• 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!

Will Americans vote to scrap the EC?

Will there be an amendment to change or remove the Electoral College?

  • Total voters
    59
Josie said:
The only thing I'd like to see changed is the order in which states vote in primaries. Why does it always get to be Iowa first?
Click to expand...

Not always. For many a decade the New Hampshire primary was first. Iowa (Idiots Out Walking Around), voted to move their primary ahead of the NH one for just that reason. They wanted to be first. Any State legislature can approve moving their primary ahead of Iowa's.

But, they would obviously lessen their time to prepare.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In light of the disastrous results the last couple of electoral vote vs popular vote contests, will an amendment gain real ground this time?
Click to expand...

No amendment needed. Congress can simply pass a law stipulating that the electors must vote for the national popular vote winner. Done.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In light of the disastrous results the last couple of electoral vote vs popular vote contests, will an amendment gain real ground this time?
Click to expand...

Rural red states benefit far too much from the federal tax dollars coming their way from more urbanized blue states to every get ride of the electoral college or weaken their own outsize political power.
 
"The Voters" have nothing to to do with eliminating the electoral college since it would take an amendment to the Constitution. Congress by a two thirds vote in BOTH houses would have to propose it. The alternative is a Constitutional Convention. This is done by the states. AND All amendments must be ratified by the state legislature. Voters have no say in the process. Furthermore, since it would necessarily require states to disenfranchise themselves in order to pass, it's a wet dream by butt hurt liberals. I will not claim NO state would do this, but enough states to make the change will not do it.
 
iguanaman said:
No amendment needed. Congress can simply pass a law stipulating that the electors must vote for the national popular vote winner. Done.
Click to expand...

This is an absurd statement.
Even if it wasn't,
A) good luck with that in the current congressional climate
B) if by some freak of nature, it would get passed see how fast SCOTUS strikes it down.
 
Josie said:
The only thing I'd like to see changed is the order in which states vote in primaries. Why does it always get to be Iowa first?
Click to expand...

i would support a national primary day. the same states shouldn't get to pick the nominees almost every time, and no one should have to fear that their vote doesn't count simply because they live in a later-voting state. as for the EC, i don't support getting rid of it at this point.
 
ChezC3 said:
No.

And actually there needs to be a push to send the election of Senators back to the State houses...
Click to expand...

The 17th amendment will not be repealed either .
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In light of the disastrous results the last couple of electoral vote vs popular vote contests, will an amendment gain real ground this time?
Click to expand...

And ask most of the states to give up any representation? Never happen.
 
The last best chance to change to PV was in 1969 when an amendment was overwhelmingly approved by the House.

It was filibustered to death by southern conservative segregationists, now the core of the GOP .
 
upsideguy said:
The electoral college has NOTHING to do with honoring voters. It is, in fact, in place to protect American from the voters. The electors are intended to be the "elite" in place to overturn the preference of the uneducated masses, when necessary. They are a veto.

They did not do their jobs in accordance with #68, despite overwhelming evidence that the candidate was unfit for the job (exhibit A - not a single major US newspaper endorsed the guy, citing he was unqualified). I was not expecting the electoral college of overturn the results ... I was expecting a dozen or so electors to not vote for him as a matter of conscience.

The Federalist Papers are an authoritative source for the US Constitution. It is the primary reference of the SCOTUS on Constitutional matters. It is not just arguments and opinions.
Click to expand...

Electors aren't bound by Federalist 68. There is no, "in accordance with".
 
iguanaman said:
No amendment needed. Congress can simply pass a law stipulating that the electors must vote for the national popular vote winner. Done.
Click to expand...

No it can't. The method of selecting the electors is left strictly up to the states. Congress has no say.
 
NIMBY said:
The last best chance to change to PV was in 1969 when an amendment was overwhelmingly approved by the House.

It was filibustered to death by southern conservative segregationists, now the core of the GOP .
Click to expand...

How many of those Congressmen are still in the GOP?
 
iguanaman said:
No amendment needed. Congress can simply pass a law stipulating that the electors must vote for the national popular vote winner. Done.
Click to expand...

The Liberals love The Constitution...until it no longer serves their purpose, then they're ready to wipe their asses with it.
 
Republicans forget lyin trump's statements from the 2012 election so soon .

Fletch said:
If you recall prior to the election, democrats were universally said to have 'an electoral advantage.' Funny how they didn't want to see the EC changed then isn't it. If republicans are able to keep the rust belt red, then that EC advantage turns to them. If not, then the democrat hold on the coasts will make it tough for any republican in the future.

All is not lost, democrats
Click to expand...
 
If you don't keep track of the PV in each state, how would you know who to give EVs to?

Who's to stop adding all the votes except the direction we now see the Nation going in each day ?

Nap said:
Getting rid of the EC would likely result into the eventual collapse of the US. It would lead to constant talk of secession due to many states feeling like they have no input into the election of President which has been granted far too much power. I think the easiest solution is to stop keeping track of the popular vote because it is completely irrelevant and only leads to confusion into how the President is elected.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
They are evident in all this railing against people who live in urban areas .
Its right there in your own words. and again in 31
Click to expand...

THE GOP is busy working on new voter suppression from dear leader while saying in public they don't agree with his blatant irrational lies about 5 million illegals voting.

Maybe make each city dweller 3/5 of a vote .
 
NIMBY said:
If you don't keep track of the PV in each state, how would you know who to give EVs to?

Who's to stop adding all the votes except the direction we now see the Nation going in each day ?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about advertising the national vote as if it were relevant. There is nothing to stop someone from adding it up if they like, but at the end of the day it is completely irrelevant.
 
apdst said:
How many of those Congressmen are still in the GOP?
Click to expand...

During 1969, since you ask, dear leader was sleeping around avoiding STDs (his personal Vietnam) while dodging the draft five teams, the last being a blatant irrational lie about bad feet. He can't remember which foot it was now.

He does remember rhetorically pissing on the graves of POW/MIAs while calling them losers.

And to think that was only 47 years ago--the coward in chief was 23-yo .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom