• 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 Genius of the Electoral College

Bob N said:
A mob rule is a mob rule, no matter the size within that region. I do not see that much of a difference.
Click to expand...

You do not see that CA, with its 55 EC votes, already has more pull (sway?) than the states of AK, DE, MT, ND, VT, WY, HI, ID, ME, NH, WV, NM, and KS with their combined 54 EC votes? If only those 14 "tiny" states voted to keep the EC then an amendment to get rid of the EC, to help CA get even more pull (sway?), could not pass.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You do not see that CA, with its 55 EC votes, already has more pull (sway?) than the states of AK, DE, MT, ND, VT, WY, HI, ID, ME, NH, WV, NM, and KS with their combined 54 EC votes? If only those 14 "tiny" states voted to keep the EC then an amendment to get rid of the EC, to help CA get even more pull (sway?), could not pass.
Click to expand...
That's why you should get rid of the electoral votes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, that is why you can't. ;)
Click to expand...

So you support a system from the 1700's which permits eleven states to pick a President if in each of those eleven he wins one more persons vote and gets absolutely no votes in any of the other 39 states?
 
LowDown said:
It's official now. Hillary's entire popular vote win came entirely from one state: California.

If not for the Electoral College, California would be ruling the whole country, and we don't want that.

The Electoral College was designed to prevent a regional candidate from dominating national elections, and in this case it worked brilliantly.

All that hobnobbing with Hollywood stars and tech magnates paid off for Hillary, but she forgot many of the rest of us.

And most Republicans in California didn't even bother to vote for president knowing it would be completely futile.

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Click to expand...

The electoral college was designed to prevent direct democracy, which the founding fathers inherently distrusted. The idea that it was meant to prevent some form of regional hegemony or, as Republicans like to amuse themselves with these days, a way to prevent rural citizens from being relegated to secondary status to their urban counterparts, is patent nonsense.

Aside from which political party the electoral college benefits at any one point in time, it's a concept that nobody understands, to the point that people just have to invent why the founding fathers would even want it in the first place. And the reason for that is because if anyone did look to the real reason, they wouldn't particularly like it because it's outdated and, frankly, offensive:

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Click to expand...

The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org

So yeah, the electoral college has nothing to do with disproportionate regional power or because city people might exert too much of their faggy influence over farmers, but because voters are too stupid to be trusted with direct democracy. Huzzah.
 
Bob N said:
Would it made you feel better if those people were spread out about the country? :roll:
Click to expand...
Why would it make anyone feel better? The system worked exactly as it was intended. There are 50 states. the individual states are all guaranteed relevance, regardless of how big or how small they are. Having a **** ton of people in the borders of your state doesnt mean you get to dictate to anyone else how the country is or should be run, especially when your state has built in processes that make it rife for the commission of fraud. The state of California gives illegal immigrants licenses AND automatically registers them to vote. Why would any of the rest of country be expected to trust them?
 
Cardinal said:
The electoral college was designed to prevent direct democracy, which the founding fathers inherently distrusted. The idea that it was meant to prevent some form of regional hegemony or, as Republicans like to amuse themselves with these days, a way to prevent rural citizens from being relegated to secondary status to their urban counterparts, is patent nonsense.

Aside from which political party the electoral college benefits at any one point in time, it's a concept that nobody understands, to the point that people just have to invent why the founding fathers would even want it in the first place. And the reason for that is because if anyone did look to the real reason, they wouldn't particularly like it because it's outdated and, frankly, offensive:



The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org

So yeah, the electoral college has nothing to do with disproportionate regional power or because city people might exert too much of their faggy influence over farmers, but because voters are too stupid to be trusted with direct democracy. Huzzah.
Click to expand...
Good one, Cardinal. Now how much you want to bet that the EC will politely let Trump waltz right in to the White House and go to bed that night and sleep like a baby. :damn
 
VanceMack said:
Why would it make anyone feel better? The system worked exactly as it was intended. There are 50 states. the individual states are all guaranteed relevance, regardless of how big or how small they are. Having a **** ton of people in the borders of your state doesnt mean you get to dictate to anyone else how the country is or should be run, especially when your state has built in processes that make it rife for the commission of fraud. The state of California gives illegal immigrants licenses AND automatically registers them to vote. Why would any of the rest of country be expected to trust them?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that California is a mob rule state?
 
Bob N said:
Good one, Cardinal. Now how much you want to bet that the EC will politely let Trump waltz right in to the White House and go to bed that night and sleep like a baby. :damn
Click to expand...

The electoral college has calcified over the years so that it's barely an independent entity. It's hardened into a formal structure to reflect the winner-gains-all result of a state, and that's the end of that. Frankly, rogue electoral voters in many cases would either be penalized or just replaced altogether by their respective political party.

But we're stuck with the electoral college. It's with us forever. May as well bitch about the speed of light constant.
 
Bob N said:
Are you saying that California is a mob rule state?
Click to expand...
Why would you even suggest such a thing? California is a state like all others. Their population make-up dictates THEIR state government. I have said numerous times re things like gun rights that the state has the right to set their own laws (provided they set those laws within the specifically defined rights guaranteed by the Constitution). I respect them...even when I disagree with them. But when it comes to the national stage and the vote for president? They have a weighted presence. We've said it before...the VAST majority of Hillary Clintons vote support came from 4 out of 50 states.

California has the right to **** themselves over as much as they like. God bless America.
 
Cardinal said:
The electoral college has calcified over the years so that it's barely an independent entity. It's hardened into a formal structure to reflect the winner-gains-all result of a state, and that's the end of that. Frankly, rogue electoral voters in many cases would either be penalized or just replaced altogether by their respective political party.

But we're stuck with the electoral college. It's with us forever. May as well bitch about the speed of light constant.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Bob N said:
It wouldn't make that much difference to me. Popular vote should rule.
Click to expand...

No. That's just a horrible idea and not one single federal position is chosen by the whole country as an aggregate. Every single one is chosen by the states because we are the United States of America.

Oh, and having the radical state of California choose the President for the rest of the country is stupid beyond belief.
 
haymarket said:
So you support a system from the 1700's which permits eleven states to pick a President if in each of those eleven he wins one more persons vote and gets absolutely no votes in any of the other 39 states?
Click to expand...

Yep, because that has yet to happen. The popular vote alternative offered, however, would have allowed a popular vote surplus in a single state to overrule the popular vote pluralities in 10 other states in the most recent POTUS election.
 
ocean515 said:
Can't comment for VanceMack, but depending on what you mean by "mob", yes it is.
Click to expand...
California gets 55 electoral votes and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida get 67 altogether. Why wouldn't those states constitute mob states as well?
 
Fishking said:
No. That's just a horrible idea and not one single federal position is chosen by the whole country as an aggregate. Every single one is chosen by the states because we are the United States of America.

Oh, and having the radical state of California choose the President for the rest of the country is stupid beyond belief.
Click to expand...

The popular vote is the rule within the states. Also, apparently you would be fine with California choosing the President for the rest of the country if it happened to be a tie breaking state with its massive 55 electoral votes.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
But they aren't, are they? Hence the brilliance and foresight of the Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...
The LOW estimates show that 6% of California's population is illegal. Real world figures are that there are likely double the 3 million immigrants counted during the 2013 census. California grants all residents a drivers license and registers them to vote (and covers them with immunity for voting illegally). Spread those illegal immigrants out throughout the country in states where they dont get voting rights automatically and who knows what the final vote tally will be.
 
Cardinal said:
The popular vote is the rule within the states.
Click to expand...
But not for the President. Never has been. There is no 'popular vote' win or lose for the office of President.
 
Fishking said:
No. That's just a horrible idea and not one single federal position is chosen by the whole country as an aggregate. Every single one is chosen by the states because we are the United States of America.

Oh, and having the radical state of California choose the President for the rest of the country is stupid beyond belief.
Click to expand...
Well Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida altogether beats California by 12 votes. Why wouldn't those states be labeled as mob states that picked the next President? They knocked out California.
 
Bob N said:
It wouldn't change the popular vote by much though. Look, Trump is the new President. But the electoral college does need to go. Why not use an electoral college to vote on lawmakers too?
Click to expand...

I imagine you'd be singing a different tune if Hillary had won the electoral vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom