• 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 electoral college

How should presidents be elected

  • Popular vote

    Votes: 27 45.8%

  • Electoral college

    Votes: 32 54.2%
  • Total voters
    59
Smeagol said:
US Senators are not supposed to represent the people directly but rather the state governments, which are in theory equals regardless of differing populations.
Click to expand...

It used to be more than theory until the 17th Amendment was passed.
 
sangha said:
I am seriously making that argument.

Your claim that the president can affect the states is true, and I've said nothing to the contrary. However, the president makes decisions on the basis of how it affects the nation, and should not be considering it's effect on one individual state, or giving those effects an undue influence on his policies because the state has disproportionate political power.

And I never said that a state should not consider the impact a president can have upon their state. They can consider it all they want. I'm just saying that the president should not be coerced into giving that state undue influence due to its' having electoral power disproportionate to its' size and population

And yes, I know what the small states wanted. However, the reason why their wants were addressed was in order to persuade them to join the union. Now that they've ratified the constitution, and have enjoyed the benefits of their advantage for two centuries, I see no reason why we should not consider the matter settled, and revoke that advantage.
Click to expand...

All you are asking is that the President consider the minority to a much lesser degree. That is irresponsible decision-making. Why should the most populated states essentially be the only ones that get the ear to the President and the federal government when the public policies affect everyone? Our leaders need additional incentives to consider the minority so that the majority does not completely dominate the government from top to bottom. By removing their electoral power and their representative strength, all you do is anger them, and deprive them of a voice. Those problems do not go away once they join the Union.

Frankly, when I hear people from big states complain about this, to me it reminds me of certain individuals who want to gobble up all the slices of the pie instead of sacrificing one, maybe 2 slices for those that don't get much to eat during dinner.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the electoral college. I don't see why my vote should count for 1/10 of the vote from some guy in Iowa. I'd love to see it gone, but the guy in Iowa whose vote is worth ten times my vote would never let it fly. Nor would his neighbors. Chances to ratify a constitutional amendment is nil. People like having more power that others. Nobody will willingly give that up.
 
Fiddytree said:
All you are asking is that the President consider the minority to a much lesser degree. That is irresponsible decision-making. Why should the most populated states essentially be the only ones that get the ear to the President and the federal government when the public policies affect everyone? Our leaders need additional incentives to consider the minority so that the majority does not completely dominate the government from top to bottom. By removing their electoral power and their representative strength, all you do is anger them, and deprive them of a voice. Those problems do not go away once they join the Union.
Click to expand...

Yes, I want the smaller states to have a smaller amount of influence in setting national policy. That is not the same as saying they should have no influence, as you imply.
 
sangha said:
Yes, I want the smaller states to have a smaller amount of influence in setting national policy. That is not the same as saying they should have no influence, as you imply.
Click to expand...

So, can we agree that as it stands right now, smaller states have little influence in the national pull of Presidential campaigns or in Congressional legislation? Then you want to decrease that even further, because it is more democratic, more one man=one vote?
 
I vote hybrid. Electoral college BUT a 50% + 1 vote requirement to be elected.

My reasoning is that if you know there will be a runoff election because 3rd party candidates siphon off votes and prevent either candidate from reaching 50, you can make a statement vote in the first election and then a compromise vote in the second. I think it would give 3rd party candidates a fighting chance.
 
My God you guys have a complicated system of government. Sounds like the whole thing was designed by lawyers.
Is anyone in the USA comfortable that their system is working properly?
 
Grand Mal said:
My God you guys have a complicated system of government. Sounds like the whole thing was designed by lawyers.
Click to expand...

It was. We still have more lawyers in government than most nations. Though, I would say that the one that seemed to intimidate me the most was monarchical France...well, that is unless someone that is French can say that it is still just as complicated.

Is anyone in the USA comfortable that their system is working properly?
Click to expand...

You will frequently come across broad-stroke complaints, but with more careful thought or just through the consequences of enormous change, they would probably find out that it works decently or well as it exists.
 
Fiddytree said:
It was. We still have more lawyers in government than most nations. Though, I would say that the one that seemed to intimidate me the most was monarchical France...well, that is unless someone that is French can say that it is still just as complicated.
Click to expand...

