• 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 college

do away with the electoral college?

  • yes

    Votes: 20 47.6%
  • no

    Votes: 18 42.9%
  • other

    Votes: 4 9.5%

  • Total voters
    42
… The President should represent the people, not the states.

I'll grant you that is precisely how the people see it; and when public perception separates from process, bad things happen.

This could be an argument for changing to direct election of the president or better funding for civics education.

I will fall back to the context of the historical U.S., where the preisdent is in fact a creature of the union of the states and not of the people across all the states. And, within that context the Electoral College serves a purpose which provides some important benefits that should not be overlooked.
 
A nationwide recount would never happen, we'd still vote state by state. Each state would manage its own election as it does now. If something went wrong in one state we wouldn't have to do the entire thing over.
 
And, yet, there are statewide elections that have been so close that a statewide recount was ordered. It happens more than you might think. Why not at the national level? I rather think it's more than a little likely.

For advocates of a direct election, they must contend with the reality that finding one more vote in Alabama is the equivalent of denying one vote in Chicago. Where do you think the lawyers would prefer to operate? i.e., not Alabama.
 
If your guy loses, your president is always chosen by other people.

Your state, on the other hand, by virtue of having joined the Union, has a right to help choose the President. Perhaps you don't care for states' rights.

You can imagine that smaller states, upon realizing that they would never have any influence over a presidential election, might have been more reluctant to play along. Hence the electoral college.

The electoral college was a horrible idea.

I think it is just misunderstood.
 
Your state, on the other hand, by virtue of having joined the Union, has a right to help choose the President. Perhaps you don't care for states' rights.

You can imagine that smaller states, upon realizing that they would never have any influence over a presidential election, might have been more reluctant to play along. Hence the electoral college.



I think it is just misunderstood.

I believe in personal rights over states rights. Most votes are thrown away with the electoral college. If the majority of Americans want someone to be president, that person should be president. Just my opinion. My vote means nothing the way it's set up.
 
Sorry, you've got that backwards.

If it wasn't for the electoral college, smaller states would be utterly ignored in the Prez elections, because their lack of voters would make them of little value.

As it is, since most small states give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins their majority of voters, small states do matter.

We are not a democracy and were not intended to be a democracy. We're a Republic, with built-in measures intended to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

If anyone takes a good close look at the popular vote parliaments of Europe, they'll see how nutters those guys can be.

No way in the world would I want an only popular vote government.
 
If anyone takes a good close look at the popular vote parliaments of Europe, they'll see how nutters those guys can be.

No way in the world would I want an only popular vote government.

And how does the electoral college guarantee the best guy wins? There really are only two choices. Popular vote is the only fair and sensible way to elect someone. Everyones vote matters.
 
And how does the electoral college guarantee the best guy wins? There really are only two choices. Popular vote is the only fair and sensible way to elect someone. Everyones vote matters.

It doesn't and neither does the popular vote.

The only fair way to do it, would be letting only those who contribute vote but that's another matter.

The House is similar to a parliament, have you seen some of the garbage that gets some support in there.
They have had quite a few bills come up trying to nationalize our private retirement accounts.

Nut jobs.
 
very interesting discussion here indeed
 
Popular vote to me is chaos.
A crazy attempt at an egalitarian utopia.

This makes no sense to me. One of the libertarian ideals is that all men are created equal. If that is true, why would the popular vote be a bad thing?
 
This makes no sense to me. One of the libertarian ideals is that all men are created equal. If that is true, why would the popular vote be a bad thing?

I take my page on this from the Libertarian Socialists and the worker owned collectives.
In a worker owned collective, you don't get a say unless you contribute(work) to the group.
Essentially, you have to give before you can get.

We want some amount of regulation on most parts of society, these regulations only exist because men operate the businesses, pollute the environment etc, which can all have effects on other people.

Voting is one of those things that can have an effect on other people.

Popular vote has proven to be chaotic and lets a lot of the crazies (Bachman and Pelosi) take office.
Something that shouldn't happen.

To keep men equal under the law, you have to restrain some of them.
 
I take my page on this from the Libertarian Socialists and the worker owned collectives.
In a worker owned collective, you don't get a say unless you contribute(work) to the group.
Essentially, you have to give before you can get.

We want some amount of regulation on most parts of society, these regulations only exist because men operate the businesses, pollute the environment etc, which can all have effects on other people.

Voting is one of those things that can have an effect on other people.

Popular vote has proven to be chaotic and lets a lot of the crazies (Bachman and Pelosi) take office.
Something that shouldn't happen.

To keep men equal under the law, you have to restrain some of them.

What would constitute earning the right to vote? Would it be military service? Paying taxes? Or something else?
 
What would constitute earning the right to vote? Would it be military service? Paying taxes? Or something else?

Something, although I'm not so sure about military service.
That would limit too many people and possibly create another Sparta situation.

It would have to be something that most people would be able to do.
I think community is very important but I think you should show it before getting the privileges.
 
Something, although I'm not so sure about military service.
That would limit too many people and possibly create another Sparta situation.

It would have to be something that most people would be able to do.
I think community is very important but I think you should show it before getting the privileges.

Personally, I can't think of particular task that would filter out crazy people such as Bachmann.
 
Personally, I can't think of particular task that would filter out crazy people such as Bachmann.

Yea, I'm not sure how to deal with people like her.

Taxation is probably the easiest way to do it but I think volunteer labor instead of taxes might be ok.
The military participation leaves it too far open for abuse.
 
Yea, I'm not sure how to deal with people like her.

Taxation is probably the easiest way to do it but I think volunteer labor instead of taxes might be ok.
The military participation leaves it too far open for abuse.

Income and crazy are not inversely correlated, so taxes probably wouldn't work and if was volunteer service, many people who seek to impose their vision of the right kind of united states would hold their nose and go through with it. I imagine the more passionate and/or radicalized they are the more likely they are to do it
 
Last edited:
Income and crazy are not inversely correlated, so taxes probably wouldn't work.

That's true as well, I'm not sure.
Will have to think on that one.

Basically though, we should all have to contribute something of value.
It shows that you put your willing to walk how you talk.
 
That's true as well, I'm not sure.
Will have to think on that one.

Basically though, we should all have to contribute something of value.
It shows that you put your willing to walk how you talk.

I think even that would backfire. I can easily imagine political organizations putting their members through whatever program/contribution to get more votes. It would be an arms race.
 
I think even that would backfire. I can easily imagine political organizations putting their members through whatever program/contribution to get more votes. It would be an arms race.

If it were something like community service, at least, we would get something positive out of it.
I think it would do some good for both upper/middle/lower income people to have to work together as equals on something.
The same goes for the different race/ethic groups.

I don't like the fact that people think they deserve something without putting in their sweat equity in building it.

I tired of the "politics as usual."

I appreciate you entertaining my craziness for this thread. :2wave:
 
A nationwide recount would never happen, we'd still vote state by state. Each state would manage its own election as it does now. If something went wrong in one state we wouldn't have to do the entire thing over.

Actually I can see a scenario where a nation-wide recount can occur quite easily with national popular election.

Imagine election between candidate A and B

State 1 - A > B by 500 thousand votes
State 2 - A < to B by 490 thousand votes
State 3 - A < to B by 300 thousand votes
State 4 - A > B by 295 thousand votes

Nation-wide result - A > B by 5 thousand votes. If B could master a few lost votes from here and there, he could beat A. B has every personal reason to want a recount in all states where he feel he could get more votes.
 
I think the electoral college is one of the hidden geniuses of the American constitution. It creates 50 individual state elections within the single presidential election. As such, the unique issues of each state must be addressed by each candidate if they wish to compete in that state. Consistent with American ideal, the rights / issues of the few are not trampled on my the issues of the majority. This concept is also consistent with the concept of states rights and the republic.

OTH, without an electoral college, presidential elections can be won by only appealing to the majority. Do you really want a president that is elected only addressing the issues of major media markets? whose agenda and solutions affect only those in major urban/suburban areas?

Then there is the practical issue: a re-count in a single state is not that big a deal; a national recount is a disaster. Our elections are generally decided within 4 percentage points. It would be very easy to have an election decided within 1/2 of 1%, which is re-count territory. Contested elections are never decisive.... even the 2000 election was not exactly decisive (a large % of the population did not agree that the winner actually won).
 
I think the electoral college is one of the hidden geniuses of the American constitution. It creates 50 individual state elections within the single presidential election. As such, the unique issues of each state must be addressed by each candidate if they wish to compete in that state. Consistent with American ideal, the rights / issues of the few are not trampled on my the issues of the majority. This concept is also consistent with the concept of states rights and the republic.

OTH, without an electoral college, presidential elections can be won by only appealing to the majority. Do you really want a president that is elected only addressing the issues of major media markets? whose agenda and solutions affect only those in major urban/suburban areas?

Then there is the practical issue: a re-count in a single state is not that big a deal; a national recount is a disaster. Our elections are generally decided within 4 percentage points. It would be very easy to have an election decided within 1/2 of 1%, which is re-count territory. Contested elections are never decisive.... even the 2000 election was not exactly decisive (a large % of the population did not agree that the winner actually won).

Excellent points.
 
I believe in personal rights over states rights.

It just seems to me that if you do value your personal rights you should favor any decentralization of power.

Who is more likely to know about the crime rates or the quality of education in your area? Your governor or your president?

Most votes are thrown away with the electoral college. If the majority of Americans want someone to be president, that person should be president. Just my opinion. My vote means nothing the way it's set up.

I've already addressed this...voting indicates the general political atmosphere of your state. If your state is too liberal or conservative for you, move. Your state is far more efficient than the federal government when it comes to understanding the majority of issues facing its constituents.

Consider: You might have felt any of a variety of emotions for Obama and McCain as men and as public figures, but your senators and representative are the ones who are constantly making decisions that affect your everyday life, and they are also the ones who act as checks and balances over the executive branch.
 
I've already addressed this...voting indicates the general political atmosphere of your state. If your state is too liberal or conservative for you, move. Your state is far more efficient than the federal government when it comes to understanding the majority of issues facing its constituents.
.

You are joking , right?
What kind of fool moves out of a state because of it's political leaning? That's ridiculous.
As for state government being more efficient than federal. It is about the same. They are both totally inefficient, Just like federal government the party in power decides what issues are important. The truth is state governments are no better than the federal government and more wasteful and destructive in many ways.
 
Back
Top Bottom