclusively in a handful of battleground states.
Click to expand...

the candidate today is looking for delegates for the EC he cannot only go to the large states, he also needs other states.

the EC was created for reason to represent is the union, ..not the people.
 
Re: The electoral college

JANFU said:
Having Senators appointed would remove the power of the voter and lead to cronyism would it not?
Click to expand...

not correct, the people are given representation via the house

the senate represents the states, and their interest..meaning their powers, so that the federal government does not try to take them away.

the senate serves as a BLOCK to stop the overreach of federal powers, and to stop the collective capacity of the people from creating laws based on the majority

by moving towards a more democratic form of government, the government in reality falls into the hands of special interest who the government ends up working for.
 
Re: The electoral college

upsideguy said:
No. We have a federal system. The issues of all states matter, not just those with large populations. The electoral college creates 51 independent elections, with the total result a weighted average (considers population) of those individual elections.

It also makes the election far more manageable as a national election won by less than 1/2 of 1% (which is very possible in the current political environment) would be hard to remedy (a national recount?) and could easily create a confidence crisis in the process.

Frankly, I think the electoral college is rather ingenuous.

Moreover, this is all hypothetical as there is no way you would ever muster the votes to do away with the system. One party or the other, is going to like it because it favors them. It currently favors the Democrats rather significantly.
Click to expand...

Some States award their EC vote by numbers of votes (proportional) that the candidate receives, is that not correct??
 
Re: The electoral college

ernst barkmann said:
not correct, the people are given representation via the house

the senate represents the states, and their interest..meaning their powers, so that the federal government does not try to take them away.

the senate serves as a BLOCK to stop the overreach of federal powers, and to stop the collective capacity of the people from creating laws based on the majority
Click to expand...
So how does a Senator get to the Senate? Appointed by the State Legislatures?
 
Re: The electoral college

ernst barkmann said:
the candidate today is looking for delegates for the EC he cannot only go to the large states, he also needs other states.
Click to expand...

The candidates in the current election are almost guaranteed to spend more than half their time in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. Much of the rest of their time will be spread across Colorado, Nevada, and perhaps Iowa.

Why is that preferable to them spending time in states like Texas, Illinois, California, or Georgia (i.e., states with lots of voters but little swing potential)?

If we're conceding that campaigns are going to be limited to a small number of states regardless, why is one set of states better than another?
 
Re: The electoral college

JANFU said:
Some States award their EC vote by numbers of votes (proportional) that the candidate receives, is that not correct??
Click to expand...

yes.

but we are not following the system the founders created either, which is delegates elected by the people of the states, being 535.

but instead are elected by parties.

by doing away with the EC we would be a full democratic form of government which the founders sought to avoid!, they created a republican form of government to prevent tranny, and majority rule.

democratic forms of government are FULL of factious combinations, while republican forms have less to be dreaded.
 
Re: The electoral college

Greenbeard said:
The candidates in the current election are almost guaranteed to spend more than half their time in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. Much of the rest of their time will be spread across Colorado, Nevada, and perhaps Iowa.

Why is that preferable to them spending time in states like Texas, Illinois, California, or Georgia (i.e., states with lots of voters but little swing potential)?

If we're conceding that campaigns are going to be limited to a small number of states regardless, why is one set of states better than another?
Click to expand...



if we have a simple popular vote, which is what some people want...where would the candidate go.....to CA TX IL NY, FL, anywhere if can repeal to the masses in a more centralized location.

there would never be point to go to the states with small populations, WY has about 600,000 people, NY city alone has 8.4 million

North Dakota/Population
739,482

South Dakota/Population
853,175

Montana about 1 million
 
Re: The electoral college

ernst barkmann said:
if we have a simple popular vote, which is what some people want...where would the candidate go.....to CA TX IL NY, FL, anywhere if can repeal to the masses in a more centralized location.

there would never be point to go to the states with small populations, WY has about 600,000 people, NY city alone has 8.4 million

North Dakota/Population
739,482

South Dakota/Population
853,175

Montana about 1 million
Click to expand...

So, again: no presidential candidate has spent time campaigning in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, or South Dakota during the general election in recent memory. They don't campaign in those states now.

So why are you holding that up as something that would change under a popular vote system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom