• 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

no sorry in a republican form you elect also...
Huh?

however to don't get to direct elect everyone..only 1 of 3
2 of 3. Senator and Representative.

the founders modeled America on the roman republic, a classical republic
Not entirley. Sure they modeled off of it but they did not mirror it.

no the federal government is not dominate, because the senate was controlled by the states.
Just because the senators were elected by state congresses votes does not mean that the federal government was sitll not the dominate factor.
 
You couldn't possibly be more incorrect. The electoral college insures that presidential elections aren't dictated by the narrow interests of New York and California. It also gives a voice in the political process to the heartland.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to the handful of ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

&&&

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States.

The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
 
Well, if the popular vote is so close that they need a recount, but a non-signatory state has, say , a 10% margin that wouldn't warrant a recount then how can the signatory states force the non-signatory state to spend state money on a recount?

A popular vote system would require all votes in all states be recounted.

A national popular vote would not require all votes in all states to be recounted.
No state can force any state to conduct a recount.

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts would be much rarer than in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. Existing federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).

The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
 
You want it to go away for political reasons, which is why it's in place now. Sad.

I want it to go away because I don't believe that where you live should dictate how much of a voice you have in the government.
 
Huh?


2 of 3. Senator and Representative.


Not entirley. Sure they modeled off of it but they did not mirror it.


Just because the senators were elected by state congresses votes does not mean that the federal government was sitll not the dominate factor.

i was talking about the founders government not the current one....which was republican, today it is less republican and more democratic...which is sad.

rome had 3 positions elected, by different groups of people, that is the same as American government, the founders speak a lot of the roman republic....it was a good and stable government....democratic governments are bad and unstable.
 
i was talking about the founders government not the current one....which was republican, today it is less republican and more democratic...which is sad.
It was a democratic republic and is still a democratic republic...
 
Straight democracy will merely enhance the stupidity. Just like with allowing the "people" to vote for senators, it's a bad idea to change the EC in favor a DD system. It's like history speaks and falls on the ears of arrogant fools, this cycle repeats itself down through the ages.

The President was elected by the Electoral College, the Senate by the States, and the House by the people. A balanced system, well thought out by the founders. Then, the left had to stick their noses in, because they know better than the founders.

So they were able to take away the State's presence in the federal government by changing the election of the Senate. So now, we have situations where a State supports something, while their two Senators vote against it. How dumb.

Now, they want to destroy the balance of the Presidential election and effectively take away the smaller State's influence on the election. No one will bother campaigning in or caring about the smaller States with this great new system. How brilliant! Good way to destroy the United States, since it will be ruled by the larger population centers only.
 
It was a democratic republic and is still a democratic republic...


sorry no a republic and a democratic form are two different forms of government.

Madison is clear about this in federalist 10 when the states their republican and democratic forms of government
 
In American government of the founders, power in divided up!

the house of representatives is a democracy it is a direct democratic vote of the people, and it presents the ............interest of the people

the senate is an aristocracy, it is a direct vote of the state legislatures, and it is non democratic vote of a few, it represents the.............. interest of the states

RIGHT THERE!..........power in divided into 2 parts.....NEITHER part, has all of the power...........no one------------> "holds the keys to the kingdom"

the president under the founders IS considered a monarch, to be elected by electors for the states......and those electors have in early American history been chosen by the 1.state legislatures, 2.chosen by a general election ticket of each state, 3.and chosen by districts of each state........however this has been changed by the politicians, who now chose the electors by party line.

the idea of the electoral college is for a few people of the states to elect the President in DECEMBER.

by having electors elect the president it makes it a non democratic vote......steering America clear of democratic government.


so you have 1 democratic vote for the house, and 2 non democratic votes for senate and the President, making it a republican form of government and not a democratic form.

since all three members of the government are elected by 3 different groups of people--------------"no one holds the keys to the kingdom"

since no one single group who gets elected .......holds the "KEYS"......no one can become a tyrant.

in democratic forms of government, the people hold the "keys to the kingdom", they are the dominate factor of democratic government, and are tyrants because they govern by Majority Rule.


the u.s. government of the founders is a republican form of government...know as ..."mixed government"[federalist 40 by James Madison]

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS????
 
The President was elected by the Electoral College, the Senate by the States, and the House by the people. A balanced system, well thought out by the founders. Then, the left had to stick their noses in, because they know better than the founders.

So they were able to take away the State's presence in the federal government by changing the election of the Senate. So now, we have situations where a State supports something, while their two Senators vote against it. How dumb.

Now, they want to destroy the balance of the Presidential election and effectively take away the smaller State's influence on the election. No one will bother campaigning in or caring about the smaller States with this great new system. How brilliant! Good way to destroy the United States, since it will be ruled by the larger population centers only.

It's called "Progress". See the Progressive movement has a powerful weapon, emotion. This is aided by the natural greed and stupidity of people.

What argument is easier to make?
"Vote for me! I'll make sure you're taken care and that rich guy stealing your wealth pays his fair share!"
Or
"Vote for me! I'll make sure you have a fair shot to work hard and rise as high as your effort and drive will take you!"
 
sorry no a republic and a democratic form are two different forms of government.
No they arent. They are not mutually exclusive.

Madison is clear about this in federalist 10 when the states their republican and democratic forms of government
If they are mutually exclusive how can one have representatives that are democratically elected?
 
The President was elected by the Electoral College, the Senate by the States, and the House by the people. A balanced system, well thought out by the founders.
Which is as it should be.
 
No they arent. They are not mutually exclusive.


If they are mutually exclusive how can one have representatives that are democratically elected?


sorry no !

federalist 10---The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Republican government does not have many factious combinations, because power is divided, democratic government power in concentrated in 1, "the people" and very factious, as America has become today, with its movement towards democracy.
 
sorry no !

federalist 10---The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Republican government does not have many factious combinations, because power is divided, democratic government power in concentrated in 1, "the people"

The people elect representatives to represent them in government. Thats REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY no matter what the founders called it.
 
The people elect representatives to represent them in government. Thats REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY no matter what the founders called it.

so...in republican government people elect representatives to the house..that's a direct vote of the people.

the people elect their state legislature, who in turn elects the senate, that is an indirect vote of the people.

the people elect their state legislature, who chooses the electors, thats an indirect vote of the people.


1 democratic vote, and 2 non democratic votes, making it republican form of government....not democratic
 
I've thought it through plenty.

Okay then thoughtitoutplenty guy, let's break it down.

If the EC goes kebosh and we have a Direct Election...

You just shut out huge swaths of the country, they don't matter. The only people who will matter are those in dense population zones, I.E. City's. And people who live in the City have a different need and world view then rural folk. Glad to know you don't care about them.
 
Okay then thoughtitoutplenty guy, let's break it down.

If the EC goes kebosh and we have a Direct Election...

You just shut out huge swaths of the country, they don't matter. The only people who will matter are those in dense population zones, I.E. City's. And people who live in the City have a different need and world view then rural folk. Glad to know you don't care about them.
The united states work because the power goes to the states.
People vote in state representatives.
States vote in fed representatives.
it's the way things should be. What is right for California is not necessarily right for Florida, or Tennessee. yOU can't have one set of laws that cover everybody and every situation for the entire country made by a bunch of jackasses who rarely if ever leave DC.
 
You just shut out huge swaths of the country, they don't matter.

No, they matter (in proportion to their population) exactly as much as everywhere else. Everyone's vote counts the same amount. People living in the country should not get more of a say in who our president is than people living in cities.

And let's not kid ourselves here. Under the current system, a pretty good percentage of people's votes in quite a few states don't matter because they are a minority in states that consistently vote for the other party.
 
Last edited:
No, they matter (in proportion to their population) exactly as much as everywhere else. Everyone's vote counts the same amount. People living in the country should not get more of a say in who our president is than people living in cities.

And let's not kid ourselves here. Under the current system, a pretty good percentage of people's votes in quite a few states don't matter because they are a minority in states that consistently vote for the other party.
We are not a nation of people we are a nation of states. The states should have equal say in anything to do with the nation. The state of Kentucky is equal to the state of ny in running this country? or it won't work because if they don't get equal say there is northing, short of violence, to stop them from succeeding from the union.
 
No, they matter (in proportion to their population) exactly as much as everywhere else. Everyone's vote counts the same amount. People living in the country should not get more of a say in who our president is than people living in cities.

And let's not kid ourselves here. Under the current system, a pretty good percentage of people's votes in quite a few states don't matter because they are a minority in states that consistently vote for the other party.

Nope, you're condemning their voices to the wilderness. Good job.
 
We are not a nation of people we are a nation of states.

Not anymore we're not.

The states should have equal say in anything to do with the nation.

No they shouldn't. That's an antiquated idea from a time where the vast majority of people never traveled more than a few miles from their homes and the fastest method of information dispersal was horseback.
 
Not anymore we're not.



No they shouldn't. That's an antiquated idea from a time where the vast majority of people never traveled more than a few miles from their homes and the fastest method of information dispersal was horseback.

Any state not given equal representation will succeed from the union.
 
Back
Top Bottom