• 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
upsideguy said:
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?

).
Click to expand...

You have pointed out the reason we have pork.
 
upsideguy said:
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).
Click to expand...

You guys seem to be living in some alternate America.

The Presidential candidates ignore the small and rural areas NOW. The small rural states are almost all red states and both candidates ignore them, since we already know which way they will vote.

Your argument might make some sense if we saw candidates campaigning in these places, but they're NOT. You're making some idealized argument that isn't rooted in reality here.

On the other hand, if every single damn vote counted no matter where it was, they WOULD be going there. A blue vote in a red state (and vice versa) will count and may make the difference in the final tally. It would be foolish NOT to try to get every vote, whether urban or rural.

Republicans wouldn't ignore the blue states and Democrats wouldn't ignore the red states if every vote counted. Instead, under our current system, only 10 states really are courted by the candidates.

Stop arguing some pie-in-the-sky idealized view of the electoral college and talk about what really happens.
 
Groucho said:
You guys seem to be living in some alternate America.

The Presidential candidates ignore the small and rural areas NOW. The small rural states are almost all red states and both candidates ignore them, since we already know which way they will vote.

Your argument might make some sense if we saw candidates campaigning in these places, but they're NOT. You're making some idealized argument that isn't rooted in reality here.

On the other hand, if every single damn vote counted no matter where it was, they WOULD be going there. A blue vote in a red state (and vice versa) will count and may make the difference in the final tally. It would be foolish NOT to try to get every vote, whether urban or rural.

Republicans wouldn't ignore the blue states and Democrats wouldn't ignore the red states if every vote counted. Instead, under our current system, only 10 states really are courted by the candidates.

Stop arguing some pie-in-the-sky idealized view of the electoral college and talk about what really happens.
Click to expand...

But the issue is that urban voters in red states will have similar interests to urban voters in rural states. Therefore, the issues of urban conservatives and urban liberals will receive more importance than issues of rural conservatives and rural liberals.

That's why I'd prefer the Congressional District Method, also known as the Maine-Nebraska Method. Electoral votes of a state won't go to whoever wins the state-wide plurality but rather the electoral vote of a district will go to whoever wins that district's plurality, and whoever wins the plurality of the statewide vote will get the two electoral votes from Senators. This would allow the popular vote to count more and will require less reform since all that would be needed is a change to state law rather than a Constitutional amendment.
 
upsideguy said:
That is a legislative issue. That won't go away unless congress goes away.
Click to expand...

States should not get preferential treatment from the federal government. The electoral college ensures they do.
 
Groucho said:
You guys seem to be living in some alternate America.

The Presidential candidates ignore the small and rural areas NOW. The small rural states are almost all red states and both candidates ignore them, since we already know which way they will vote.

Your argument might make some sense if we saw candidates campaigning in these places, but they're NOT. You're making some idealized argument that isn't rooted in reality here.

On the other hand, if every single damn vote counted no matter where it was, they WOULD be going there. A blue vote in a red state (and vice versa) will count and may make the difference in the final tally. It would be foolish NOT to try to get every vote, whether urban or rural.

Republicans wouldn't ignore the blue states and Democrats wouldn't ignore the red states if every vote counted. Instead, under our current system, only 10 states really are courted by the candidates.

Stop arguing some pie-in-the-sky idealized view of the electoral college and talk about what really happens.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Last election Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri received a ton more attention than New York, Massachusetts, Texas or California. Without an electoral college many of these states get NO attention. As a Coloradoan, we have some unique issues (water rights, alternative energy, oil shale development v environment) that otherwise get ignored.

I love the electoral college (except the part where actual people have to travel to DC to cast votes),
 
upsideguy said:
I disagree. Last election Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri received a ton more attention than New York, Massachusetts, Texas or California. Without an electoral college many of these states get NO attention. As a Coloradoan, we have some unique issues (water rights, alternative energy, oil shale development v environment) that otherwise get ignored.

I love the electoral college (except the part where actual people have to travel to DC to cast votes),
Click to expand...

What do you think about the Maine-Nebraska Method for the electoral college?
 
USA-1 said:
States should not get preferential treatment from the federal government. The electoral college ensures they do.
Click to expand...

It's not about states getting preferential treatment from the federal government. It's about less populous areas being heard along with more populous areas.

And this isn't that far off. After all, the Senate was made as a balance to the House of Representatives to offset the advantage more populous states have to less populous states. So since we do that with regards to the federal legislature, why shouldn't we do it with regards to the federal executive?
 
samsmart said:
It's not about states getting preferential treatment from the federal government. It's about less populous areas being heard along with more populous areas.

And this isn't that far off. After all, the Senate was made as a balance to the House of Representatives to offset the advantage more populous states have to less populous states. So since we do that with regards to the federal legislature, why shouldn't we do it with regards to the federal executive?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't more populous states get the advantage?

"At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it."
 
USA-1 said:
Why shouldn't more populous states get the advantage?

"At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it."
Click to expand...

They have the advantage in the house and in the number of electoral votes.
 
USA-1 said:
Why shouldn't more populous states get the advantage?

"At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it."
Click to expand...

Yes, because of the winner-take-all system in each state except Maine and Nebraska. Those two states implemented reforms that causes the electoral vote in a district to be decided by the candidate who gets the most votes in that district. Also, whoever wins the popular vote state-wide would get the 2 electoral votes from their Senator.

This kind of reform would take away the power from swing states without totally disenfranchising less populous areas.
 
USA-1 said:
You are joking , right? What kind of fool moves out of a state because of it's political leaning? That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I would assume the kind of fool who freaks out about his vote never meaning anything.

USA-1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the point of my post? The president is not your representative. You have representatives that are more local, who know more about your area and your issues. I'm not denying that your state is corrupt or inefficient. I'm simply suggesting it is more interested.
 
emdash said:
You are ignoring the point of my post? The president is not your representative. You have representatives that are more local, who know more about your area and your issues. I'm not denying that your state is corrupt or inefficient. I'm simply suggesting it is more interested.
Click to expand...

That's a great point.

The President was never meant to be a policy maker but merely a manager of policy drafted by Congress.
Essentially, people should choose the president based on what they think his managerial skills are and not for representation purposes.
 
Last edited:
emdash said:
I would assume the kind of fool who freaks out about his vote never meaning anything.


.
Click to expand...

That is the dumbest thing I have read.

For most rational people, politics is not the most important thing in their lives. They do not relocate for the sake of politics. Most of them have roots, jobs, friends, family. They like the climate, community and other factors of an area. They don't move because of political leanings of the region. Maybe the fools like you would, but normal people wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
emdash said:
I would assume the kind of fool who freaks out about his vote never meaning anything.



You are ignoring the point of my post? The president is not your representative. You have representatives that are more local, who know more about your area and your issues. I'm not denying that your state is corrupt or inefficient. I'm simply suggesting it is more interested.
Click to expand...

Representatives, politicians for that matter, only represent those that elected them. Federal or state, it's all the same.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
That is the dumbest thing I have read.
Click to expand...

Then you're very lucky.

USA-1 said:
For most rational people, politics is not the most important thing in their lives. They do not relocate for the sake of politics. Most of them have roots, jobs, friends, family. They like the climate, community and other factors of an area. They don't move because of political leanings of the region. Maybe the fools like you would, but normal people wouldn't.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you don't feel your votes count, am I right?
The possible solutions are, as far as I can tell:
1. move (to an area that is perfect for people like you);
2. shut up (because politics is not the most important thing in your life anyway);
3. educate yourself (about our current voting system);
4. disregard the Constitution and establish a nationwide popular vote, regardless of the repercussions.

USA-1 said:
Representatives, politicians for that matter, only represent those that elected them. Federal or state, it's all the same.
Click to expand...

I don't know that any informed person would ever say that the president is a representative.
 
emdash said:
I don't know that any informed person would ever say that the president is a representative.
Click to expand...

The president represents the American people to the world. Have you never heard that before? Look it up and become informed.

Bush represented Americas elite and Obama represents Americas poor folk.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
The president represents the American people to the world. Have you never heard that before? Look it up and become informed.
Click to expand...

Of course the president acts as spokesman for the united 50 states to foreign powers. You are not a state, or a union of states. You are an individual. The president does not represent individuals.

USA-1 said:
Bush represented Americas elite and Obama represents Americas poor folk.
Click to expand...

:bs
 
samsmart said:
What do you think about the Maine-Nebraska Method for the electoral college?
Click to expand...

I love the electoral college the way it is. The Maine/Nebraska method dilutes it. In fact, I would argue they have shot themselves in the foot as without the winner take all approach those state elections are very predictable and not worth the of attention by the presidential candidates.

I LOVE the electoral college (except for the idea that you actually send people to Washington to vote... that is silly). Its the greatest thing since the I-phone.
 
emdash said:
The president does not represent individuals.



:bs
Click to expand...

Some presidents do. Just as much as any other politician represents individuals.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
Some presidents do. Just as much as any other politician represents individuals.
Click to expand...

It's not the president's job.
 
emdash said:
It's not the president's job.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Just as it isn't any elected officials job to represent individuals.
Doesn't mean they don't do it.
 
The People were never meant to vote for the President.
Click to expand...

Why not? Why can't we change that now? The people weren't originally meant to vote for Senators either, but we changed that.
To allow this would be unfair/unequal representation of the States.
Click to expand...

What's so special about a state? Why should states be represented when it comes to the Presidency? Why does my opinion or interests matter only in relation to which state I live in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom