• 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!

Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

Keep Electoral College or have direct elections?

  • The Electoral College works, keep it.

    Votes: 41 45.1%
  • The presidency should be determined by direct national vote.

    Votes: 39 42.9%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 11 12.1%

  • Total voters
    91
Its worth considering IMHO. I think we'd also need a runoff system so the President has at least 50% plus 1 vote. And since US citizenship will become the new prerequisite to vote for President and not state citizenship; Puerto Ricans, Virgin Islanders, Guam citizens and American Samoans would get the right to vote for POTUS, something they've wanted for a while.

On the downside, we'd still have "irrelevant" parts of the country as nearly all the focus could be on reaching major metropolitan areas who's values and concerns are often sharply different than rural America.

Direct elections does seem for fair however; one man, one vote.

I agree with the run-off premise. Very much. Otherwise the "spoiler" 3rd parties tend to make the overall less popular candidate the winner.
 
We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.

Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?
I really don't know. I have been in favor of abolishing the electoral college most of my life, but in just the last few years have seen good arguments for keeping it. Hence, my opinion now is "I don't know".
 
I have to say that I agree that a 51% majority factor is slightly unerving. Any time 51% can impose a decision on 49%...it doesn't quite sit right with me.

Not to mention direct democracy is not such a grand thing. Things like amendments that can get voted on because of direct democracy is idiotic and they do that in my state. It is a dumb idea. I can understand voting for people, but I still don't quite like the idea.
 
well since this is fantasy my dream would be to not have any "parties" but oh well

Direct Vote
4+ candidates minimum (3 separate parties)
2nd place is VP
3rd lace leader of the house

reform House and Senate terms to match

if we still have parties then no majority would be allowed in either house or senate



hopefully by default this FORCES bi-partisanship :shrug:
 
.)I have to say that I agree that a 51% majority factor is slightly unerving. Any time 51% can impose a decision on 49%...it doesn't quite sit right with me.

Not to mention direct democracy is not such a grand thing. Things like amendments that can get voted on because of direct democracy is idiotic and they do that in my state. It is a dumb idea. I can understand voting for people, but I still don't quite like the idea.

well i agree with what you are saying but for presidency id be ok with it

the rest of the government would still be im place and working because yes 51% making all decesions for the 49% would be bad
 
Every single vote counts now.

They certainly don't count equally.

Only California and 19 others would count and the candidates wouldn't be visiting New Hampshire, or Iowa.

That is nonsense since California does not vote as a block. One cannot count on ALL of California or all of any state. If one only courts part of the country, one will lose, because no one can win all, or even more than a 60 or 70 percent lead of any given geographic area. A candidate would have to appeal to the whole nation.
 
I disagree, if im a canidate this would only happen if the super majority of people in those states like me and did NOT like my opponent.

otherwise i would have to go to little places also

for example if the 20 states of your picking had 100million voters and say 60 of them liked me by polling thats great

but

that leaves 40 million votes and that other guy is DEFINITELY going other places like Iowa (if he wants to win) to try and get another 21million votes so i will HAVE to go also to stop him

im not saying its impossible im saying the strs have to really be aligned to make it happen and theres a slim chance it could happen today too (places being ignored)

I think a direct vote would be AWESOME BUT also make it for a minimum of 3 maybe more candidates and second place should be the vice :D

It's prudent to go where they can hit the most voters at once. There is a possibility to cobble together a bunch of small states, but the cost would be enormous, better to mine votes in more populous areas.
 
It's prudent to go where they can hit the most voters at once. There is a possibility to cobble together a bunch of small states, but the cost would be enormous, better to mine votes in more populous areas.

in theory I agree but you have to be "winning" where those most voters are but


what does the person behind in the polls do (loser) do? he has to go else where

what do the candidates do if its close? they both have to go else where

I think the lower populations would get just as much attention as they do now if not more in some cases
 
But you still get electoral votes based on population anyhow. The way it stands now, because the liberals outnumber the conservatives in California, every vote in California will almost always go to the liberal candidate. My vote doesn't count because all electoral votes are going to Obama regardless.

Why vote for president at all?

You just pointed out the solution to the problem with the the Electorial college. I live in California it is winner take all. Thats why its seems as though your vote dont count. Make it to where the winner gets the amount of delegates they won plus two and the loser gets their delegates. Winner take all is a bastardization of a very good compromise. Nebraska has proprotional representation as does Minnesota I believe. Not positive on Minnisota. Anyway even though Nebraska is very conservative the Omaha Lincoln area is not so much and they generally get a represinative at the College. If winner take all was eliminated I have feeling people would be more inclined to vote because it would actually count for something. It would also put many more states in play as you would have more to make up for the delegates you didnt get. California would go from 54 delegates to 30 for the winner. The winner would have to win else where now to get the votes they need to win office.
 
They certainly don't count equally.



That is nonsense since California does not vote as a block. One cannot count on ALL of California or all of any state. If one only courts part of the country, one will lose, because no one can win all, or even more than a 60 or 70 percent lead of any given geographic area. A candidate would have to appeal to the whole nation.

You miss my point. Of course because California does not vote as a block, candidates would focus where the most votes are to had for the least campaign money. California's voters would be courted to a much greater extent than they are now. Romney has hardly visited there because 60% of the vote went to Obama the last time. He hasn't really made his case there. Take away the EC and the next Republican candidate will spend loads more time there, taking away from the states he is spending more time in now. I like that they have to spend time in places like Nevada and Ohio and such.

Texas would be the same story. Though a red state now, there is no serious contest there for Democrats.

They wouldn't appeal to the whole nation, just those with the most votes to offer.
 
You miss my point. Of course because California does not vote as a block, candidates would focus where the most votes are to had for the least campaign money. California's voters would be courted to a much greater extent than they are now. Romney has hardly visited there because 60% of the vote went to Obama the last time. He hasn't really made his case there. Take away the EC and the next Republican candidate will spend loads more time there, taking away from the states he is spending more time in now. I like that they have to spend time in places like Nevada and Ohio and such.

Texas would be the same story. Though a red state now, there is no serious contest there for Democrats.

They wouldn't appeal to the whole nation, just those with the most votes to offer.


what you are missing is the loser will always have to do this will they not? what would make them not go else where if they are losing in the pools just like now?
 
We know that it is possible for the candidate receiving the most votes to lose (Gore) and the voters in all but 7 states are now irrelevant to the candidates. The strategy of both is to forget about recieving a majority of votes and instead only care about the delegate count of 7 states.

Do you think that regardless of the election outcome, there should be a constitutional amendment to have national elections (president) decided by direct democracy in which the winner is determined by which candidate received more votes nationwide?
I see the only way for us to have a fair election is to get rid of it.

As it stands, if you're a democrat in texas, or a republican in new york, you have no vote.
 
From a previous Poll of the same.
I voted no. I am too lazy to explain why, when someone has already done so in an older thread:

Ah, because the State itself needs to be recognized separately from the People?
We are a Nation of States, not a Nation of individuals.

Why should a minority of States with the largest populations be able to dictate to a majority of States who will be the President?
The Electoral College strikes a balance. Does it not?

No, the Electoral College serves a purpose.
The People were never meant to vote for the President.
To allow this would be unfair/unequal representation of the States.
The People already have their representation through Congress.

I again have to agree with emdash.


"From the Electoral College's site."
... The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. ...
 
... The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. ...
Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.
 
Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.
Exactly. Because the President represents the States of the Union, and the States choose.
In the absurd; If a State wanted it to be contingent on the date of a "smelt run" it could.
 
Exactly. Because the President represents the States of the Union, and the States choose.
In the absurd; If a State wanted it to be contingent on the date of a "smelt run" it could.
I usually use a hand of poker as my example.
 
Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.

And is that something you advocate or support?
 
Except that nothing in the Constitution necessitates that the people vote for the electors - states have the plenary power to choose their electors however they see fit, and need not consult the people in doing so.

And the electors are not required to vote the way the people they are supposed to be representing want them to. There have been times in history where electors have decided screw the people, we're voting the way we want.

That's ridiculous.
 
Only California and 19 others would count and the candidates wouldn't be visiting New Hampshire, or Iowa.
Any way you do it, some states are going to be looked over. That's just reality. I think more states will be focused on though through a popular vote method though.
 
I usually use a hand of poker as my example.
The example that I received was a coin toss. It was given to me by an eighth grade history teacher in the Great Lakes Region 30+ years ago.
 
And the electors are not required to vote the way the people they are supposed to be representing want them to. There have been times in history where electors have decided screw the people, we're voting the way we want.

That's ridiculous.
WTF?

They represent the State as an entity, not the people.
Just because a State allows the people to vote on it, doesn't mean they have to (by The Constitution), or even should.
Which is why the State can choose how they want the Electors to vote.

The People are represented by The Congress.
The States were supposed to be represented by the Senate.
A compromise of Electors was done for the President who represents the Union of the States.
 
Every single vote counts now.

My doesn't because I live in the south and my state is REd and will remain so. SO the EC will only give my state to Romney. This is true of blue states and reps as well. THis idea of every vote counts does not jive wiht the reality of the EC and 2000 proved it.
 
I left off another discussed alternative of the President being selected by the members of the House of Representatives of Congress. This would be indirect democracy but on a nationwide basis. Many countries have such a system.

Again bias by association. If the house is rep then the Pres is rep where is the representation in that? People elect politicians but politicians should never elect themselves. That is not what this country is about.
 
And the electors are not required to vote the way the people they are supposed to be representing want them to. There have been times in history where electors have decided screw the people, we're voting the way we want.

That's ridiculous.

There have been 3 such cases as I remember. the last was 2000
 
I think that at the beginning of the national campaign cycle each party who has enough certified voters in each state should be allowed on the ballot. They will have their runoffs to determine the one candidate (plus VP) for each party. then during the summer we have national primaries and the top 4 or 5 get invited to the debates after very quick party conventions.

The money for this coming from a $1 mandatory donation from taxpayers which is spread equally among all parties. This money will be every year so there will be plenty.

Debates should be controlled as suggested in other threads.

The final national election would tell us who is making the greatest impact on the voters and who are the up and coming parties. I think this is valuable information.
 
Back
Top Bottom