• 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!

What exactly does Delaware hope to accomplish?

Helix said:
The EC should be ended federally.
Click to expand...

Yup, if it is to be ended it should be ended across the board. That said since:
a) the original intend of the Founders was not the current form of the Electoral College anyway and,
b) the whole idea even as envisioned by the Founders was a nod to slavery. Since slavery is dead the system needs to be revised.

The system should have been revised when the 3/5 compromise went away. The EC has some attraction especially for a Constitutional Republic of states of various sizes and characteristics. That said there is simply no way around the fact that this sort of electoral system was a nod to slavery and slavery is dead!
 
apdst said:
The EC gives everyone's vote equal value.

The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We enjoy equal representation.
Click to expand...

How exactly? It mathematically makes peoples votes from larger states matter less and in practice ensures that the vote of only a handful of swing states matter. Do you believe the vote of someone form California or Texas should count for less a person from any other state?
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
not really. an utterly unfit fool who lost the popular vote is president.
Click to expand...
It does stop the pandering to only one states voters
 
Deuce said:
Uh no the EC does not give everyone's vote equal value.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it does. W/O it, my vote for president would be worthless.
 
jdog21 said:
It does stop the pandering to only one states voters
Click to expand...

the part that still works is that it gives less populated areas more of a voice. however, if it no longer acts as a safeguard against someone who is grossly unfit for office, that isn't enough. less populated areas have the option of becoming more populated if they feel that they are underrepresented.
 
Helix said:
the part that still works is that it gives less populated areas more of a voice. however, if it no longer acts as a safeguard against someone who is grossly unfit for office, that isn't enough. less populated areas have the option of becoming more populated if they feel that they are underrepresented.
Click to expand...
That's how it works, the more populated your state the less representation you get. If you want to feel like you need more representation move to less populated state.
 
jdog21 said:
That's how it works, the more populated your state the less representation you get. If you want to feel like you need more representation move to less populated state.
Click to expand...

i live in one. if you want more voters in your area, entice them to come there or have more kids.
 
apdst said:
Until a Republican wins, then you all will be screaming for it to be reinstated.
Click to expand...

The deplorable party doesn't have enough support to win the popular vote right now.
 
Helix said:
it didn't work. time for it to go.
Click to expand...

You're just upset because Queen Hillary didn't win.
Hillary lost, so now the EC is bad/evil/obsolete and it needs to go.

The EC keeps a few states from deciding an election.
 
Roadvirus said:
You're just upset because Queen Hillary didn't win.
Hillary lost, so now the EC is bad/evil/obsolete and it needs to go.

The EC keeps a few states from deciding an election.
Click to expand...

Clinton was a poor choice for the Democrats, as is evidenced by the fact that a panting moron is now president. the EC did not prevent this, so i support the popular vote.
 
Carjosse said:
How exactly? It mathematically makes peoples votes from larger states matter less and in practice ensures that the vote of only a handful of swing states matter. Do you believe the vote of someone form California or Texas should count for less a person from any other state?
Click to expand...

And if we eliminate the EC, it will be the opposite.
 
Helix said:
i live in one. if you want more voters in your area, entice them to come there or have more kids.
Click to expand...

You may be interested in the proposed Wyoming rule. It expanses the federal house so that each states population is represented more equally, from 435 to 547. And in term that changes the electoral college numbers to be more equal as well.
 
jdog21 said:
You may be interested in the proposed Wyoming rule. It expanses the federal house so that each states population is represented more equally, from 435 to 547. And in term that changes the electoral college numbers to be more equal as well.
Click to expand...

i guess that i don't see a compelling reason to override the will of the majority for this specific office anymore.
 
Roadvirus said:
And if we eliminate the EC, it will be the opposite.
Click to expand...

How exactly is it a bad thing that everyone's vote will be equal and other states besides Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will matter?
 
WillyPete said:
The states can do whatever they want in terms of choosing how to split up their EC votes, but this doesn't seem like an improvement.

It potentially subverts the will of the state voters, potentially giving the EC votes to the candidate that didn't win in the state election based on their nationwide popularity. I guess it's a bid to draw campaign visits, since their vote will in theory always be relevent, but it undermines the entire idea of a state vote. Might as well not hold an election at all if you're just going to award your EC votes based on other state's elections.

I guess I don't expect these ideas to go anywhere. I know if I was a voter under such rules, and we voted clearly for one candidate, and then our EC vote when to the other candidate because he was more popular in other states, I wouldn't feel my wishes as a voter were properly represented.

I expect voters in those state will see the same.
Click to expand...

Meaning you don't like the idea of a President being elected by the majority of voters like every other political office in the entire country? How do you think most voters feel when a President is elected by a minority?
 
apdst said:
That's exactly what it does. W/O it, my vote for president would be worthless.
Click to expand...

You're backwards. Pure popular vote literally makes every vote equal.

Conversely, the electoral college makes the number of voters per electoral vote varies greatly. Louisiana, your alleged state, had ~1.9 million votes cast in 2016, with 8 electoral votes. Came out to 4.08 electoral votes per million votes cast. Meanwhile, California got 55 electoral votes with ~10.2 million votes cast. 5.39 electoral votes per million votes cast.

One million votes in California got more electoral votes than one million votes in Louisiana.
 
Roadvirus said:
And if we eliminate the EC, it will be the opposite.
Click to expand...

One vote in Alaska is worth the same as one vote in Ohio, if the EC is eliminated. How the **** can you claim it will be the opposite.
 
Anyone opposing a change in our electoral system supports minority rule. It's that simple.
Same thing with all the voter restrictions.
A minority of the country gets to tell everyone else they don't matter....at least when a majority rules numbers are on your side with minority rule it's a rigged system.

All those that love the EC probably hate affirmative action...think about it.
 
Roadvirus said:
So Democrat candidates can win by default? No thanks.
Click to expand...

No, because maybe then Republicans would stop being crazy ass-****s, eject Trump, and start making some ****ing sense. Then they wouldn't lose by default, as you put it.
 
iguanaman said:
Meaning you don't like the idea of a President being elected by the majority of voters like every other political office in the entire country? How do you think most voters feel when a President is elected by a minority?
Click to expand...

I mean that I'd feel ripped off if my state effectively changed my vote based on what peopel were voting like in another state. It decouples the people of the state from the process entirely. With the proposed changes, it no long matters how they vote, becasue the state will decide it's EC vote based on other states' results.

As far as the EC itself goes, different election, different rules. I don't really have a problem with the EC myself. Any changes should be carefully weighed.

I think the best way to consider it is that each state is actually electing the President, rather than the people. They each have semi-proportionate votes, and they get to pick how they are distributed themselves. They all have some form of vote to do that, mostly.

If we had direct nationwide elections for president, then the office would be controlled by the most populous states. It's hard to imagine we'd be better off if we only ever had presidents from New York and California.
 
WillyPete said:
I mean that I'd feel ripped off if my state effectively changed my vote based on what peopel were voting like in another state. It decouples the people of the state from the process entirely. With the proposed changes, it no long matters how they vote, becasue the state will decide it's EC vote based on other states' results.

As far as the EC itself goes, different election, different rules. I don't really have a problem with the EC myself. Any changes should be carefully weighed.

I think the best way to consider it is that each state is actually electing the President, rather than the people. They each have semi-proportionate votes, and they get to pick how they are distributed themselves. They all have some form of vote to do that, mostly.

If we had direct nationwide elections for president, then the office would be controlled by the most populous states. It's hard to imagine we'd be better off if we only ever had presidents from New York and California.
Click to expand...

New York, California, and Texas already form the biggest blocks of electoral votes. Do they control the election now?
 
Roadvirus said:
You're just upset because Queen Hillary didn't win.
Hillary lost, so now the EC is bad/evil/obsolete and it needs to go.

The EC keeps a few states from deciding an election.
Click to expand...

We didn't hear'em crying about the EC in '92 and '96.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom