• 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
Should Congress create an amendment to get rid of the electoral college? Why or why not?
No. There's nothing wrong with the EC and so no reason to change it.
And even if it did, it would not pass the states.
 
So essentially we are making one persons vote less valuable then someone elses. Not to mention super delegates.
Superdelagates? Are you discussing a primary election?
If not, then there;s no such thing.

The People do not elect the President, the states do. The states curretly allow their electors to be chosen by a vote of the people, but are not required to.

Therefore, the value of any goven person's vote, should there be a vote, is found within the state the vote was cast. In that, all votes for all people are equal.
 
Superdelagates? Are you discussing a primary election?
If not, then there;s no such thing.

The People do not elect the President, the states do. The states curretly allow their electors to be chosen by a vote of the people, but are not required to.

Therefore, the value of any goven person's vote, should there be a vote, is found within the state the vote was cast. In that, all votes for all people are equal.
Can you back this up? I'm not looking to pick a fight, I'm looking to further educate myself. Thanks.
 
"The People do not elect the President, the states do. The states curretly allow their electors to be chosen by a vote of the people, but are not required to."

US Constitution, 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.
Note the bolded text.
The state legislatures could determine the allocation of their state's electors with a game of poker, should they decide to.

US Constitution, Amendment XII:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
Does that give you what you need?
 
US Constitution, Article II Section I:

Note the bolded text.
The state legislatures could determine the allocation of their state's electors with a game of poker, should they decide to.

US Constitution, Amendment XII:

Does that give you what you need?
Sure does. I appreciate it.
 
Abortion is an individual right. It's a 9th amendment issue, not a 10th amendment issue.
The proper level of and for governmental regulation of abortion is a 10th amendment issue.
 
The proper level of and for governmental regulation of abortion is a 10th amendment issue.

Regulate only in the sense that states regulate speech, religion and any other individual right. States have no power to prohibit or severely restrict abortion, just as they have no power to prohibit or severely restrict religion.

The right exists, whether states like it or not.
 
Regulate only in the sense that states regulate speech, religion and any other individual right. States have no power to prohibit or severely restrict abortion, just as they have no power to prohibit or severely restrict religion.
The right exists, whether states like it or not.
You mean like when the right is exercised in a public place/forum, or when exercising the right directly endangers the rights of others?
Right?
 
While I don't think democracy is ideal, giving disproportionate power to less populous areas serves no legitimate purpose. People in smaller states do not have their particular rights threatened, but historically have rather used their disproportionate power to threaten the rights of others, especially Blacks in the past. The electoral college should be abolished.

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?

Pretty sure the founding fathers did not anticipate the rise of political parties.

Regarding incumbency rate, that is a result of uninformed voters it can happen in any system of government... Including a republic.

Um, no not any system of government. It's a hazard of democratic processes, and increasingly insurmountable as the world becomes more complex. People simply do not have time to play their role in society and fulfill the civic duty of remaining informed enough to vote intelligently. Voter competency tests would minimize the harm of democratic processes. Proportional representation would minimize the leverage of corporate interests.
 
Last edited:
While I don't think democracy is ideal, giving disproportionate power to less populous areas serves no legitimate purpose. People in smaller states do not have their particular rights threatened, but historically have rather used their disproportionate power to threaten the rights of others, especially Blacks in the past. The electoral college should be abolished.
The electoral college does exactly what it is supposed to do, exactly the way it should be done. Thus, there's no reason to abolish it.
 
The electoral college does not give more power to less populous areas. It emulates the house of representatives, not the Senate; electors are apportioned according to a state's population.

The only purpose of the college is to ensure that the ultimate authority on who becomes president is left in the hands of specialists instead of the general population; specialists are selected in part in accordance with how responsive they are to the will of their region, but are expected to possess better judgment and at least in theory can deviate from the demands of their region to select a better qualified candidate. Just like the house of representatives. In theory, these specialists are more likely to look past the obstacles of factionalism and sectionalism and choose the candidate which is best for the Union as a whole. In theory. In reality, their votes nearly always translate directly into what their region wants.

The college seems to be at odds with the popular vote, since the "winner take all" aspect of the system would seem to silence the will of the minority political faction in any given state; except when we consider that, whether the state be large or populous, the purpose of any election is to get the most votes possible, and that would not change the ultimate result with or without the electoral college; with or without the college, the one who has more votes in more populated areas is going to be the winner. Hence the popular vote and the electoral vote tend to be consistent with one another, in so far as they tend to select the same candidate.

It is worth noting, much like the corruption which resulted from having senators being chosen by state legislatures, if the electoral college consistently selected candidates against the will of the people, the system would probably be abolished as a result of widespread, persistent, public indignation.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that there was disagreement among the Founding Fathers as to the best form of government is pretty much established history.

However, that does not mean that the Founding Fathers would necessarily have been in favor of frivolous amendments for transient reasons. In that regard they were all a pretty conservative bunch.
Yeah CL, I know about the various "compromises", but I think a republican form was agreed to by most.
 
The electoral college does not give more power to less populous areas. It emulates the house of representatives, not the Senate; electors are apportioned according to a state's population.

No actually it's equal to the number of BOTH. Number in House + 2 Senators = electoral votes.
 
No actually it's equal to the number of BOTH. Number in House + 2 Senators = electoral votes.
Thats why he said it "emulates" the house of representatives.
 
You mean like when the right is exercised in a public place/forum, or when exercising the right directly endangers the rights of others?
Right?

What did you mean by regulation?

How does a state regulate religion? Abortion would be regulated in a like manner.
 
Thats why he said it "emulates" the house of representatives.

Well that only means it's less independent of population than the Senate, which itself is totaly independent of population. But 100 of the votes are based upon the Senate. That means the electoral college does not reflect the popular vote, and people in less populous states get disproportionate power, as I said.
 
Well that only means it's less independent of population than the Senate, which itself is totaly independent of population. But 100 of the votes are based upon the Senate. That means the electoral college does not reflect the popular vote, and people in less populous states get disproportionate power, as I said.
Given that the President is the head of Government, elected by the states, and that the Federal Government governs over a Republic of sovereign states, the electoral college shoud have 50 memebers, one from each state, as under the Constitution, each state is equal.
 
Given that the President is the head of Government, elected by the states, and that the Federal Government governs over a Republic of sovereign states, the electoral college shoud have 50 memebers, one from each state, as under the Constitution, each state is equal.

Considering the language of the Constitution you are technically correct. But I would very much oppose that, as I see no reason to give each Alaskan 50 times the voice of each Californian.
 
Considering the language of the Constitution you are technically correct. But I would very much oppose that, as I see no reason to give each Alaskan 50 times the voice of each Californian.
The people dont elect the President, and so that doesn't matter.

And... your criteria here is still flawed. State elections are held for the state electors, not the President. In that, the equality/inequality of any given vote is found within the state that holds the election -- and in that, all votes are equal.
 
Last edited:
People are trying to get rid of the electoral college even though what they should be doing is writing their state legislators requesting that their state use a proportional system in divvying up electoral votes. Like Maine uses.

If all the people in the "minority" parties for their states rallied for this, it would eventually pass. But too much focus is being placed on it being a national thing when it is totally a state thing.

Right now, in the current system, your vote can count. If your state altered the way they delegate the EC votes. They only talk about abolishing the EC in order to make you think they actyally care.
 
Last edited:
People are trying to get rid of the electoral college even though what they should be doing is writing their state legislators requesting that their state use a proportional system in divvying up electoral votes. Like Maine uses.

If all the people in the "minority" parties for their states rallied for this, it would eventually pass. But too much focus is being placed on it being a national thing when it is totally a state thing.

Right now, in the current system, your vote can count. If your state altered the way they delegate the EC votes. They only talk about abolishing the EC in order to make you think they actyally care.

If the EC must remain, then I'd prefer proportional allocation. So if candidate A gets 52% of the popular vote in CA, he'd get 29 EV; while candidate B would get 26 EV (assuming he got 48% of the vote).
 
Back
Top Bottom