• 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!

Why we have an electoral college [W:196]

haymarket said:
I have criticized persons here who use them in place of the Constitution trying to play three card monty with what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

please translate these two post from federalist 45 and 84, and tell me what each of them mean since you claim you believe in them

madsion- federalist 45- The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State

hamilton - federalist 84 - But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

please tell me what each one of theses statements means separately.

i await your answer!
 
haymarket said:
I have clearly stated that the primary goal of the EC is to provide a mechanism to select a President and in performing that goal the Constitution provides a way for a small number elites to thwart the will of the people by rejecting their choice for President should that elite group see fit to do just that.

That has been very clear all along what my position is on the EC and how it works and functions.
Click to expand...

Great! As I said and have been repeating, the goal is to elect the president.

My remark was in response to what "you" specifically said to me in a specific prior post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Apparently the purpose of the electoral college is so that the small population states can dictate to the larger population states. Of course that was not the original intention of the framers, but then the electoral college system that we have now, was not what they wanted either.
 
Master PO said:
please translate these two post from federalist 45 and 84, and tell me what each of them mean since you claim you believe in them

madsion- federalist 45- The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State

hamilton - federalist 84 - But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

please tell me what each one of theses statements means separately.

i await your answer!
Click to expand...

PM me and I will give you my hourly tutorial rate to educate people about American Government.
 
NotreDame said:
Great! As I said and have been repeating, the goal is to elect the president.

My remark was in response to what "you" specifically said to me in a specific prior post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And what do you believe I said that differs with this?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Apparently the purpose of the electoral college is so that the small population states can dictate to the larger population states. Of course that was not the original intention of the framers, but then the electoral college system that we have now, was not what they wanted either.
Click to expand...

Madison states the contention of the constitituional convention was that electors would be elected by the people via their districts.

today parties pick the electors, so lets stop that and go back to the founders plan
 
Master PO said:
Madison states the contention of the constitituional convention was that electors would be elected by the people via their districts.

today parties pick the electors, so lets stop that and go back to the founders plan
Click to expand...

If we must retain the electoral college, then yes I agree we should stop letting political parties dictate who will be president.
 
American said:
You're rather limited we know. I don't suppose you bothered to offer up the Federalist Papers. No, that would be too much to ask, Captain Obvious.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
Why would anybody with any education offer up the opinion of just a couple of folks when one can go to the official reason given by ALL the authors of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Haymarket's distain for the federalist papers is shown above, yet he try's to use federalist 68 in this thread when it suits his purpose
 
haymarket said:
You are NOT ready the quote I made as it was written. You are changing what I said. Go back and read again.
Click to expand...

How can you not be embarrassed by post like that? I did an exact copy and paste.

Here is your post #333:
haymarket said:
The President is NOT elected by popular vote. He is elected by the electoral vote.
Click to expand...

Here is what I said you posted:
Originally posted by haymarket: The President is NOT elected by popular vote. He is elected by the electoral vote.
Click to expand...

Please show what part of what you said I changed. Should be easy. I see one of two things happening here. You either don't read your own post, or your sense of honesty is completely bankrupt.
 
natsb said:
How can you not be embarrassed by post like that? I did an exact copy and paste.

Here is your post #333:


Here is what I said you posted:


Please show what part of what you said I changed. Should be easy. I see one of two things happening here. You either don't read your own post, or your sense of honesty is completely bankrupt.
Click to expand...

both!
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

haymarket said:
I wonder if what you see on your screen in post 338 is different than on my screen because on mine its right there .
Click to expand...

Irony or projection??? Here are your words from 364: "generally its because people claim I said something and then when challenged the cannot produce what they claimed I said - just like you did just now." And then there you go again not producing what I said. Why not follow your own challenge and produce what you claimed I said? Could it be because you are dishonest?

Okay, second dodge noted. It is only fair to give three chances.

Perhaps you could support your statement by posting my opposing quotes? Dodge number 3 in 3... 2... 1...
 
haymarket said:
generally its because people claim I said something and then when challenged the cannot produce what they claimed I said - just like you did just now.
Click to expand...

No actually you are unable to admit you made an error and backpedal one statement or the other regardless of how foolish contradictory posts seem. I guess that's the advantage to lying without a second thought, when you don't care about credibility, it simply doesn't matter.
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

Tennyson said:
Clinton had 2,654,253 more popular votes than Trump. To put that number into perspective, Clinton had 4,211,765 more popular votes than Trump in California and Clinton had 1,902,359 more popular votes than Trump just in New York City. Trump had seventy-four more electoral votes than Clinton and Clinton received eighty-four electoral votes between New York and California.
Click to expand...

GEIxBattleRifle said:
Can the election be won with electoral votes from 12 or so states? Yes or no? It seems I'm going to have to do the math myself once I get home from work.
Click to expand...

Well I finally got around to doing it and............... it appears the EC can be won for a candidate by just getting all the EC votes from merely 11 out of 50 states!!!

1. California-55

2. Texas-38

3. Florida-29

4. New York-29

5. Illinois-20

6. Pennsylvania-20

7. Ohio-18

8. Georgia-16

9. Michigan-16

10. North Carolina-15

11. New Jersey-14

That should all add up to exactly the 270 needed to win.

Isn't the EC supposed to give the ''small populated states'' a voice in the election? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it since these 11 states can fully go for one candidate and win all the time and they have larger populated density then all the other states.

So much for trying to prevent the ''tyranny of the majority'' (the number 1 thing EC supporters use for there position) because the EC sure as hell doesn't stop that.

It looks like haymarket was spot on with this comment here from a few weeks back.

haymarket said:
Do you realize that under the current EC system if a candidate gets one single vote more than the other candidate in each of the 12 largest states and is not even on the ballot to get a single vote in the other 38 states, that they will win despite being out voted by tens of millions of Americans?

The nightmare you speculate about is already possible in the EC system.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...d-purpose-electoral-college-do-you-agree.html
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

GEIxBattleRifle said:
Well I finally got around to doing it and............... it appears the EC can be won for a candidate by just getting all the EC votes from merely 11 out of 50 states!!!

1. California-55

2. Texas-38

3. Florida-29

4. New York-29

5. Illinois-20

6. Pennsylvania-20

7. Ohio-18

8. Georgia-16

9. Michigan-16

10. North Carolina-15

11. New Jersey-14

That should all add up to exactly the 270 needed to win.

Isn't the EC supposed to give the ''small populated states'' a voice in the election? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it since these 11 states can fully go for one candidate and win all the time and they have larger populated density then all the other states.

So much for trying to prevent the ''tyranny of the majority'' (the number 1 thing EC supporters use for there position) because the EC sure as hell doesn't stop that.

It looks like haymarket was spot on with this comment here from a few weeks back.



http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...d-purpose-electoral-college-do-you-agree.html
Click to expand...

Anything is possible, anything. We could probably denounce a plethora of valuable institutions on the basis some undesirable outcome is "possible." For instance, it is possible a terrorist could exploit the refugee laws to gain entry into the U.S., but how likely is this to happen? Should the U.S. abandon its refugee laws and refuse to admit anyone on the basis its possible a terrorist could exploit these laws to enter the U.S.?

A lot of ink from progressives, left wing types, and some conservatives sources, has been spilled arguing that while it's possible a terrorist could enter the U.S. by exploiting the refugee laws, it is not likely, and no action to limit people to enter on a refugee basis is justified in the basis of mere possibility. The point being more than a mere possibility of an undesirable outcome is needed to act.

So, let's ask the better question of whether the scenario you reference is likely? How many times has your scenario manifested itself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

NotreDame said:
So, let's ask the better question of whether the scenario you reference is likely? How many times has your scenario manifested itself?
Click to expand...

Predictable response.

You do know the presidential election can be won from merely 11 states under your electoral system right?

That's a fact that you can't distort. It doesn't matter if the chances of it happening is slim to none because it can still happen within the parameters of the electoral system.

I merely pointed that out. Not my fault if you have objections to it.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
You do know the presidential election can be won from merely 11 states under your electoral system right?

That's a fact that you can't distort. It doesn't matter if the chances of it happening is slim to none because it can still happen.
Click to expand...

So, if the likelihood is 1 in 1, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, its reasonable to worry and rational to act? Really?

So, Trump and others would be acting rational and reasonable by denying refugee status to anyone from Syria on the basis its possible ISIS could slip a terrorist into the country by use of refugee status, despite the likelihood of occurrence is 1 in 1, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000?

It's not reasonable to act in such a manner on the basis some undesirable outcome is possible, no matter how unlikely. Society wouldn't exist in such an advanced state following such a principle. Indeed, our government wouldn't exist, few would, following this logic. Damn near everything we have created as a society wouldn't exist following such logic.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Re: Why we have an electoral college

GEIxBattleRifle said:
Well I finally got around to doing it and............... it appears the EC can be won for a candidate by just getting all the EC votes from merely 11 out of 50 states!!!

1. California-55

2. Texas-38

3. Florida-29

4. New York-29

5. Illinois-20

6. Pennsylvania-20

7. Ohio-18

8. Georgia-16

9. Michigan-16

10. North Carolina-15

11. New Jersey-14

That should all add up to exactly the 270 needed to win.

Isn't the EC supposed to give the ''small populated states'' a voice in the election? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it since these 11 states can fully go for one candidate and win all the time and they have larger populated density then all the other states.

So much for trying to prevent the ''tyranny of the majority'' (the number 1 thing EC supporters use for there position) because the EC sure as hell doesn't stop that.

It looks like haymarket was spot on with this comment here from a few weeks back.



http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...d-purpose-electoral-college-do-you-agree.html
Click to expand...

Are those all winner take all state? It does not work like that. Trump won because he won the majority of states, especially the small states. That is the design of the Electoral College.
 
Master PO said:
Haymarket's distain for the federalist papers is shown above, yet he try's to use federalist 68 in this thread when it suits his purpose
Click to expand...

My response clearly tells all that one should read the Constitution for the language and when that is available to NOT depend on one person words as a substitute for it. That is not what is happening here as Federalist 68 merely provides what I was challenged by another poster to present in support of the statement that it was intended to create a small group of elite persons who can thwart the will of the people.
 
natsb said:
How can you not be embarrassed by post like that? I did an exact copy and paste.

Here is your post #333:


Here is what I said you posted:


Please show what part of what you said I changed. Should be easy. I see one of two things happening here. You either don't read your own post, or your sense of honesty is completely bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Both posts that you just presented contain nothing wrong. I do not see what you are going on about..... if indeed you are quibbling about this statement and not some others.
 
haymarket said:
My response clearly tells all that one should read the Constitution for the language and when that is available to NOT depend on one person words as a substitute for it. That is not what is happening here as Federalist 68 merely provides what I was challenged by another poster to present in support of the statement that it was intended to create a small group of elite persons who can thwart the will of the people.
Click to expand...
you have distain for the federalist yet you try to use them is it fits your agenda
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

natsb said:
Irony or projection??? Here are your words from 364: "generally its because people claim I said something and then when challenged the cannot produce what they claimed I said - just like you did just now." And then there you go again not producing what I said. Why not follow your own challenge and produce what you claimed I said? Could it be because you are dishonest?

Okay, second dodge noted. It is only fair to give three chances.

Perhaps you could support your statement by posting my opposing quotes? Dodge number 3 in 3... 2... 1...
Click to expand...

It seems that you have connected some dots - or what you believe are some dots - and then made some conclusion about the picture you believe they depict.

I simply cannot follow what point you think you have here.

What is it that I said that you disagree with? can you state that simply and clearly?
 
OpportunityCost said:
No actually you are unable to admit you made an error and backpedal one statement or the other regardless of how foolish contradictory posts seem. I guess that's the advantage to lying without a second thought, when you don't care about credibility, it simply doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Here is post 358


Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
You are making no sense. Where did I say the EC is anything other than what Hamilton stated it would be?

Those two quotes from me are saying nothing of the kind. Presenting evidence must say what you claim it said - not just quotes which fail to deliver the goods as these have done in your claim about my previous statements.
Click to expand...

then the response from you in the same post

And that's why people don't quote you, we're done here.
Click to expand...

What is it you seem to be claiming is a lie or my error?
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

GEIxBattleRifle said:
Well I finally got around to doing it and............... it appears the EC can be won for a candidate by just getting all the EC votes from merely 11 out of 50 states!!!

1. California-55

2. Texas-38

3. Florida-29

4. New York-29

5. Illinois-20

6. Pennsylvania-20

7. Ohio-18

8. Georgia-16

9. Michigan-16

10. North Carolina-15

11. New Jersey-14

That should all add up to exactly the 270 needed to win.

Isn't the EC supposed to give the ''small populated states'' a voice in the election? It sure as hell doesn't seem like it since these 11 states can fully go for one candidate and win all the time and they have larger populated density then all the other states.

So much for trying to prevent the ''tyranny of the majority'' (the number 1 thing EC supporters use for there position) because the EC sure as hell doesn't stop that.

It looks like haymarket was spot on with this comment here from a few weeks back.



http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...d-purpose-electoral-college-do-you-agree.html
Click to expand...

Great thanks for you for taking up the challenge and actually doing the math. Well done!!!!

The idea that small states are protected by the EC is bunk as I previously stated and have you have found out for yourself.

But the defenders of the system cling to the fiction and deny the reality that it takes only 1 more persons vote in each of the largest eleven states to elect the President even though they may not get a ingle persons vote in any of the other 39 and then lose the popular vote by 40 or more million votes.

That is the system they defend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom