• 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!

New York does away with Electoral College

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
On Wednesday, New York became the tenth state, in addition to the District of Columbia, to agree to the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." Written by the National Popular Vote organization, the compact requires its signatory states to pledge their Electoral College delegates to whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes nationwide. Currently, states pledge their delegates to the candidate who receives the most votes within the state. This can lead to situations like the 2000 presidential election, when Al Gore received the most votes nationwide, but still lost the election to George Bush. Lindsay France asks RT's Sam Sacks whether the Electoral College may finally be headed for the dust bin of history.


Video @:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_35DiUNLZI
More found @: New York joins campaign to end Electoral College role in presidential elections - NY Daily News

Honestly, I think we should get rid of the electoral college. I believe it only makes sense. If we are a democracy, why not be a democracy that elects its highest leader? I mean it only makes sense.. I mean I know what some people are going to say, "hey we arent a democracy, we are a republic!". But you can be a republic and a democracy at the same time. The electoral college is outdated and irrational with our political climate and system.
 
We are a Republic.
We were set up that way so their would not be any direct democracy.
The Electoral College is neither outdated or irrational. It serves its purpose, which apparently idiots wish to undermine with such agreements.
 
Last edited:
We are a Republic.
We were set up that way so their would not be any direct democracy.
That is what we need to get back to in full, and enforce.

We still arent a direct democracy even if we elected someone to represent us. If we elect someone to represent us that means we are a representative democracy. Even if we directly elected the POTUS what is the problem with that? I mean the founders were not perfect by anyway, why is it so shocking to get rid of something that is ineffective and outdated?
 
I honestly do not why you won't adopt a more parliamentary model. Use the districts form the House (albeit with less gerrymandering) and the leader of the party of who holds the most seats wins. This would require like I said less gerrymandering and also parties having to pick a dedicated leader.
 
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_35DiUNLZI
More found @: New York joins campaign to end Electoral College role in presidential elections - NY Daily News

Honestly, I think we should get rid of the electoral college. I believe it only makes sense. If we are a democracy, why not be a democracy that elects its highest leader? I mean it only makes sense.. I mean I know what some people are going to say, "hey we arent a democracy, we are a republic!". But you can be a republic and a democracy at the same time. The electoral college is outdated and irrational with our political climate and system.

Refresh my memory but isn't their some clause in this agreement that states that the compact wont come into force until its constituent members can equal 2
 
Refresh my memory but isn't their some clause in this agreement that states that the compact wont come into force until its constituent members can equal 2

I dont remember hearing anything along those lines.. Do you have anymore information along those lines?
 
We still arent a direct democracy even if we elected someone to represent us. If we elect someone to represent us that means we are a representative democracy. Even if we directly elected the POTUS what is the problem with that? I mean the founders were not perfect by anyway, why is it so shocking to get rid of something that is ineffective and outdated?

It isn't ineffective or outdated.

I think the main problem here is folks do not understand why our Republic was set up the way it was, and instead simply just think it is only about representation of the people as a whole, when it is about a mixture of direct and indirect representation.
You remove the indirect representation, you fundamentally change what this Nation is.
 
It isn't ineffective or outdated.
It is outdated!
Just think of our founding. We were composed of 13 small and 13 large states jealous of each other for various reasons. Our country was spread along states that were very rural that was not connected by transportation or communication. We were paranoid of British influence in our elections. We were afraid of slaves as well. Hell we didnt even trust the poor to vote..


I think the main problem here is folks do not understand why our Republic was set up the way it was, and instead simply just think it is only about representation of the people as a whole, when it is about a mixture of direct and indirect representation.
You remove the indirect representation, you fundamentally change what this Nation is.
So if we remove the electoral college what radical **** is going to happen?
 
It is outdated!
Just think of our founding. We were composed of 13 small and 13 large states jealous of each other for various reasons. Our country was spread along states that were very rural that was not connected by transportation or communication. We were paranoid of British influence in our elections. We were afraid of slaves as well. Hell we didnt even trust the poor to vote..
:doh None of which makes the Electoral College outdated.
It has it's purpose and is still applicable today.

The people have their representation though their local and state voting, and the electing of their Congress critters.
Or do you not realize that States are individual entities in a Union called the United States that deserve to exercise their individuality and be represented as such?




So if we remove the electoral college what radical **** is going to happen?
Did I say "radical ****"? Or did I say fundamentally change?
You know exactly why you advocate change. You think it will more easily lead to socialistic policy that you would like to see be enacted.
Which is just another valid reason why it shouldn't be changed.
 
:doh None of which makes the Electoral College outdated.
It has it's purpose and is still applicable today.
The purpose of its creation in which we all overcame doenst mean its outdated? What!?!?!


The people have their representation though their local and state voting, and the electing of their Congress critters.
And at one point was only allowed for white land owning individuals... Should we still stick to that like the electoral college?

Or do you not realize that States are individual entities in a Union called the United States that deserve to exercise their individuality and be represented as such?
We can still be that even with the end of the elctoral college.. Hell we once elected senators in a way which the State Congress of a specif state chose them..


Did I say "radical ****"? Or did I say fundamentally change?
Well whats going to happen?

You know exactly why you advocate change. You think it will more easily lead to socialistic policy that you would like to see be enacted.Which is just another valid reason why it shouldn't be changed.

So if a POTUS is elected by popular vote that means "socialism is going to come!" :doh I wish! In my dreams! In reality it means Al Gore would of been elected.. Ohh what a "socialist!" :lamo Get ****ing real!
 
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_35DiUNLZI
More found @: New York joins campaign to end Electoral College role in presidential elections - NY Daily News

Honestly, I think we should get rid of the electoral college. I believe it only makes sense. If we are a democracy, why not be a democracy that elects its highest leader? I mean it only makes sense.. I mean I know what some people are going to say, "hey we arent a democracy, we are a republic!". But you can be a republic and a democracy at the same time. The electoral college is outdated and irrational with our political climate and system.

Democracy is simply a step toward totalitarianism. The sad part is that most people won't realize that we've stepped off that cliff even after we hit bottom.
 
Democracy is simply a step toward totalitarianism. The sad part is that most people won't realize that we've stepped off that cliff even after we hit bottom.

So we direclty elect our senators and representative but if we elect the POTUS, the oh Christ we are on our way to totalitarianism! Please Lutherf with our separation of power and checks and balances in place, please explain how you reach this conclusion...
 
It is outdated!
Just think of our founding. We were composed of 13 small and 13 large states jealous of each other for various reasons. Our country was spread along states that were very rural that was not connected by transportation or communication. We were paranoid of British influence in our elections. We were afraid of slaves as well. Hell we didnt even trust the poor to vote..



So if we remove the electoral college what radical **** is going to happen?

It's not outdated.

The result of dissolution of the electoral college will be the removal of one more hedge against federal supremacy. Little by little the states are ceding their power and their responsibilities to the federal government. In time the states will become nothing more than the answer to a trivia question and state governments will be strictly figurative. There will be no restraints on the federal government which will become more and more insulated from the people who will have less and less autonomy as we transition from a nation based on natural rights into one based on civil rights.
 
The purpose of its creation in which we all overcame doenst mean its outdated? What!?!?!
Wtf are you talking about? Overcame? Overcame what?
The purpose was to give the individual States representation as a State. That has not been overcome, nor could it.


And at one point was only allowed for white land owning individuals... Should we still stick to that like the electoral college?
More nonsense. The Electoral College issue is not dependent on race, sex, or even orientation.
Stop trying to inject irrelevant **** that has no bearing on the question.
The purpose was to give the individual States representation as a State. That has not be overcome, nor could it.


We can still be that even with the end of the elctoral college..
No this Country wouldn't be the same.
It would fundamentally have changed.


Well whats going to happen?
Are you not paying attention?
From indirect to direct. That is a fundamental change.
Nor can you show any advantage to changing it from the way it is.


So if a POTUS is elected by popular vote that means "socialism is going to come!" :doh I wish! In my dreams! In reality it means Al Gore would of been elected.. Ohh what a "socialist!" :lamo Get ****ing real!
Stop being silly.
I said; "You think it will more easily lead to socialistic policy." And you do think that, which is why you advocate it.
 
I'll let CGPGRey to explain to you all how you can win the Presidency of the USA with just a bit over 22% of the popular vote. That's not democracy.

 
It's not outdated.

The result of dissolution of the electoral college will be the removal of one more hedge against federal supremacy.
Little by little the states are ceding their power and their responsibilities to the federal government. In time the states will become nothing more than the answer to a trivia question and state governments will be strictly figurative. There will be no restraints on the federal government which will become more and more insulated from the people who will have less and less autonomy as we transition from a nation based on natural rights into one based on civil rights.

So, as I see it. Getting rid of the elctoral college will mean that the states will essentially have no power? What about the constitution givign the states power? What about state and local government? What about all of that? Will getting rid of the electoral college essentially bring an end to federalism? Are you saying its a slipper slope? I mean if thats true, I would say that is absolutely ridiculous and a strawman.
 
If we got rid of the electoral college candidates would only need to actively run in California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The rest of the country will no longer matter.
 
Also, democracy is a concept. Which for some reasons americans find it detestable.

Demos = People
Kratos = Power.

Power of the people. You don't like that?

Nobody is advocating, when saying democracy, as Athenian Democracy per government. Heck, nobody wants athenian democracy. NOBODY HAS ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY ANYMORE. It's the concept of people having the right to vote and their votes mean something.

A republic is a form of organization. You have 3 branches of government and 2 of them are electable and the other is an independent branch and each keeps the other in check. Ideally. Ofc, in the USA, you have 3 branches of govt and elect just 1 at the federal level, actually, elect just 0.5 at federal level.

You only really elect your house representative congressman because the senators are 2 per state. And the president wins "state votes" not people votes".

:lamo We are a Republic.


I anticipated that knee jerk response and I posted this. Just as you were struggling to come up with that answer.
 
So we direclty elect our senators and representative but if we elect the POTUS, the oh Christ we are on our way to totalitarianism! Please Lutherf with our separation of power and checks and balances in place, please explain how you reach this conclusion...

LOL!!

You may recall that the direct election of Senators is a relatively recent thing. It may also be pure coincidence but it also came hot on the heels of the 16th amendment. That was one hell of a year for the expansion of the federal government, wouldn't you say?
 
So, as I see it. Getting rid of the elctoral college will mean that the states will essentially have no power? What about the constitution givign the states power? What about state and local government? What about all of that? Will getting rid of the electoral college essentially bring an end to federalism? Are you saying its a slipper slope? I mean if thats true, I would say that is absolutely ridiculous and a strawman.

The Constitution doesn't grant the states power. The states grant certain powers to the federal government via the Constitution. Why is it that so many people fail to understand that most basic concept?
 
Wtf are you talking about? Overcame? Overcame what?
Excuse my beer for speaking on that term..


More nonsense. The Electoral College issue is not dependent on race, sex, or even orientation.
Stop trying to inject irrelevant **** that has no bearing on the question.
The purpose was to give the individual States representation as a State. That has not be overcome, nor could it.
Why? What purpose does it represent!? If the POTUS is supposed to represent the county as a WHOLE why should one state get more votes than anohter thus deciding an election in which it supposed to represent the country as a whole?

No this Country wouldn't be the same.
It would fundamentally have changed.
How so?
Still waiting on that answer...


Are you not paying attention?
From indirect to direct.
Direct demoracy means you as an individual citizen has the right to vote for a speicifc policy... Example, lets say a vote comes up on if crack cocaine should be legal, meaning you have the right to go to a congress and vote yes or no a long with everyone else. That is direct democracy.
Indirect means simply, you vote for someone to represent you in a congress/office. If we moved to popular vote of a POTUS that still means its a indirect democracy..

That is a fundamental change.
Nope. Really not at all.

Nor can you show any advantage to changing it from the way it is.
Uhh the popular will is followed. The controversy of 2000 would of never happened....



Stop being silly.
I said; "You think it will more easily lead to socialistic policy." And you do think that, which is why you advocate it.
I'm not being silly, since the the Commission of Presidential Debates is ran by GOP and Democratic officials, and since the USSC has basically unlimmitted $$ in the elections I wouldnt fear any socialists getting popular in the race soon..
 
If we got rid of the electoral college candidates would only need to actively run in California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The rest of the country will no longer matter.

That's about right.
 
LOL!!

You may recall that the direct election of Senators is a relatively recent thing. It may also be pure coincidence but it also came hot on the heels of the 16th amendment. That was one hell of a year for the expansion of the federal government, wouldn't you say?

Ok... And how did that lead to anything you said in your post?
 
One of the main reasons for the electoral college is because information traveled at the speed of horse in 1789. No accurate winner could be selected with any haste and the potential for mistakes was enormous. Putting the election in tiers (electoral district > state > nation) helped ensure an accurate result. In the age of telephones, computers, and the internet, there is no such need.

The real effect of the electoral college is that presidents have to campaign for states, instead of campaigning for the entire nation. This is horrendously stupid. No single state's interests should hold such a large sway. And even worse, only a few state's interests end up having that sway. Presidents should be concerned with national issues, not state ones. And everyone's vote should count the same, not strengthened or weakened based on the completely fictional concern that large states vote homogeneously and can run the entire nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom