• 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!

Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

Should Congress create an amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 36.6%
  • No

    Votes: 19 46.3%
  • Yes, but it could never get passed.

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • I have no opinion.

    Votes: 3 7.3%

  • Total voters
    41
I agree with both of you, to a point. Elections, at least recent ones have shown the same result either way. But, I feel that if the electoral college were done away with, more people would vote. This is both good and bad. Usual election turn-out is 42% on good year presidental campaigns. If more people turned out, then you would see the coastal states reign supreme. The founders wanted the electoral college because they feared that if more populous states silenced the smaller one's, which would be the case with red vs. blue states, then succession might occur. Imagine that voter turnout reached 70%. If Democrats continuously won the White House, conservatives would eventually grow so distraught that the Union would surely be endangered.

Do you guys find a reason why this should not be a fear in 2009?

I think political realignment periods will continue to happen so you can't say coastal states will vote Democratic forever.
 
It may be a State issue in theory, but North Dakota tried to ban it and the Supreme Court slapped them down.

Do you remember what the case's name was? It seems like an interesting case.
 
So you don't want the person with the most votes to win? Then why have a democracy? Do you think there should be an electoral college to elect governors too?

Democracy, even in elections, in an extremist ideology that has effectively proven itself not to work in the best interests of the citizens that use it.
 
Democracy, even in elections, in an extremist ideology that has effectively proven itself not to work in the best interests of the citizens that use it.

1. Where's the proof of Democracy not working?
2. What kind of system of government do you think is best?
 
Do you remember what the case's name was? It seems like an interesting case.

I apologize, ND has just passed this legislation in their House. The Senate has yet to vote on it. I heard radio commentary on it and because it allows no exceptions it is thought that it will be slapped down by SCOTUS.
 
I agree with both of you, to a point. Elections, at least recent ones have shown the same result either way. But, I feel that if the electoral college were done away with, more people would vote. This is both good and bad. Usual election turn-out is 42% on good year presidental campaigns. If more people turned out, then you would see the coastal states reign supreme. The founders wanted the electoral college because they feared that if more populous states silenced the smaller one's, which would be the case with red vs. blue states, then succession might occur. Imagine that voter turnout reached 70%. If Democrats continuously won the White House, conservatives would eventually grow so distraught that the Union would surely be endangered.

Do you guys find a reason why this should not be a fear in 2009?

No. Again, it is a difference which makes no difference. There are plenty of moderates and conservatives in coastal states, and, with the electoral college gone, their votes would be pooled along with those of other moderates and conservatives the nation over. The solid blue appearance and solid red appearance of states results from the electoral college system; in truth, there is a very mixed dispersal even in the most supposedly liberal or conservative states. I don't even think campaign strategy would change that much, since, in the regions where there are more people, the goal would still be to focus in on an candidate's appeal in those regions.
 
Last edited:
I believe the majority should win period, even if I do not agree with them.

So that is a yes you do not mind NewYork or some other densely populated liberal state deciding laws that impact your state.
 
1. Where's the proof of Democracy not working?

Look at all the presidents and congressman elected in the past 100 years.
Couple that with the massive expansion of government since we've implemented universal suffrage and you have your answer.

95% incumbency rate is pretty bad in my opinion.

2. What kind of system of government do you think is best?

A republic is the best system as long as everyone knows that voting is a privilege that must be earned and not owed.
 
So that is a yes you do not mind NewYork or some other densely populated liberal state deciding laws that impact your state.

That's what happens now; You only need 12 states to win the presidency with the electoral college.
 
Look at all the presidents and congressman elected in the past 100 years.
Couple that with the massive expansion of government since we've implemented universal suffrage and you have your answer.

95% incumbency rate is pretty bad in my opinion.



A republic is the best system as long as everyone knows that voting is a privilege that must be earned and not owed.

Regarding incumbency rate, that is a result of uninformed voters it can happen in any system of government... Including a republic.
 
So you would want densely populated states to decided laws for your state? The system isn't perfect but its much better than NewYork,California and other densely populated states trying to decided gun laws,hunting laws,abortion and etc for my state.

As opposed to the midwest and the south making laws for my state? I don't see how that's neccessarily any more fair. And also, we're talking about the presidency, who only approves and enforces laws, not congress who decides laws.

One thing people need to remember is that California isn't some huge monolith where everyone drives a prius and drinks latte. Sure, SF is going to be deep blue, but you'd have people in Orange County, in the farming country, and in the mountains that vote republican. I'm sure NY is the same way.

As an aside, the conservative argument for the EC has always seemed to me to come down to vote welfare. They need to be subsidized with a system that gives them a built in advantage, instead of competing on an level playing field.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or two, conservatives are railing against the EC as unfair. Nowdays we end up with superstates in the EC. These are large states with an ungodly amount of EV. Lets imagine the dems win CA, NY, IL, New England. That puts them at 141 votes. Lets say that demographic trends turn Texas and Florida blue. That puts the dems at 202 votes. Can you really beat that kind of built in advantage? I don't think so.
 
Regarding incumbency rate, that is a result of uninformed voters it can happen in any system of government... Including a republic.

Of course but it is exacerbated by universal suffrage.

Uninformed voters is the primary reason why voting should not be universal.
Not everyone knows what is in the best interest of their government.
 
Of course but it is exacerbated by universal suffrage.

Uninformed voters is the primary reason why voting should not be universal.
Not everyone knows what is in the best interest of their government.

Who would you take it away from?
 
Of course but it is exacerbated by universal suffrage.

Uninformed voters is the primary reason why voting should not be universal.
Not everyone knows what is in the best interest of their government.

How would you decide who can and can't vote?
 
Who would you take it away from?

People who don't pay taxes and people who recieve any form of payment or privilege from the government.

Under this plan I would not be able to vote (I don't pay federal taxes) but I realize that making a personal sacrifice is more important.
 
No. Again, it is a difference which makes no difference. There are plenty of moderates and conservatives in coastal states, and, with the electoral college gone, their votes would be pooled along with those of other moderates and conservatives the nation over. The solid blue appearance and solid red appearance of states results from the electoral college system; in truth, there is a very mixed dispersal even in the most supposedly liberal or conservative states. I don't even think campaign strategy would change that much, since, in the regions where there are more people, the goal would still be to focus in on an candidate's appeal in those regions.

Yes, I realize all of this. If you are comfortable with it, then so am I! Let's do it, away with the electoral college!;)
 
People who don't pay taxes and people who recieve any form of payment or privilege from the government.

Under this plan I would not be able to vote (I don't pay federal taxes) but I realize that making a personal sacrifice is more important.

Technically, you don't pay taxes if you make below a certain amount (it gets returned). Everyone still pays income tax of course. But by your plan, poor people would be disenfranchised.

Also, even if you don't pay taxes, so many other things are handled by the federal government, it's going to affect you no matter what, and that'd be pretty unjust.

Why would you disenfranchise them?
 
People who don't pay taxes and people who recieve any form of payment or privilege from the government.

Under this plan I would not be able to vote (I don't pay federal taxes) but I realize that making a personal sacrifice is more important.

That's impractical and unworkable. Why should someone who is poor yet very knowledgeable and up-to-date on current events who would be a very informed voter not be able to vote while Paris Hilton can vote?
 
Technically, you don't pay taxes if you make below a certain amount (it gets returned). Everyone still pays income tax of course. But by your plan, poor people would be disenfranchised.

Also, even if you don't pay taxes, so many other things are handled by the federal government, it's going to affect you no matter what, and that'd be pretty unjust.

Why would you disenfranchise them?

It disenfranchises more than poor people.
Do you know how many businesses receive government funds and privileges not afforded to the rest of us?

They typically cast their vote for the person who promises the most benefits and those people haven't earned those benefits. Politicians shouldn't be able to bribe people with taxpayers money to vote for them.

It is unethical everywhere else in this world, why is it not with voting?

pro-bipartisan said:
That's impractical and unworkable. Why should someone who is poor yet very knowledgeable and up-to-date on current events who would be a very informed voter not be able to vote while Paris Hilton can vote?

Poor has nothing to do with it. You can refuse government subsidies and pay a nominal tax to participate.
 
And also, we're talking about the presidency, who only approves and enforces laws, not congress who decides laws.
Thats the key point there. I do not want California or some other densely populated stated decided laws for my state.
 
Back
Top Bottom