View Poll Results: Should Congress create an amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    20 39.22%
  • No

    22 43.14%
  • Yes, but it could never get passed.

    6 11.76%
  • I have no opinion.

    3 5.88%
Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 232

Thread: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

  1. #171
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    You mentioned Maine and Nebraska, those two do a district-based approach. And swing disctricts don't really make things better. Last year, 14 or so states were seriously contested by one side or the other. Everyone in those states were targeted, that's a lot of people. Do you really think it'd be that many if we go by districts, many of which are gerrymandered?
    Yeah, that was an error on my part to mention Maine/Nebraska when I was really more in favor of a proportional allocation system.

    But even still, I think it a district based system would target more people simply because the media outlets are not only district based. The TV and newspaper coverage often encompass many more districts than just the contested ones.

    Take Chicago for example. The 10th district is historically a left-leaning swing district (represented by a republican since 2001). In order to target the 10th district, they would need to end up targeting ALL of the Chicagoland area districts that are covered by the same media outlets as well. The Chicagoland media area is not just Northeast Illinois. It reaches parts of Indian, Wisconsin and Michigan as well.

    So targeting one swing district would vicariously cause about 10 million other people to receive the same degree of targeting as well.

    At the very least, this will mean that more people are given the same attention that those 14 states did, and it would probably reach all 50 states to some degree.

    So even if someone lives in a different district that wouldn't be contested, they are going to receive the same inundation of information that the people who are in the swing district will receive.

    Plus, they will be MORE likely to have their vote actually count. Under the current system, someone in the 10th voting against the majority of the state, will not have their vote count. The rest of the Chicagoland area alone negates their vote.

    So the benefits to having a district-based system still outweigh the benefits of the current system, although proportional allocation would be prefereable still in my opinion.

    Quite frankly, I'm not interested in influencing Alabama's, Wyoming's, or California's systems. I only want to see a change to Illinois' system. If Alabama wants to make it winner take all, that should be their prerogative. If California wants to go by disticts, that should be their prerogative. If Wyoming wanted to give all of their votes to the Republicans on years when the groundhog sees it's shadow and all of them to the Democrats on the years it doesn't, so be it. It's none of my business.

    My business is what Illinois does. I think the system was created to limit the influence of government on the individual based on proximity. I think this is a good system.

    As time went on, the system got flipped around. Right now, there is no clear hierarchy of influence. The federal and state level authority has grown to include many things which it shouldn't include.

    I believe in maximizing the authority locally and decreasing it as the sphere's of influence increase in size. The farther away from the individual the decisions are made, the less influence those decisions should have on that individual.

  2. #172
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Each state is equal, but each person is equal too...
    The states, not the people, elect the President, and so any argument regarding the quality of people is meaningless.
    HOWever...
    Under the current EC system, where elections within the states allow people to vote for their electors, each person's vote IS equal, as each person's vote has exactly the same weight as every other.

  3. #173
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    No I just don't start with the assumption that our government is exactly as it should be. Why should the states elect the President?
    I addressed this earlier when I argued that each state shoud have one vote in the EC.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 07-23-09 at 09:22 AM.

  4. #174
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Under the current EC system, where elections within the states allow people to vote for their electors, each person's vote IS equal, as each person's vote has exactly the same weight as every other.
    Not really. A person's vote in Ohio or Florida has more value than my vote in Illinois under the current system. Their vote can be influential where my vote is just wasted in that it has zero influence whatsoever.

    One could possibly argue that, every person within a given state has equal value to their vote, but the interstate comparison places more value on the votes of those individuals who live in swing states than those who live in solidly blue or red states.

  5. #175
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Not really. A person's vote in Ohio or Florida has more value than my vote in Illinois under the current system.
    No.

    Remember that all elections are state elections. Your vote for President is not a vote for President, it is a vote for the allocation of your state's electors. In that, the relevant standard of value is among the other voters in your state, not those in other states, as you are not voting for their electors.

    In that, everyone's votes are equal.

    Now... your state may have more sway in the EC than another, but that's an issue regarding inequity between the states, not the people. To resolve that issue, given that all states are equal, I would reduce all states to one vote in the EC.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 07-23-09 at 10:45 AM.

  6. #176
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No.

    Remember that all elections are state elections. Your vote for President is not a vote for President, it is a vote for the allocation of your state's electors. In that, the relevant standard of value is among the other voters in your state, not those in other states, as you are not voting for their electors.

    In that, everyone's votes are equal.

    Now... your state may have more sway in the EC than another, but that's an issue regarding inequity between the states, not the people. To resolve that issue, given that all states are equal, I would reduce all states to one vote in the EC.
    I'm actually thinking about the EC election.

    My vote has no sway with regards to picking my states EC delegates because my state will probably never end up having a majority vote in line with mine.

    Someone in Ohio's vote, regardless of which way it goes, will have intrinsic value because it's a swing state.


    Personally, I'd be adamantly opposed to a one EC vote per state rule because I in no way feel that states are equal. Thus, they should not be represented equally in such matters, especially picking the Leader of the nation.

    The value of a state is predicated on it's population, because the intrinsic value of a nation is within the people of that nation.

  7. #177
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I'm actually thinking about the EC election.
    My vote has no sway with regards to picking my states EC delegates because my state will probably never end up having a majority vote in line with mine.
    That doesnt mean your vote isnt equal to everyone elses -- it just means your candidate isn't popular in your state.

    Someone in Ohio's vote, regardless of which way it goes, will have intrinsic value because it's a swing state.
    Again -- this is an equality of state issue, not an equality of voter issue.
    Give each state one EC vote and it solves the problem.

    Personally, I'd be adamantly opposed to a one EC vote per state rule because I in no way feel that states are equal.
    Sure they are. Each state is, under the Constitution, equal to all others. Each state has the same rights, restrictions and representation as all others. See also, generally, Article IV.

    The value of a state is predicated on it's population, because the intrinsic value of a nation is within the people of that nation.
    The states are made up of their people, but under the Constitution, they are also their own seperate entity from the people. As such, each state is equal to every other state, just as each person is equal to every other person.

  8. #178
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That doesnt mean your vote isnt equal to everyone elses -- it just means your candidate isn't popular in your state.
    Actually it does mean my vote has less value. It becomes totally inconsequential BECAUSE my candidate is not as popular in my state.


    Again -- this is an equality of state issue, not an equality of voter issue.
    Give each state one EC vote and it solves the problem.
    But it doesn't. It creates a situation where the minority of the people dictate to the majority. It breeds in equality. The individual in Wyoming will have more intrinsic value than the individual in New York simply because Wyoming has no people in it.


    Sure they are. Each state is, under the Constitution, equal to all others. Each state has the same rights, restrictions and representation as all others. See also, generally, Article IV.
    Sure, the States have the same rights and restrictions, but they most definitely don't have equal representation in the government. See Article I Section I.

    Combine article I Section II with Article II Section I:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    You will see that the STATE is entitle to the representatives. This means that more populous states have more intrinsic value than less populated states. The constitution most definitely argues that not all states are equal, and that is why not all states receive equal representation overall.

    The constitution clearly implies that the respective State Legislatures are all equal, and that is why they all receive two senators as their representatives, but since each state is more than just it's legislature, it is also its people, and thus, they recognized that more populated states deserve greater overall representation than less populated ones.

    That's why they used the term "To which state may be entitled" when discussing a combination of Senators and Representatives. They realized that each state in it's entirety is not equal.



    The states are made up of their people, but under the Constitution, they are also their own seperate entity from the people. As such, each state is equal to every other state, just as each person is equal to every other person.
    The State Legislatures are their own separate entity, but clearly the wording of the constitution, specifically the sections I cited above, show that the People are also an intrinsic quality of each State. The state itself is a combination of it's legislature and it's people.

    That's why the Senators were originally decided upon by the individual State's Legislature because it was to be their federal representative. Not the people's. The State senator was supposed to look after the Legislature's interests, while the State's representatives were supposed to look after their constituents interests.

  9. #179
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:52 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,971

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    When the Constitution refers to the States, it means the legal entities of the States, i.e., their chartered governments. There's no nebulous further concept of "the people of the state" in there.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  10. #180
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    09-25-16 @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    When the Constitution refers to the States, it means the legal entities of the States, i.e., their chartered governments. There's no nebulous further concept of "the people of the state" in there.
    Then why do they say that the States are entitled to a certain number of representatives in congress instead of The State's People are entitled to a certain number of representatives in congress?


    I think it's quite clear that State referes to the combination of Legislature + People of a State. It's quite evidence in the following statement: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...."

    If the State always meat governing body, there would be no need to add "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" since that would be the only way a State, in the sense of the governing body, could choose.

    It's very clear that State = legislature + people. That's why the total number of congressional delegates that each state is entitled to is Senators + Representatives.

Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •