• 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!

Do we still need the Electoral College in a literal sense?

Do we still need the Electoral College in a literal sense?

  • Total voters
    31
radcen said:
Do we still need the Electoral College (EC) in a literal sense?

In other words, do we need people to physically vote several weeks after the popular election, or should it be automatic as sort of a "point system"?

The more I think about it, the more I see no need to involve real people. Make "Electors" virtual and award them based on a state's popular vote. If Texas votes one way, that candidate gets x-number of "virtual electors", and in New York same thing, and so on.

I can see the historical need to have people physically go and vote, but technology and the instant spread of information has made that moot, IMO. Not everything needs to be stuck in the late 18th century.

I can also see the argument for the EC overturning an election, as some argue now, but when has that happened? And even if it were to happen, would it be for altruistic or partisan reasons? (I think most of you know that answer to that.)

Please note that this thread is NOT for discussion regarding the pros and cons of having an EC, or a weighted system. There are countless other threads already existing for that. This thread is whether people still need to be involved, or can it be "virtual" now.
Click to expand...

The electoral college works that way for a reason, which is to block tyranny, and those severely underqualified. Pretty much they go with the will of the people, since there has been no such threat yet, but they exist in the off chance it does, they can overwrite the will of the people.

The electoral college using electors is based off two old electoral systems, the one used by the roman church, the other used by the holy roman empire and the germanic tribes. But even before the modern electoral and after, there have been nearly no succesful countries that have allowed direct elections of head of state, they usually have some barrier between them.
 
radcen said:
Do we still need the Electoral College (EC) in a literal sense?

In other words, do we need people to physically vote several weeks after the popular election, or should it be automatic as sort of a "point system"?

The more I think about it, the more I see no need to involve real people. Make "Electors" virtual and award them based on a state's popular vote. If Texas votes one way, that candidate gets x-number of "virtual electors", and in New York same thing, and so on.

I can see the historical need to have people physically go and vote, but technology and the instant spread of information has made that moot, IMO. Not everything needs to be stuck in the late 18th century.

I can also see the argument for the EC overturning an election, as some argue now, but when has that happened? And even if it were to happen, would it be for altruistic or partisan reasons? (I think most of you know that answer to that.)

Please note that this thread is NOT for discussion regarding the pros and cons of having an EC, or a weighted system. There are countless other threads already existing for that. This thread is whether people still need to be involved, or can it be "virtual" now.
Click to expand...
Well, there are the legal reasons. First, there is the law that requires them to meet on a specific date. Of course, a law can be changed.

7. The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.
Click to expand...

Then there is that pesky Constitution. The 12th Amendment specifies that the Electors must meet to cast their votes. Article II of the Constitution specifies that the Electors must be "persons".

Yes, the Constitution can be changed, but I am not sure it is worth the effort.

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 
MaggieD said:
Well, yeah, but... what happens if an elected candidate dies before taking office? Before the EC has voted? They would then have the opportunity to cast their vote for the second in line... ??
Click to expand...

Good point. Perhaps they could just be called to duty in the event such a thing happened. Otherwise just make count automatic.
 
BrewerBob said:
Good point. Perhaps they could just be called to duty in the event such a thing happened. Otherwise just make count automatic.
Click to expand...
That was my thought when I read Maggie's point. There could always be a contingency for things like that, knowing that it'd rarely be used, if ever.
 
I am slightly encouraged that most people (so far) have voted 'no'.

Hopefully, it is not just Trump supporters voted 'Yes' and Clinton supporters voted 'No'.

I am neither.
 
Praxas said:
Here's the thing, would the EC even be an issue if Clinton had won the EC and Trump won the popular vote? I don't think it would have been.

I despise trump but the EC issue is pretty silly in my opinion.
Click to expand...

yeah, it would have been an issue for the other side in that scenario. i agree with the rest, though. there are bigger fish to fry if we really want to fix our political system.
 
Praxas said:
Here's the thing, would the EC even be an issue if Clinton had won the EC and Trump won the popular vote? I don't think it would have been.

I despise trump but the EC issue is pretty silly in my opinion.
Click to expand...
It would have still been an issue, just different people doing the whining.
 
It might be interesting to be like most of the rest of the democratic world and have the House of Representatives elect the President. It would mean less democracy, leaving the vote to 435 people, but it would represent the will of the people as each one of those 435 people were popularly elected in roughly a similar sized/populated area.
This is basically how all parliamentary government elect the Prime Minister. The people elected to Parliament choose him/her. Of course, you could still have a Prime Minister "lose" the popular vote (that happened in Canada in 1979), but there isn't a real or official national popular vote. The democratic election of the Representatives is the key.
 
Phys251 said:
Without question it would have been an issue. IMO that would have been the spark to send white nationalists over the edge.

A lot of us who supported Hillary were seriously worried that if she won, white nationalists would have immediately begun a series of terrorist attacks. Possibly starting on election night.

(Inb4 gaslighting responses in 3...2...1...)
Click to expand...

So, instead, we have Leftists starting terrorist attacks.
 
radcen said:
Do we still need the Electoral College (EC) in a literal sense?

In other words, do we need people to physically vote several weeks after the popular election, or should it be automatic as sort of a "point system"?

The more I think about it, the more I see no need to involve real people. Make "Electors" virtual and award them based on a state's popular vote. If Texas votes one way, that candidate gets x-number of "virtual electors", and in New York same thing, and so on.

I can see the historical need to have people physically go and vote, but technology and the instant spread of information has made that moot, IMO. Not everything needs to be stuck in the late 18th century.

I can also see the argument for the EC overturning an election, as some argue now, but when has that happened? And even if it were to happen, would it be for altruistic or partisan reasons? (I think most of you know that answer to that.)

Please note that this thread is NOT for discussion regarding the pros and cons of having an EC, or a weighted system. There are countless other threads already existing for that. This thread is whether people still need to be involved, or can it be "virtual" now.
Click to expand...

That does seem to be the implication of this election.
 
antiquity said:
To put ever thing to rest on the Electoral College....only a Constitution amendment can change the progress.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The constitution does not mandate how states must choose their electors. So if states with enough electoral votes get together and decide to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, then the national popular vote will decide the president, no constitutional amendment needed. Right now they are 60% of the way to having enough to do exactly that.
 
I don't see what purpose the electoral college being actual people serves these days. If we're going to keep it around, just make it virtual.
 
Praxas said:
Here's the thing, would the EC even be an issue if Clinton had won the EC and Trump won the popular vote?
Click to expand...

Yes. The EC is a problem regardless of the results of any individual election. It maximizes disenfranchisement. Conservative voters in Illinois and California have no voice, liberal voters in Texas and Georgia have no voice. Their "votes" are meaningless gestures and they will continue to be so forever.
 
abolish it and elect our president the same way we elect mayors and governors and everybody else in the land.
 
I wish they would stop keeping track of the popular vote because it simply causes too much confusion for some it appears.

We are a UNION OF STATES. The national popular vote is irrelevant. If you want to get rid of the EC then how about we simply have a popular vote in each state and whomever wins the most states wins? I doubt you want that, the EC is the best compromise because it does give more power to the more populated states but at least the smaller states do have some input into the election of the entire nation's president. A national popular vote would render smaller states absolutely no voice in who the president since politicians would have zero reason to acknowledge their existence. True that swing states are generally where most campaigns are ran but that is because the rest are pretty much a solid voting block for certain parties, however that can change. States like California, Texas, Florida, New York will always have more people than smaller states.

I do believe that actually having the secondary part of having actual electors is no longer needed. If California is won by a candidate just go ahead and count those 55 electors to that candidate.
 
Tucker Case said:
Yes. The EC is a problem regardless of the results of any individual election. It maximizes disenfranchisement. Conservative voters in Illinois and California have no voice, liberal voters in Texas and Georgia have no voice. Their "votes" are meaningless gestures and they will continue to be so forever.
Click to expand...

Just a bit cynical since no state always has voted the same way. Illinois voted R in 1984, California voted R in 1988. Texas voted D in 1976 and Georgia voted D in 1992. Well, maybe DC voting D is forever.

You toss the word disenfranchisement around lightly. Their votes count just as much as their neighbor. Enfranchisement is the right to vote, not the right to be on the winning side, even sometimes.

Our elections have almost always have been about who can gain the support of those in the middle
 
Nap said:
I wish they would stop keeping track of the popular vote because it simply causes too much confusion for some it appears.

We are a UNION OF STATES. The national popular vote is irrelevant. If you want to get rid of the EC then how about we simply have a popular vote in each state and whomever wins the most states wins? I doubt you want that, the EC is the best compromise because it does give more power to the more populated states but at least the smaller states do have some input into the election of the entire nation's president. A national popular vote would render smaller states absolutely no voice in who the president since politicians would have zero reason to acknowledge their existence. True that swing states are generally where most campaigns are ran but that is because the rest are pretty much a solid voting block for certain parties, however that can change. States like California, Texas, Florida, New York will always have more people than smaller states.

I do believe that actually having the secondary part of having actual electors is no longer needed. If California is won by a candidate just go ahead and count those 55 electors to that candidate.
Click to expand...

I think the attitude changed more when states stopped posting the names of electors and started posting the names of the party candidates on the ballot.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Just a bit cynical since no state always has voted the same way. Illinois voted R in 1984, California voted R in 1988. Texas voted D in 1976 and Georgia voted D in 1992. Well, maybe DC voting D is forever.
Click to expand...

Those are instances where the opposite groups votes got thrown away.

You toss the word disenfranchisement around lightly.
Click to expand...

No, I toss it around when it is appropriate.

Their votes count just as much as their neighbor.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

Enfranchisement is the right to vote, not the right to be on the winning side, even sometimes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Nobody in the US has a right to vote for president. Ergo, they are all disenfrachised (except those lucky few hyper-partisans chosen to be electors)

Our elections have almost always have been about who can gain the support of those in the middle
Click to expand...

Our elections have always been about avoiding direct democracy..
 
Tucker Case said:
Those are instances where the opposite groups votes got thrown away.



No, I toss it around when it is appropriate.



No it doesn't.



Exactly. Nobody in the US has a right to vote for president. Ergo, they are all disenfrachised (except those lucky few hyper-partisans chosen to be electors)



Our elections have always been about avoiding direct democracy..
Click to expand...

You have blown me away with the depth and thoughtfulness of your arguments.

Nuts.

Next time I must stand somewhere else to avoid your pissing into the wind. The EC is here to stay and you are impotent to do anything about it.
 
radcen said:
Do we still need the Electoral College (EC) in a literal sense?

In other words, do we need people to physically vote several weeks after the popular election, or should it be automatic as sort of a "point system"?

The more I think about it, the more I see no need to involve real people. Make "Electors" virtual and award them based on a state's popular vote. If Texas votes one way, that candidate gets x-number of "virtual electors", and in New York same thing, and so on.

I can see the historical need to have people physically go and vote, but technology and the instant spread of information has made that moot, IMO. Not everything needs to be stuck in the late 18th century.

I can also see the argument for the EC overturning an election, as some argue now, but when has that happened? And even if it were to happen, would it be for altruistic or partisan reasons? (I think most of you know that answer to that.)

Please note that this thread is NOT for discussion regarding the pros and cons of having an EC, or a weighted system. There are countless other threads already existing for that. This thread is whether people still need to be involved, or can it be "virtual" now.
Click to expand...

I think gerrymandering (to manipulate the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party or class) is more harmful than the electoral college. For both local elections and presidential elections considering the accumulated votes for each district determines what or who will pass. I'd rather our local districts be autonomously drafted before the EC goes virtual.
 
Nap said:
I wish they would stop keeping track of the popular vote because it simply causes too much confusion for some it appears.

We are a UNION OF STATES. The national popular vote is irrelevant. If you want to get rid of the EC then how about we simply have a popular vote in each state and whomever wins the most states wins? I doubt you want that, the EC is the best compromise because it does give more power to the more populated states but at least the smaller states do have some input into the election of the entire nation's president. A national popular vote would render smaller states absolutely no voice in who the president since politicians would have zero reason to acknowledge their existence. True that swing states are generally where most campaigns are ran but that is because the rest are pretty much a solid voting block for certain parties, however that can change. States like California, Texas, Florida, New York will always have more people than smaller states.

I do believe that actually having the secondary part of having actual electors is no longer needed. If California is won by a candidate just go ahead and count those 55 electors to that candidate.
Click to expand...
You make some very good points. I especially like your "union of states" phrasing. That struck me, and made the concept and reason clearer in its simplicity.
 
Phys251 said:
Please prove which specific acts in the United States in the last two weeks were "terrorist attacks," with documentation.
Click to expand...

WOW , over your head !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom