• 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!

Movement to override the electoral college advancing, moving toward 209/270 votes

Seems that the compromise here is to divide the Electorial votes based on how each state popular votes went, meaning if 60% of popular votes go to one candidate and 40% went to another then that is how the EC votes get divided.
 
Casper said:
Seems that the compromise here is to divide the Electorial votes based on how each state popular votes went, meaning if 60% of popular votes go to one candidate and 40% went to another then that is how the EC votes get divided.
Click to expand...

Again, that is up to each State to decide. Both Maine and Nebraska already employ your solution, but the remaining 48 States and DC do not.
 
Casper said:
Seems that the compromise here is to divide the Electorial votes based on how each state popular votes went, meaning if 60% of popular votes go to one candidate and 40% went to another then that is how the EC votes get divided.
Click to expand...

That is unlikely to happen in either solid red or solid blue states - why would those state's legislators/governors wish to reduce their own party's EC vote total?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is unlikely to happen in either solid red or solid blue states - why would those state's legislators/governors wish to reduce their own party's EC vote total?
Click to expand...

What constitutes a solid red or solid blue State? Is it determined by who the State elects for President? Alaska, for example, voted for Republican candidates in every presidential election since becoming a State, except for 1964 when Alaska voted for LBJ instead of Goldwater. However, the Governors of Alaska have varied considerably, alternating between Republican, Democrat, and Independent Governors. The current Governor of Alaska is Republican, the last one was Independent (a former Democrat trying to pretend to be something else, and failing). In the State legislature we have Republicans who caucus with Democrats.
 
Glitch said:
What constitutes a solid red or solid blue State? Is it determined by who the State elects for President? Alaska, for example, voted for Republican candidates in every presidential election since becoming a State, except for 1964 when Alaska voted for LBJ instead of Goldwater. However, the Governors of Alaska have varied considerably, alternating between Republican, Democrat, and Independent Governors. The current Governor of Alaska is Republican, the last one was Independent (a former Democrat trying to pretend to be something else, and failing). In the State legislature we have Republicans who caucus with Democrats.
Click to expand...

One in which the states legislative majority party matches it's normal POTUS party selection. They have nothing to gain by allowing less than 100% of their EC votes to go to their own party's POTUS candidate.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
One in which the states legislative majority party matches it's normal POTUS party selection. They have nothing to gain by allowing less than 100% of their EC votes to go to their own party's POTUS candidate.
Click to expand...

That doesn't help. In 2012 the Alaska State legislature was split, with 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats in the House and 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats in the Senate, and a Republican Governor. Yet they picked electors who voted for Romney in 2012. There have also been times when the State legislature was a Democrat majority with a Democrat governor and yet they still selected electors who voted for the Republican presidential candidate. This is was because the law states all electoral votes in Alaska goes to the winner of the State popular vote.

So it would appear that "sold red" or "solid blue" would have more to do with the vote of the people than the State legislatures. At least as long as the States allow a popular vote to be the deciding factor in determining their electors.
 
jamesrage said:
Again the electoral was put into place so that more populated states don't all the say.
Click to expand...
Nope, nope, wrong.

The Senate was created with 2 Senators per state to mollify the smaller states.

The EC was not designed to give smaller states a big say. Hamilton outlined those reasons in Federalist #68 -- it was to put the decision in the hands of elites; to thwart possible foreign interference; and as a last-gasp mechanism to keep someone totally unfit from being President. He said nothing about the size or population of states.

It's deliberately undemocratic -- but unlike the Senate, it was not designed to check the power of larger states. If that was the goal, then (for example) each state would get two electors.
 
Glitch said:
Again, that is up to each State to decide. Both Maine and Nebraska already employ your solution, but the remaining 48 States and DC do not.
Click to expand...

Agree, but they should if they truely care about the voice of their Citizens. Ethics in today's world would go a long way, IMHO.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is unlikely to happen in either solid red or solid blue states - why would those state's legislators/governors wish to reduce their own party's EC vote total?
Click to expand...

Well, if a State is trending to a change in color actual real world discussion can take place. Look for solutions, everything else is part of the problem
 
Glitch said:
Again, that is up to each State to decide. Both Maine and Nebraska already employ your solution, but the remaining 48 States and DC do not.
Click to expand...

That's not what Maine and Nebraska do. They divide it out based on who won each district.

We understand as the constitution is currently formatted, but that doesn't that should be the policy.
 
Greenbeard said:
And yet elections are the approach we’ve settled on. If we want to forgo elections in favor of the system laid out in Federalist 68, okay. But if we’re opting for an election instead, it makes little sense for the winner not to win.
Click to expand...

Not all elections have or must follow the rules you wish in order to be accepted as an election. We didn’t just settle on elections. We settled on the electoral college. Because it makes sense for the entire country not to be ruled by a bunch of stuck up self centered city slickers who’ve maybe once in their life spent a weekend in the country.
 
Visbek said:
Nope, nope, wrong.

The Senate was created with 2 Senators per state to mollify the smaller states.

The EC was not designed to give smaller states a big say. Hamilton outlined those reasons in Federalist #68 -- it was to put the decision in the hands of elites; to thwart possible foreign interference; and as a last-gasp mechanism to keep someone totally unfit from being President. He said nothing about the size or population of states.

It's deliberately undemocratic -- but unlike the Senate, it was not designed to check the power of larger states. If that was the goal, then (for example) each state would get two electors.
Click to expand...
1.The electoral college was designed to give less populated states a say.
2.Giving the majority of votes in your state away because a handful of other states voted for the other candidate is undemocratic no matter how you try to spin it.
 
jamesrage said:
1.The electoral college was designed to give less populated states a say.
2.Giving the majority of votes in your state away because a handful of other states voted for the other candidate is undemocratic no matter how you try to spin it.
Click to expand...

It really depends on how they go about it. States can certainly abolish the popular vote for President any time they please. However, as the Supreme Court stated in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000):

Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, Florida may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another.
Click to expand...

Once a State decides to use the popular vote as a means for determining its electors, it may not disenfranchise those voters by later using the national popular vote count, or some other means, by which to determine their electors. They must use the popular vote of their State. Of course, they can always abolish the popular vote completely, then they can do whatever they please to select their electors.
 
jamesrage said:
1.The electoral college was designed to give less populated states a say.
Click to expand...
Repetition is not an argument. Nor is making assertions without proof.


2.Giving the majority of votes in your state away because a handful of other states voted for the other candidate is undemocratic no matter how you try to spin it.
Click to expand...
sigh... No, it isn't. It's more democratic, because it significantly increases the chances (if not ensures) that the winner of the national popular vote also wins the EC.
 
jamesrage said:
Again the electoral was put into place so that more populated states don't all the say.Its also a check on the people to ensure they don't immediately vote themselves a king
Click to expand...

A lie that serves right wing power, nothing else. The E.C. went hand in hand with the 3/5ths compromise. It wasn't to protect small states. It was to preserve the power of slave slaves, specifically.

Slavery and the 3/5ths are gone. No wonder you want to rebrand the E.C., for otherwise one might ask "why shouldn't it have gone right along with the 3/5ths and slavery"?

So you all end up claiming it was about "small" states. Nope. It was about slave states.
 
Mr Person said:
A lie that serves right wing power, nothing else. The E.C. went hand in hand with the 3/5ths compromise. It wasn't to protect small states. It was to preserve the power of slave slaves, specifically.

Slavery and the 3/5ths are gone. No wonder you want to rebrand the E.C., for otherwise one might ask "why shouldn't it have gone right along with the 3/5ths and slavery"?

So you all end up claiming it was about "small" states. Nope. It was about slave states.
Click to expand...

The 3/5ths compromise was because none slave states didn't want the slaves counted.This was due to the fact the census is used to apportion representation. Why should people with absolutely no rights what so ever be used to apportion representation.Because of the slave population it gave slave states a much higher population than the non-slave states. Thats why there was the 3/5ths compromise. The Electoral college is still about giving smaller populated states a say.
 
jamesrage said:
The 3/5ths compromise was because none slave states didn't want the slaves counted.This was due to the fact the census is used to apportion representation. Why should people with absolutely no rights what so ever be used to apportion representation.Because of the slave population it gave slave states a much higher population than the non-slave states. Thats why there was the 3/5ths compromise. The Electoral college is still about giving smaller populated states a say.
Click to expand...

Scumbag slavers would see their State double or triple in population yet maintain control of electoral outcomes. They lost and stood to gain control of congress.

The reality was black people had no voice. No black person was being elected let alone allowed to vote in hicksville.

3/5th was a racist solution to the racism problem that persists today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom