• 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!

Debunkers VS Abolishing The Electoral College

Frigidweirdo said:
How convenient. I'm going to assume you have the evidence for this.

Funny how you talk about Democrats cheating when the Republicans are more prone to gerrymandering, and the Electoral College favors the Republicans and the Senate favors the Republicans too.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know why you're still trying with Glitch. He's an entirely dishonest actor, and a reality-denier, you're never going to do anything but hurt your own brain.
 
nekrodev said:
Honestly, I don't know why you're still trying with Glitch. He's an entirely dishonest actor, and a reality-denier, you're never going to do anything but hurt your own brain.
Click to expand...

At first it was okay, but the last few posts have gone right off the rails.

Mostly a lot of deflection and people trying to hide the fact that they have massive disdain for democracy because they know how badly the Republicans would do.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
How convenient. I'm going to assume you have the evidence for this.

Funny how you talk about Democrats cheating when the Republicans are more prone to gerrymandering, and the Electoral College favors the Republicans and the Senate favors the Republicans too.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is legal, which is more than Democrats can claim when they manufacture votes. The Electoral College favors candidates that are popular in every State, not just in Democrat-controlled sh*thole States, like California and New York. If the Democratic Party actually wanted to win an election they would stop nominating criminals and traitors to be President, but don't hold your breath. The Democratic Party would never in a million years do anything that actually benefited the nation that they hate so much.
 
Glitch said:
Gerrymandering is legal, which is more than Democrats can claim when they manufacture votes. The Electoral College favors candidates that are popular in every State, not just in Democrat-controlled sh*thole States, like California and New York. If the Democratic Party actually wanted to win an election they would stop nominating criminals and traitors to be President, but don't hold your breath. The Democratic Party would never in a million years do anything that actually benefited the nation that they hate so much.
Click to expand...

Yes, gerrymandering (read cheating) is legal. It's legal but not moral.

So the Republicans make laws that allow them to gerrymander and are like "we're not breaking the law". And then you're like "they're not breaking the law, so it's okay".

The EC does not favor candidates that are popular in every state. They favor candidates from the Republican or Democratic Parties. Which is ridiculous.

You literally have to get through the primaries of these two parties. Look at Bernie. He can't get anywhere because of this.

But it's funny how you justify Republican cheating and then are so damn partisan that you're like "owww, Democrats are bad for cheating...."

It gets tiring speaking to people who are so partisan they'd argue the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of cheese if their party supported it.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, gerrymandering (read cheating) is legal. It's legal but not moral.

So the Republicans make laws that allow them to gerrymander and are like "we're not breaking the law". And then you're like "they're not breaking the law, so it's okay".

The EC does not favor candidates that are popular in every state. They favor candidates from the Republican or Democratic Parties. Which is ridiculous.

You literally have to get through the primaries of these two parties. Look at Bernie. He can't get anywhere because of this.

But it's funny how you justify Republican cheating and then are so damn partisan that you're like "owww, Democrats are bad for cheating...."

It gets tiring speaking to people who are so partisan they'd argue the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of cheese if their party supported it.
Click to expand...

If you knew how gerrymandering worked you wouldn't be blaming just the Republicans. After every census Republicans and Democrats switch off on who gets to make redistricting changes as a result of the census. Meaning the Republicans may control the redistricting in your State from 2010 until 2019, but then the Democrats will make the redistricting changes between 2020 and 2029. The two major parties continually switch after every census. So blaming just one political party for gerrymandering demonstrates that you are ignorant of the process.

The Electors of the Electoral College are chosen by the State legislature. While 48 States give all of their Electoral College delegates to the political party that won the popular vote, there are two States that do not. Therefore you are mistaken when you claimed that the Electoral College does not favor candidates that are popular in every State, because it is demonstrable that they do.

It is only "cheating" when it violates the law, like Democrats do during every election. Since gerrymandering is both legal and required after every census, it cannot be construed as "cheating."

If you think I support either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party you are sadly mistaken, as usual.
 
Glitch said:
No, I would be fielding candidates who had a better chance of winning. When you nominate anti-American socialist losers, like Hillary or Kerry or Gore, then you can expect to lose frequently. When the Democratic Party starts nominating candidates that are not American hating criminals maybe they will start winning more elections, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. That is not likely to happen. The Democratic Party feeds on its hatred of the nation, so those are the kinds of candidates it always puts forward.
Click to expand...

What a steaming pile of crap. You're claiming that most Americans hate America.
That kind of stupid should be painful.
 
Grand Mal said:
What a steaming pile of crap. You're claiming that most Americans hate America.
That kind of stupid should be painful.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's Glitch lol

imagine calling Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry "socialist" and not even mentioning Bernie.
 
I watched the entire thing. They were trying to go for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 thing, but it was extremely annoying and most of their points were bad.

With that said, we SHOULD keep the electoral college, but reform it.

There are actually two main points to the electoral college:

(1) Maintain a balance between big state America and small state America. The trade-off so to speak was to create a system where the larger the population the more electoral college votes/congressional districts, and the smaller the population, the higher the vote per capita. Lets take the extreme as an example. Wyoming has about 577k residents and 3 electoral college votes, representing the 1 congressional district and 2 U.S Senators. California has about 40 million resident and 55 electoral college votes, representing the 53 congressional districts and 2 U.S Senators. If you we do the quick math, the vote per capita in California is about 72k, and 192k in Wyoming. In other words, a vote in Wyoming is worth about 2.5 times a single vote in California. This was not by accident, but to create a sense of balance: Live in a small state, your vote gets count a little more; live in a big state, your state gets more representation.

(2) This is becoming more and more irrelevant, but it is an important wing of electoral college system. Our framers believed in a checks and balance system. The EC was setup so experts could review the people's choice and see if the assigned candidate is actually qualified to be the next President. With technology becoming more and more present and a more educated population, more states are leaning toward making it illegal to be a faithless voter and voting for somebody they were not assigned.

Where I believe EC goes wrong is when states decided to follow WV's lead and go for winner-take-all systems. This created a system where it doesn't matter if you win by 2 votes or 2 million votes, you're still awarded the same projected EC votes. A better system would be to divide out the number of electoral votes by proportionality. As in, you win 42% of the vote, you get 42% of the electoral college votes. If there's any leftover electoral college votes, then you give it to the winner of the states popular vote.
 
BrotherFease said:
I watched the entire thing. They were trying to go for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 thing, but it was extremely annoying and most of their points were bad.

With that said, we SHOULD keep the electoral college, but reform it.

There are actually two main points to the electoral college:

(1) Maintain a balance between big state America and small state America. The trade-off so to speak was to create a system where the larger the population the more electoral college votes/congressional districts, and the smaller the population, the higher the vote per capita. Lets take the extreme as an example. Wyoming has about 577k residents and 3 electoral college votes, representing the 1 congressional district and 2 U.S Senators. California has about 40 million resident and 55 electoral college votes, representing the 53 congressional districts and 2 U.S Senators. If you we do the quick math, the vote per capita in California is about 72k, and 192k in Wyoming. In other words, a vote in Wyoming is worth about 2.5 times a single vote in California. This was not by accident, but to create a sense of balance: Live in a small state, your vote gets count a little more; live in a big state, your state gets more representation.

(2) This is becoming more and more irrelevant, but it is an important wing of electoral college system. Our framers believed in a checks and balance system. The EC was setup so experts could review the people's choice and see if the assigned candidate is actually qualified to be the next President. With technology becoming more and more present and a more educated population, more states are leaning toward making it illegal to be a faithless voter and voting for somebody they were not assigned.

Where I believe EC goes wrong is when states decided to follow WV's lead and go for winner-take-all systems. This created a system where it doesn't matter if you win by 2 votes or 2 million votes, you're still awarded the same projected EC votes. A better system would be to divide out the number of electoral votes by proportionality. As in, you win 42% of the vote, you get 42% of the electoral college votes. If there's any leftover electoral college votes, then you give it to the winner of the states popular vote.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point #1, however you should know that it has always been illegal for faithless electors. Most States will fine faithless electors (some States enforce those fines, some don't), but every State will bar them from ever being an elector again. In 2016 there were seven faithless electors, four of them from Washington State. They were fined $1,000 each. The last I heard they were appealing those fines. I don't know the end result.

Nebraska (5) and Maine (4) are the only two States that divide their electoral votes based upon the popular vote in their respective State districts. How States determine their electors is entirely up to the State legislatures. If they wanted to decide their State Electors by flipping a coin, they could and it would be perfectly constitutional. Frankly, I don't see a problem with the State-wide popular vote determining the winner-take-all, but that is up to each State to determine.
 
Glitch said:
I agree with your point #1, however you should know that it has always been illegal for faithless electors. Most States will fine faithless electors (some States enforce those fines, some don't), but every State will bar them from ever being an elector again. In 2016 there were seven faithless electors, four of them from Washington State. They were fined $1,000 each. The last I heard they were appealing those fines. I don't know the end result.

Nebraska (5) and Maine (4) are the only two States that divide their electoral votes based upon the popular vote in their respective State districts. How States determine their electors is entirely up to the State legislatures. If they wanted to decide their State Electors by flipping a coin, they could and it would be perfectly constitutional. Frankly, I don't see a problem with the State-wide popular vote determining the winner-take-all, but that is up to each State to determine.
Click to expand...

Not every state, per Wikipedia and google. Texas does not punish electors from straying from their assigned candidate. Neither does the Dakotas. There are 26 states and Washington D.C with laws against faithless voters.

Type into google: "Is it illegal to be a faithless voter". This is what pops up
Are faithless electors punished?
In many states, electors are completely free to vote however they choose. In 26 states and Washington, D.C., though, faithless electors can face a fine or other punishment, though the precedent is murky. None of the 157 faithless electors in American history have ever faced prosecution.
Click to expand...

You think it is fair that a candidate wins by less than 1,000 votes gets all the electoral college votes? I live in upstate NY, a more moderate portion of NY. There's no incentive for me to vote in presidential elections because NYC and Albany dictates how our elections go. What about the liberal portions of Texas and Tennesee? Why are their voices drowned out? How about the conservative sections of California? Winner-Take-All systems do not at all reflect the pulse of the state. The only reason why you would justify W-T-A is that it makes it easier for presidential nominees to campaign. They don't have to worry about the safe states, and can focus on the swing states.
 
BrotherFease said:
Not every state, per Wikipedia and google. Texas does not punish electors from straying from their assigned candidate. Neither does the Dakotas. There are 26 states and Washington D.C with laws against faithless voters.

Type into google: "Is it illegal to be a faithless voter". This is what pops up


You think it is fair that a candidate wins by less than 1,000 votes gets all the electoral college votes? I live in upstate NY, a more moderate portion of NY. There's no incentive for me to vote in presidential elections because NYC and Albany dictates how our elections go. What about the liberal portions of Texas and Tennesee? Why are their voices drowned out? How about the conservative sections of California? Winner-Take-All systems do not at all reflect the pulse of the state. The only reason why you would justify W-T-A is that it makes it easier for presidential nominees to campaign. They don't have to worry about the safe states, and can focus on the swing states.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There are 26 States, and DC, that fine faithless electors. Some enforce those fines, some don't. Every State, and DC, have laws barring faithless electors from becoming electors again.

It is the State legislatures who determine the President. In 1824 those State legislatures decided to allow a popular vote make the determination for them. Today, all but two States allow a 50% + 1 popular vote determine who gets all of their Electoral College votes. If you are unhappy with that arrangement your beef is with your State legislature.

The States do not have to allow a vote at all. They could constitutionally abolish the popular vote for President tomorrow if they so desired. It is entirely up to the State legislatures to determine who becomes the next President.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
If you knew how gerrymandering worked you wouldn't be blaming just the Republicans. After every census Republicans and Democrats switch off on who gets to make redistricting changes as a result of the census. Meaning the Republicans may control the redistricting in your State from 2010 until 2019, but then the Democrats will make the redistricting changes between 2020 and 2029. The two major parties continually switch after every census. So blaming just one political party for gerrymandering demonstrates that you are ignorant of the process.

The Electors of the Electoral College are chosen by the State legislature. While 48 States give all of their Electoral College delegates to the political party that won the popular vote, there are two States that do not. Therefore you are mistaken when you claimed that the Electoral College does not favor candidates that are popular in every State, because it is demonstrable that they do.

It is only "cheating" when it violates the law, like Democrats do during every election. Since gerrymandering is both legal and required after every census, it cannot be construed as "cheating."

If you think I support either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party you are sadly mistaken, as usual.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming just the Republicans for gerrymandering. However the Republicans are the worst offenders. It's ridiculous and it's cheating no matter who does it.

Oh, and I'm not a Democrat. I hate both parties.

And no, I'm not wrong that the EC doesn't favor candidates that are popular in every state.

The problem is you're assuming that Hillary and Trump were somehow popular. They weren't. However they got the most votes (by a long way) because they're the candidates of the two viable parties.

Do you know what negative voting is?

It's when people vote AGAINST a candidate, rather than for a candidate. In Germany they have FPTP and PR on the same day. 8% of people switched in 2017 from large parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR< and that's when there are 6 viable parties.
 
Glitch said:
Incorrect. There are 26 States, and DC, that fine faithless electors. Some enforce those fines, some don't. Every State, and DC, have laws barring faithless electors from becoming electors again.

It is the State legislatures who determine the President. In 1824 those State legislatures decided to allow a popular vote make the determination for them. Today, all but two States allow a 50% + 1 popular vote determine who gets all of their Electoral College votes. If you are unhappy with that arrangement your beef is with your State legislature.

The States do not have to allow a vote at all. They could constitutionally abolish the popular vote for President tomorrow if they so desired. It is entirely up to the State legislatures to determine who becomes the next President.
Click to expand...

Link please. My understanding is that states determine whether there electors are pledged or non-pledge.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I'm not blaming just the Republicans for gerrymandering. However the Republicans are the worst offenders. It's ridiculous and it's cheating no matter who does it.

Oh, and I'm not a Democrat. I hate both parties.

And no, I'm not wrong that the EC doesn't favor candidates that are popular in every state.

The problem is you're assuming that Hillary and Trump were somehow popular. They weren't. However they got the most votes (by a long way) because they're the candidates of the two viable parties.

Do you know what negative voting is?

It's when people vote AGAINST a candidate, rather than for a candidate. In Germany they have FPTP and PR on the same day. 8% of people switched in 2017 from large parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR< and that's when there are 6 viable parties.
Click to expand...

When determining the popularity of a candidate only the vote counts, not your opinion. The fact that both Trump and Hillary got the most votes demonstrates that they were the two most popular candidates for their respective political parties. I didn't vote for either, but I can accept reality. Next you will be telling me about imaginary Russians influencing elections.
 
BrotherFease said:
Link please. My understanding is that states determine whether there electors are pledged or non-pledge.
Click to expand...

You provided it. Or didn't you read your Wikipedia source? Those 26 States, and DC, impose fines against faithless electors. No State, or DC, will ever accept a faithless elector again.
 
Glitch said:
When determining the popularity of a candidate only the vote counts, not your opinion. The fact that both Trump and Hillary got the most votes demonstrates that they were the two most popular candidates for their respective political parties. I didn't vote for either, but I can accept reality. Next you will be telling me about imaginary Russians influencing elections.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's make this simple so you can easily understand it. :roll:

Are you telling me the Russians didn't try and influence the election? There's evidence that they did.

You think you can accept reality, that's not what's coming across in your posts here. What's coming across is that you don't want to consider more complex issues, that you want those issues to fit into your view of the world.

Sorry, but this is getting tedious.
 
Glitch said:
You provided it. Or didn't you read your Wikipedia source? Those 26 States, and DC, impose fines against faithless electors. No State, or DC, will ever accept a faithless elector again.
Click to expand...

You said that an elector which doesn't vote for their assigned elector cannot vote again. I see no source showing that.

What I pointed to the fact that states determine whether or not, an elector must vote for their assigned candidate.
 
BrotherFease said:
You said that an elector which doesn't vote for their assigned elector cannot vote again. I see no source showing that.

What I pointed to the fact that states determine whether or not, an elector must vote for their assigned candidate.
Click to expand...

No State legislature will re-certify any elector who violated their pledge and became a faithless elector. Electors are not required by law to vote for anyone. However, they make a pledge to vote for a particular candidate. If they don't vote for the candidate that they had pledged to vote for, they will never be an elector in that State (or DC) again.

States, and DC, are only interested in electors who can be trusted.
 
Glitch said:
No State legislature will re-certify any elector who violated their pledge and became a faithless elector. Electors are not required by law to vote for anyone. However, they make a pledge to vote for a particular candidate. If they don't vote for the candidate that they had pledged to vote for, they will never be an elector in that State (or DC) again.

States, and DC, are only interested in electors who can be trusted.
Click to expand...

Okay I see what you're saying, but my original point was that electors were suppose to (originally) vote for whoever they wanted and have a great debate at the state capital.

I understand that I should have said "unpledged" rather than "faithless".

You never responded to my point is why winner-take-all systems are good. In other words, why is it a good thing that my vote in NY shouldn't count, when downstate overrules what my region says? Why is that liberal voices in Texas and Tennessee should be ignored? When you make it proportional, then you better reflect the pulse of the state.

I am not going to argue under a different system, Gore and Clinton would be President or that Thomas Jefferson or Glover Cleveland would have never lost re-election.
 
Renae said:

I love these guys, absolutely shred the National Popular vote compact movement
Click to expand...


The entire "collection of 50 separate states crap also needs to be abolished. It's insane, costly and helps to drive the divide.
 
BrotherFease said:
Okay I see what you're saying, but my original point was that electors were suppose to (originally) vote for whoever they wanted and have a great debate at the state capital.

I understand that I should have said "unpledged" rather than "faithless".

You never responded to my point is why winner-take-all systems are good. In other words, why is it a good thing that my vote in NY shouldn't count, when downstate overrules what my region says? Why is that liberal voices in Texas and Tennessee should be ignored? When you make it proportional, then you better reflect the pulse of the state.

I am not going to argue under a different system, Gore and Clinton would be President or that Thomas Jefferson or Glover Cleveland would have never lost re-election.
Click to expand...

I never said a winner-take-all system was either good or bad. I said it was up to the State legislatures to make that determination, and I don't have a problem with that.

With regard to proportional representation, Congress abolished that notion with the Apportionment Act of 1911. Since Congress fixed the number of House Representatives at 435, regardless of the size of the population, it can no longer be said that there is proportional representation in the US. At least not since 1911. Representation-wise, your vote is worth about four times less than what your grandfather's vote was worth.
 
noonereal said:
The entire "collection of 50 separate states crap also needs to be abolished. It's insane, costly and helps to drive the divide.
Click to expand...

You are really trying to be the next calamity aren't you?
 
noonereal said:
The entire "collection of 50 separate states crap also needs to be abolished. It's insane, costly and helps to drive the divide.
Click to expand...

I agree but it will never happen. It gives the Repubs too much of an advantage and with the rise of Don and now not caring how low they’ll go, it’s a pipe dream...
 
Glitch said:
I never said a winner-take-all system was either good or bad. I said it was up to the State legislatures to make that determination, and I don't have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

My question was SHOULD electoral college votes by broken apart proportionally. I pointed to how the electoral college votes works against political minorities in states and how they do not represent the pulse of the state. You never bothered to address it.

I am fine with having an electoral college, but I am NOT okay with the concept that LA, San Fran, and San Diego control presidential elections for California or downstate overriding upstate NY's views, or the liberal voices within Texas being ignored. This creates a system where most of America and minority political views gets ignored. I just can't see how this is justified.

Going toward a National Popular Vote will not kill democracy or our republic setup, but it will change how political campaigns are done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom