• 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
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
939
Reaction score
96
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Should Congress create an amendment to get rid of the electoral college? Why or why not?
 
No,its not what our founding forefathers intended and it would silence or take way any say that the less populated states have.
 
Sure, if it is easy to do so. But I wouldn't waste much effort on it.

No,its not what our founding forefathers intended and it would silence or take way any say that the less populated states have.

The Founding Fathers also intended for senators to be chosen by state legislatures, a breeding ground for corruption.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Because it makes no sense circa 2009.
 
No, as much as I disagree with many right-winged policies, loss of the electoral college would lead to their demise and too great a shift to the left.
 
I guess because Al Gore would have been President in 2000?
 
How, exactly?

Look at election results. All of the most populous states regularly vote Democrat. California and New York alone could nearly decide an election, as their populations nearly out strip the rest of the country. If it were pure popular vote, almost no GOP candidates would stand a chance.
 
No,its not what our founding forefathers intended and it would silence or take way any say that the less populated states have.

I think the entire process is outdated and flawed. Why do we need them? I think we should have a general vote in which every single vote is tallied in a national count and not a state count. The current system where it is possible to have the lesser vote and still obtain office is ridiculas. With the current system its not about what the people want but what the system allows.
 
I guess because Al Gore would have been President in 2000?

Because Bush was superb. Superb.

Look at election results. All of the most populous states regularly vote Democrat. California and New York alone could nearly decide an election, as their populations nearly out strip the rest of the country. If it were pure popular vote, almost no GOP candidates would stand a chance.

Yeah, I really don't think so: Florida and Texas. Besides, when you look at the popular vote, it is usually evenly split. To the point that a few percentage difference can be a landslide victory.
 
Last edited:
No,its not what our founding forefathers intended and it would silence or take way any say that the less populated states have.

The electoral college arguably does take away any say that less populated states have because California has 55 votes while Vermont has 3. Plus you only have to win 12 states to win the presidential election. So if you're worried about people's say those are two problems.

Anyway, shouldn't who the candidate who the people elect be the president? In 2000 Gore won got more votes but Bush won because of the electoral college. (No I don't have a vandetta against Bush it's just a great example). I just think the president should be who the people vote for not who the elitist vote for.
 
Look at election results. All of the most populous states regularly vote Democrat. California and New York alone could nearly decide an election, as their populations nearly out strip the rest of the country. If it were pure popular vote, almost no GOP candidates would stand a chance.

Ahhh, California and New York have a huge amount of electoral votes now. There would be no difference whatsoever. They do count popular vote, you know. The election results for EVERY recent election except Bush-Gore would have been he exact same under either system. So, factually, your comment makes no sense. Reagan would have still won twice, Bush 1 would have won, Nixon would have won, etc.
 
Last edited:
Because Bush was superb. Superb.



Yeah, I really don't think so: Florida and Texas.

Put those two against all of the Northeast, California, Washington and Oregon, Minnesota and Wysconsin and see how quickly you would lose.
 
Look at election results. All of the most populous states regularly vote Democrat. California and New York alone could nearly decide an election, as their populations nearly out strip the rest of the country. If it were pure popular vote, almost no GOP candidates would stand a chance.

I don't understand your point, shouldn't the person with the most votes be elected no matter where you're from? Besides a political realignment period already happened once it could happen again.
 
Put those two against all of the Northeast, California, Washington and Oregon, Minnesota and Wysconsin and see how quickly you would lose.

Even so, if we are going by the popular vote, there is a near even divide every time; to the point a few percentage difference, in the U.S., constitutes a landslide victory.

Excepting the Bush election, the electoral college is a difference which makes no difference, which is why I don't see any point in maintaining it. But it also isn't worth expending political capital in the battle to up end it.
 
Last edited:
I think the entire process is outdated and flawed. Why do we need them? I think we should have a general vote in which every single vote is tallied in a national count and not a state count. The current system where it is possible to have the lesser vote and still obtain office is ridiculas. With the current system its not about what the people want but what the system allows.

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.
 
Last edited:
Just to point out something Florida doesn't always go Democrat or Republican it's a swing state people come on.
 
No because populism and an even purer democracy is horrible to freedom and liberty.

The Electoral College is more preferable.

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?
 
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?
 
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.

I believe the majority should win period, even if I do not agree with them.
 
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.

Abortion is a state issue so New York wouldn't decide Nebraska's abortion laws.
 
Should it be reformed? Yes. Should it be done away with completely? No.
 
Back
Top Bottom