It's not just the designers. It's the design. Why would the people in a country that calls itself a democracy not be able to vote for the president?
You guys need to decide whether you're a republic or a united states.



You will frequently come across broad-stroke complaints, but with more careful thought or just through the consequences of enormous change, they would probably find out that it works decently or well as it exists.[/QUOTE]
 
Fiddytree said:
So, can we agree that as it stands right now, smaller states have little influence in the national pull of Presidential campaigns or in Congressional legislation? Then you want to decrease that even further, because it is more democratic, more one man=one vote?
Click to expand...

No, we can't agree on that. IMO, small and rural states like Iowa have too much influence. In some regards, more power than states that are much larger

And I don't see how requiring the electoral votes of a state to go to the presidential candidates in proportion to the vote in that state will reduce the states power in Congress. They will still have just as many senators as the large states have and just as many representatives in the House.
 
Grand Mal said:
My God you guys have a complicated system of government. Sounds like the whole thing was designed by lawyers.
Is anyone in the USA comfortable that their system is working properly?
Click to expand...

Is anyone in the world comfortable that their particular system works properly?
 
mvymvy said:
For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, the proportional method falls far short of the National Popular Vote plan. The proportional method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness, or voter equality.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say sharply. Even when Ross Perot got 20% of the vote in 1992 Clinton would've only been 3 votes short from avoiding that. I wouldn't want someone who won any smaller of a plurality than that to be elected president anyway without sending it to the House or having a runoff.
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

With National Popular Vote, the Electoral College still would vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

National Popular Vote guarantees the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
Click to expand...

Voters want that guarantee, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's a bad thing for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

Even if all 50 states and DC used a proportional method, the presidency would not be guaranteed to the candidate with the most votes. Voters do not want any possibility of an electoral vote tie leaving Congress (with less than 10% approval rating now) to decide a presidential election, with each state having one vote, (with equally divided states being unable to cast a vote).
Click to expand...

To be honest I don't care what most Americans want. If they want to make the President elected by popular vote, by all means let them, but I still don't think it is the best system.

A constitutional amendment to change all states to a proportional method could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting a constitutional amendment.

A compact, such as you're suggesting, to have ANY chance of succeeding, would need a trigger of all 50 states and DC enacting it before it would go into effect.
Click to expand...

Yes I said it wasn't particularly feasible, just that it would be the best system. I prefer the current system to a national popular vote as well.

National Popular Vote is what Americans want. It only requires states with 270 electoral votes to enact it, before going into effect, and it guarantees what most Americans want -- the candidate with the most votes will win, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't really care what most Americans want. The presidency is different than every other election in the country. The president is not elected by the people at large, and IMO that is the way it should be.
 
The Founders generally held democracy in contempt, and you don't live in one. You get that, right?

You live in a federated democratic republic, which is very different.

Did you have some desire to live in a province of California? Or of New York? Or of Florida?

Because without the Electoral College, and by extension, one must assume that you don't like the Senate either, that's what the less populated States will become.

As I've said before, a great example of a democracy is a gang rape. The victim gets one vote, and each assailant gets one vote on a course of action.
 
Oftencold said:
As I've said before, a great example of a democracy is a gang rape. The victim gets one vote, and each assailant gets one vote on a course of action.
Click to expand...

dude...that has got to be one of the best descriptions of "democracy" that I have ever heard. :thumbs:
 
The electoral college was an attempt by the founders to balance power between the densely populated industrial north and the sparsely populated agricultural south. Populations have shifted to the coasts so now it serves to balance power between fly over country and the seaboards. I say it remains useful.
 
sawdust said:
The electoral college was an attempt by the founders to balance power between the densely populated industrial north and the sparsely populated agricultural south. Populations have shifted to the coasts so now it serves to balance power between fly over country and the seaboards. I say it remains useful.
Click to expand...

exactly......
 
radcen said:
Is anyone in the world comfortable that their particular system works properly?
Click to expand...

Varying degrees, I guess.
I just don't understand the reasons for the 'electoral college' thing. Maybe I should read this whole thread, there's probably an explanation in there somewhere. Must have something to do with being 'united states' instead of a federal republic.
 
Xsnake1 said:
The idea of the electoral college is the perfect example of "democracy" gone wrong. Presidents should be elected based on the popular vote, not the electoral vote. I want the president that more people voted for, not the one that was supported by bigger states. I live in a blue state and I'm Republican which means when I vote, my vote just gets thrown away and I'm forced to support the democrat because that's who more people in the state vote for. Even if one person wins the popular vote which would mean the majority wants that person, the person that less people want can still win the electoral vote and then we're stuck with him/her. The electoral college is just pure stupidity and it should be abolished.
Click to expand...

We are not a democracy. And to be quite honest, pure democracy does not work. It is a mob rule. Unacceptable practice with unacceptable outcomes.
 
Grand Mal said:
Varying degrees, I guess.
I just don't understand the reasons for the 'electoral college' thing. Maybe I should read this whole thread, there's probably an explanation in there somewhere. Must have something to do with being 'united states' instead of a federal republic.
Click to expand...

Personally, I go back and forth regarding the EC. I used to oppose it, but since I've been here I have come to realize that it does indeed have value and legitimate purpose. This particular thread has been relatively weak in justifying it, though. There have been other threads in the past that have done a better job.
 
Grand Mal said:
Varying degrees, I guess.
I just don't understand the reasons for the 'electoral college' thing. Maybe I should read this whole thread, there's probably an explanation in there somewhere. Must have something to do with being 'united states' instead of a federal republic.
Click to expand...

In the early years, it provided an incentive to candidates to visit different states during their campaign and attempt to address their issues accordingly.

Now, thanks to the effectiveness of voter sampling and the resultant polls, all the electoral college seems to ensure is that they will spend lots of time in Ohio.

It is an anacronism that has outlived its usefulness, especially as it gives the voters of the less populous states more voting clout per capita than it does the larger.
 
Gardener said:
In the early years, it provided an incentive to candidates to visit different states during their campaign and attempt to address their issues accordingly.

Now, thanks to the effectiveness of voter sampling and the resultant polls, all the electoral college seems to ensure is that they will spend lots of time in Ohio.

It is an anacronism that has outlived its usefulness, especially as it gives the voters of the less populous states more voting clout per capita than it does the larger.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure it does that. More populous states have more delegates to balance it out. Obama won relatively few states in number, but since he won most of the big prizes he still won the election. He didn't need many of the smaller states and thus pretty much ignored them.
 
radcen said:
I'm not so sure it does that. More populous states have more delegates to balance it out. Obama won relatively few states in number, but since he won most of the big prizes he still won the election. He didn't need many of the smaller states and thus pretty much ignored them.
Click to expand...

You need to do the math, dood.

Wyoming has 576,000 people yet has 3 eletoral votes.

California has 38 million and has 55.

I would be most happy to compute it for you if you need.
 
Gardener said:
You need to do the math, dood.

Wyoming has 576,000 people yet has 3 eletoral votes.

California has 38 million and has 55.

I would be most happy to compute it for you if you need.
Click to expand...

In other words, my point totally escapes you. No prob. Carry on.
 
The electoral college would be fine if it wasn't implemented as winner-takes-all as is the case in most states. Instead of insuring that sparsely populated regions aren't ignored, instead we have huge swaths of the country that are ignored because a small majority of their population happens to be safely for one or the other party.

Personally I'd like to see more, many more, candidates and have the ability to rank them. Let the one with the best overall ranking be President.
 
Gaius46 said:
The electoral college would be fine if it wasn't implemented as winner-takes-all as is the case in most states. Instead of insuring that sparsely populated regions aren't ignored, instead we have huge swaths of the country that are ignored because a small majority of their population happens to be safely for one or the other party.

Personally I'd like to see more, many more, candidates and have the ability to rank them. Let the one with the best overall ranking be President.
Click to expand...

Yeah, big cities sway outcomes. Which sucks. But that's far from the worst big cities do to our nation.

If there were to be any change at all, I'd like to see:

1. Electoral votes given based on %'s of voting, no winner takes all.
2. All parties included, and if the 'winner' doesn't get more than 50%, run off, dropping bottom candidates, repeat as needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom