• 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!

Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College

ludahai said:
not exactly... the smaller states have a larger proportion of votes in the EC than they would have in a popular vote system...
Click to expand...

The Dane can only understand, and repeat Progressive thought. Don't try to cahnge his mind, he's a true believer.
 
MrVicchio said:
The Dane can only understand, and repeat Progressive thought. Don't try to cahnge his mind, he's a true believer.
Click to expand...

Not trying to change his mind, I know that isn't possible. Yet, he is wrong about the EC. That isn't about changing someone's mind, that is about FACT!
 
The Dane said:
I understand your logic, and if this was true then I would agree with you. But I don't think you assessment is correct. For example, in the 2004 election, Democrats took Miami, but they did not take Florida. They also took Cleveland, but they did not take Ohio. When candidates go to battle ground states, they usually do not campaign in the metropolises, and instead focus in urban areas. To put it in perspective, the 25 biggest cities only account for roughly 12% of the population.
Click to expand...

They don't have to spend as much time in the bigger citities because you only need to spend a day to hit say Houston, but a week for Texas for example.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
not exactly... the smaller states have a larger proportion of votes in the EC than they would have in a popular vote system...
Click to expand...

Then why is alright to give a bias towards smaller states?
 
MrVicchio said:
They don't have to spend as much time in the bigger citities because you only need to spend a Say to hit say Houston, but a week for Texas for example.
Click to expand...

But your argument still doesn't account for the fact that how larger cities vote does not predict the outcome of state elections. Los Angelos votes Democrat, but California as a whole goes Republican for a governor.

I should also point out that immature attempts to label my arguments as progressive and thus by default incorrect are logical fallacies and are quite lazy. Argue with facts not generalizations and opinions. (This was not solely directed at your Mr.V)
 
Last edited:
I think the electoral college should be gotten rid of, but I think this is a stupid way to go about it. The constitution should be changed to make it an election by popular vote.
 
molten_dragon said:
I think the electoral college should be gotten rid of, but I think this is a stupid way to go about it. The constitution should be changed to make it an election by popular vote.
Click to expand...

And there is a reason people like you weren't allowed to write the Constitution. However, I do agree with you that this is a stupid way of doing things, but it's THEIR choice to be idiots.
 
The Dane said:
But your argument still doesn't account for the fact that how larger cities vote does not predict the outcome of state elections. Los Angelos votes Democrat, but California as a whole goes Republican for a governor.

I should also point out that immature attempts to label my arguments as progressive and thus by default incorrect are logical fallacies and are quite lazy. Argue with facts not generalizations and opinions. (This was not solely directed at your Mr.V)
Click to expand...

Your arguments ARE the talking points of the Progressive Idealogues, whether you know it or not. This is not a Democracy, it is a Representative Republic. America doesn't work on Mob Rule, and smaller states get a boost agaisnt big states/popluation centers to balance things out. The Founding Fathers were huge believers in balance, a direct election lacks that balance.
 
I'm not 100% sure you guys know what you're arguing with each other about.
 
The Dane said:
Then why is alright to give a bias towards smaller states?
Click to expand...

The representative in the House of Representatives is based on the population of the states, but the EV is the representation in the House PLUS the Senate -- in which each state has 2. So, if CA has 52 Members of the House and NH has 2, that is because CA has approximately 26x NHs population, but then CA has 54 EVs and NH has 4 -- only 13.5X NH representation in the EC... Thus, NH has almost TWICE the per capita representative in the EC as CA...
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Didn't you originally argue that the popular vote would benefit smaller states, and now you have a problem with a system that benefits smaller states?!?!? :confused:
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you argue talking points rather than having a formed opion of an issue.
Then:
"Hey, the Popluar vote would help Smaller states!"

Debate ensues...

Now:
"Why support an unfair system taht gives smaller states an advantage?"


The rest of us go "eh?"
 
Let's see what happens when a Republican presidential candidate wins the popular election.... I wonder if people in MA will be fuming when the largely Democrat state gives its electoral votes to a Republican. If anything this is a preach of democratic values, because other voters from all over the country will be deciding who the state of MA gives their votes to.
 
digsbe said:
Let's see what happens when a Republican presidential candidate wins the popular election.... I wonder if people in MA will be fuming when the largely Democrat state gives its electoral votes to a Republican. If anything this is a preach of democratic values, because other voters from all over the country will be deciding who the state of MA gives their votes to.
Click to expand...

If you read the article, the bill in MA and in other states that have passed it state that it will only kick in after enough states constituting a majority of electoral votes have passed the legislation...
 
MrVicchio said:
That's what happens when you argue talking points rather than having a formed opion of an issue.
Then:
"Hey, the Popluar vote would help Smaller states!"

Debate ensues...

Now:
"Why support an unfair system taht gives smaller states an advantage?"


The rest of us go "eh?"
Click to expand...


Okay fine now explain why the largest paying states should be forced into paying for the fly over states?
 
ludahai said:
If you read the article, the bill in MA and in other states that have passed it state that it will only kick in after enough states constituting a majority of electoral votes have passed the legislation...
Click to expand...

I didn't know that, thanks for educating me.

Essentially what this looks like is MA will wait for enough states (and their electoral votes) to pass similar elections in order to ensure that an election winning amount of electoral votes get clumped together and go to one candidate. Essentially they are trying to abolish the electoral college without amending the constitution (if that's where we get the electoral college from) or having the federal government change things. This just isn't right. It's a violation of our Democratic Republic and how our national elections work.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay fine now explain why the largest paying states should be forced into paying for the fly over states?
Click to expand...

I must say you summed up why there is an EC and why we need it better then any other argument I could make.
 
digsbe said:
I didn't know that, thanks for educating me.

Essentially what this looks like is MA will wait for enough states (and their electoral votes) to pass similar elections in order to ensure that an election winning amount of electoral votes get clumped together and go to one candidate. Essentially they are trying to abolish the electoral college without amending the constitution (if that's where we get the electoral college from) or having the federal government change things. This just isn't right. It's a violation of our Democratic Republic and how our national elections work.
Click to expand...

Sneaky liberals, huh???
 
MrVicchio said:
I must say you summed up why there is an EC and why we need it better then any other argument I could make.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain very much. If people in Boston pay more into the system why do people in Iowa get the benefit and an extra vote?
 
winston53660 said:
That doesn't explain very much. If people in Boston pay more into the system why do people in Iowa get the benefit and an extra vote?
Click to expand...

Are you INTENTIONALLY doing this? Are you trying to make a point here in my favor?

I'm going to assume you really DON'T get this...

Rural Iowa, would get ignored in favor of big spending Boston. That's why we have an EC and not a popular vote.. among other things.

A good example of the problem with popular votes would be Senators. They should NEVER have been voted on by the people.
 
Argh. We live in a Representative Democracy (AKA Republic) for a reason... (people saying we don't live in a democracy are only half-right)

The idea is to avoid mob rule and concentrating too much power in big cities. Bad Mass. BAD! *slap*
 
The popular vote doesn't concentrate power into big cities. The 25 largest cities only account for 12% of the population. Plus, how a large city votes doesn't predict how the state will swing.
 
People forget that the EC was a result of a series of compromises that made the Constitution possible in the first place. Were it not for this and other compromises, the Constitution would likely have never been ratified. This is one of the things (including the equal representative in the Senate) that was included to address the concerns of small states to get them to ratify the Constitution. So, I can understand why some people would like to change it, but it flies in the face of the compromises that made the Constitution possible in the first place and as a native of one of those small states that was instrumental in the ratification of the Constitution in the first place (in fact, in accordance with the provisions of said Constitution, it was this small state whose ratification was the one what technically put the Constitution into effect) I am VERY hesitant to support a change -- especially done in this way that liberals love to do so much -- ignore that there is a constitutional means to change the constitution and do an end around (either through judicial fiat or in this case legislation).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom