• 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 alternative to abolishing the Electoral College

Is expanding the House the best way to fix the Electoral College?


  • Total voters
    74
The electoral college is a dinosaur and a joke.

Yeah you want the coastal liberal elite vote to run over the farm belt and manufacturing, mining, etc etc there all scubbags. There would not be one candidate ever go to any state that was not on the coast. Why should they, they get nothing for it. Take california they only have a small handful of republicans, the dems control everything. And they only want business like the tec and healthcare industries the rest have all been driven out. So we United States would be controlled solely by leftist liberals. And screw all the rest, we don't want dirty farmers anyway, or coal mines, or any thing oil, hell the Green new deal would be implemented costing 94 trillion. Money no problem.
 
Yeah you want the coastal liberal elite vote to run over the farm belt and manufacturing, mining, etc etc there all scubbags. There would not be one candidate ever go to any state that was not on the coast. Why should they, they get nothing for it. Take california they only have a small handful of republicans, the dems control everything. And they only want business like the tec and healthcare industries the rest have all been driven out. So we United States would be controlled solely by leftist liberals. And screw all the rest, we don't want dirty farmers anyway, or coal mines, or any thing oil, hell the Green new deal would be implemented costing 94 trillion. Money no problem.

What elections is it you people watch? Presidential candidates under the current system go to swing states. They don't go to California, they don't go to Nebraska, they don't go to New York, they don't go to West Virginia, they go to swing to swing states.
 
As one country, it should not be that way.

Can you inmagine you Trumpets if it were reversed? Talk about victimization. Your heads would explode.

This has nothing to do with Trump.

Oh...wait...yes it does have to do with Trump. You are still butthurt.
 
You do seem new to this. The Electoral College wasn't at all designed to do what you're suggesting. It was designed to give states like the largest state Virginia (which was already neck-and-neck with Pennsylvania in terms of its free adult male population) a leg up by giving them representation for 3/5 of their reprehensibly enormous slave populations in presidential elections.

1790 Census
15gp3yu.jpg


Which state produced seven of the first eleven presidents? Virginia.

How many times do I need to say "retconned, ahistorical" nonsense to describe contemporary rationalizations of the EC?


So with that... While we may be discussing Apples and oranges. We do NOT have the Slave disparity anymore. AS agree it was reprehensible to begin with. Currently EACH FREE American citizen has a vote. Does the popular vote out weight the votes of single state as I stated the BOTTOM 6 states TOTAL would not even have a chance to California's single populace majority?

HOW do you make a smaller state Like Alaska have a quantifiable say in the voting of a President? IF by means that the POPULAR vote is the only metric? (while I think I understand that you are NOT saying this, so I am saying it rhetorically. The EC like you stated does not need to be abolished, but revamped, BUT the only way is to EDIFY the ACTUAL VOTING populace. THE Real qualified American CITIZEN vote. I Do NOT have confidence in states that allow sanctuary cities or those that allow undocumented individuals a right to vote, legally or Illegally This again DE-Values my and MANY other votes. What is the point of citizenship if it holds no census of it?
 
Last edited:
So with that... While we may be discussing Apples and oranges. We do NOT have the Slave disparity anymore. AS agree it was reprehensible to begin with. Currently EACH FREE American citizen has a vote. Does the popular vote out weight the votes of single state as I stated the BOTTOM 6 states TOTAL would not even have a chance to California's single populace majority?

You incorrectly said it was designed to privilege small states. It wasn't.

You may think that's a function it serves today, but you certainly can't use the ahistorical appeal to originalism you did above. The biggest beneficiary at first was the biggest state and that was no accident.

HOW to you make a smaller state Like Alaska have a quantifiable say in the voting of a President? IF by means that the POPULAR vote is the only metric? (while I think I understand that you are NOT saying this, so I am saying it rhetorically. The EC like you stated does not need to be abolished, but revamped, BUT the only way is to EDIFY the ACTUAL VOTING populace. THE Real qualified American CITIZEN vote. I Do NOT have confidence in states that allow sanctuary cities or those that allow undocumented individuals a right to vote, legally or Illegally This again DE-Values my and MANY other votes. What is the point of citizenship if it holds no census of it?

I don't know what you're asking. Alaska has a quantifiable say in the selection of the president under a popular vote, equal to its voting population. Either way it's not getting much attention in presidential campaigns. When was the last general election visit it received? Nixon's visit in 1960?
 
Last edited:
Getting rid of the EC is never going to happen. Get over it.

The math is simple. Ratifying requires 3/4 states approval. That means for abolishing - 38. Against - 13. Do the math.
 
Most folks honestly appraising our current situation can admit that the Electoral College system is broken. It doesn't serve any discernable purpose at present, and most arguments for it these days are based on retconned ahistorical accounts of its rationale.

The reality is that it doesn't work at all like the system envisioned in Federalist No. 68 (indeed, it works in the exact opposite fashion) and both the nation and electorate today look nothing like that of 1788. Indeed, the primary selling point of the Electoral College in 1787, that it allowed predominantly southern states to count their non-voting enslaved populations toward their electoral representation (at a 3/5 discount, of course) was negated by the 13th and 15th amendments.

James "Father of the Constitution" Madison, who favored a popular vote for presidents at the Constitutional Convention, was convinced by the early 1820s that the Electoral College was broken, famously arguing in an 1823 letter to George Hay that a constitutional amendment requiring that Electors be chosen by Congressional districts, not states, was warranted.

But no action has ever been taken and we've drifted into the current absurd status quo, where the EC functions as a vestigial organ of a bygone era, yet functions nothing like the original vision. So now we've got states trying to take some action, with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 89 electoral votes shy of taking effect (following swing state Colorado's recent passage).

But perhaps there's an easier, though less satisfying, way.

Those who advocate straight up abolishment of the Electoral College face a high hurdle: a Constitutional amendment is required.

Those pinning their hopes on the NPVIC face a lower but still substantial hurdle: a likely need for Congressional approval.

How about an alternative approach? Like expanding the size of the House of Representatives, last updated in 1911 to accommodate population growth, to provide more adequate representation to American citizens? A Rep today represents ~750K constituents, which is both enormous and unusual in the world. We're a big country, we need a big House to make sure the people's voice is being heard. Probably a much bigger House, given population growth since 1911. Perhaps on the order of 1,600 districts.

Yes, it's the same hurdle as the NPVIC, in that legislation needs to be passed through Congress. But it's arguably less objectionable legislation, as its primary purpose is to increase the average American's voice and representation in Congress. The happy side effect, given that the number of presidential electors is equal to Reps + Senators, is that the Electoral College also becomes more representative of the people's voice. The California : Wyoming elector ratio grows in a proportionally appropriate way as California's House delegation, and thus number of electoral votes, grows. The Electoral College remains a roundabout and dumb system, but this way both it and our legislative representation more accurately represent what voters actually want. An area where our current system falls woefully short on all fronts.

Uncapping House representation has other happy effects, as well, like lowering the stakes of gerrymandering when states are no longer playing with a vast undercount of districts that compel state legislators to cram all of the opposition into 1-3 densely packed districts.

Throw Puerto Rico and/or D.C. statehood in the mix and we're cooking with gas now.

Anyway, this seems like a much easier way to fix not only the EC but multiple facets of the American electoral system. Who's sold?
Interesting idea, I hadn't known how large (in terms of constituents) the congressional districts are.

It would of course require redrawing many (or all) congressional districts.

Perhaps a non-partisan district drawing system could be implemented as well.
 
It would of course require redrawing many (or all) congressional districts.

We're about to do that anyway! We do it every decade. One could argue that having a number of districts more commensurate with our population would make gerrymandering more challenging and less rewarding.
 
There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. And gerrymandering has been done by both sides whenever they get the power to do so. Right now most of the states are red. But blue states get gerrymandered as well.
 
I cannot imagine any Republicans cottoning to the prospect of POTUSes being elected by popular vote because they know damn well that the last GOP POTUS candidate who, on his first election, won the popular vote was George H.W. Bush. But for the electoral college, I think Republicans wouldn't ever win presidential elections.
 
I cannot imagine any Republicans cottoning to the prospect of POTUSes being elected by popular vote because they know damn well that the last GOP POTUS candidate who, on his first election, won the popular vote was George H.W. Bush. But for the electoral college, I think Republicans wouldn't ever win presidential elections.

Some part of me almost wishes that the popular vote didn't more often go in the left's favor, so I could support more democratic presidential elections despite my personal investment in the outcome, rather than supporting democracy that clearly is in my own personal best interest. I guess that I can only hope that at any given opportunity, that I can still show my support for concepts like democracy and free speech on those occasions where it is not politically convienant.
 
My preference for the solution is Eliminate the EC altogether > NPVIC > Expand the House >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do nothing.

What's most likely to happen is Do nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NPVIC = Expand the House > Eliminate the EC altogether.
 
This has nothing to do with Trump.

Oh...wait...yes it does have to do with Trump. You are still butthurt.

Trumpets are the cultists who worship the orange deity. I asked about them as a political party. Don't dodge the question. Obviously we both know the answer. Your opinion is from political expediency not rational thought.
 
Trumpets are the cultists who worship the orange deity. I asked about them as a political party. Don't dodge the question. Obviously we both know the answer. Your opinion is from political expediency not rational thought.

LOL!!

The guy talking about "Trumpets", "cultists" and "the orange deity" is talking to me about "rational thought".

Moving on...
 
LOL!!

The guy talking about "Trumpets", "cultists" and "the orange deity" is talking to me about "rational thought".

Moving on...

Yes he is. Are to to limited in understanding to follow?
 
What elections is it you people watch? Presidential candidates under the current system go to swing states. They don't go to California, they don't go to Nebraska, they don't go to New York, they don't go to West Virginia, they go to swing to swing states.

Tell me why go to California, Oregon, Washington on the West and why go to NY, and all the North East States on the East. Easy answer their all liberals. Take away the EC and all you'll see is liberals going to their liberal highly populated states. And be damned the rest fo the country.

This EC thing came about by sorry losers that Crooked Hillary lost to Trump. So change the rules. You hate the fact that Trump put constructionist judges on the SC, now you want to change the rules and add more judges. If you don't win change the rules so you can win all the time.
 
Why get rid of something that actually is the most fair system we have? There have been practically an equal amount of Democrats and Republican Presidents throughout our nation's history, all thanks to the Electoral College. This is also due in part because we're NOT a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic (which is in our Constitution), where everyone's voices matter. I don't want the big populated states, like New York, California, Texas, and Florida, being the only determining votes, regardless of who they vote for. Besides, places like what I listed have a ton of electoral votes. (WARNING: THOSE WHO HAD COMMON CORE MATH AND THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE FACTUAL NUMBERS, THIS MIGHT BE A BIT TRIGGERING FOR YOU!!!)

California has 55 of those votes, and that by itself is a little over 20% of the electoral votes needed to 270 in a Presidential race. So for Democrats that's an advantage, and combine that with New York, which nowadays is another guarantee, is another 29 electoral votes is a little over 10% of the electoral votes. Between those 2 states alone, over 30% of it is locked down for the Democrats and comes to 84, GUARANTEED, electoral votes.

For the Republicans, typically, it's Florida and Texas. With Texas, it's 38 electoral votes, and with Florida it's 29. So between those 2 states, it's 67 electoral votes and that makes up around 25%. However, Florida isn't guaranteed. Traditionally, it would go Republican, but it has, in the past, gone for the Democrats. Even then, the number and percentage of votes don't change.

Combine all 4 states electoral votes and it comes out to 151, which is about 55% of votes counted. With those numbers alone, it's already big. The actually population sizes of eligible voters in those states are gigantic. Last year's numbers had California at 39.6 million, Texas at 28.7 million, Florida at 21.3 million, and New York at 19.5 million for the population of those 4 states. Now, last year's number for the population of the United States is 328 million. For the sake of talk, let's take half of the population of the 4 states and the rest of the US population as registered and eligible voters. Using that fraction, there would be 164 million voters, and the 4 states mentioned with their eligible voters would be 54.55 million voters. So with those states alone, they make up 33% of eligible voters. All you would have to do is get a few coastal states (and maybe some inland ones that are close to the coast) to make up the difference because all you need is between 17-18% more voters just be over half over the population of eligible voters in the country, so just a little over 82 million out of the 164 million mentioned earlier.

So how is that fair to the people who are in the heartland of America when their votes mean nothing? Why would we have to feel obligated to vote in the first place? What purpose does it serve other than to have our hopes dashed and we have no say in any of this? The Electoral College is the easiest and most fair system for a Presidential election (and any other political races) that we have. If you had to ask me if I had to make changes (and to be clear, I wouldn't want to if given the choice), I would redistribute some of those electoral votes (especially California's) to smaller states. The 4 states mentioned would still have more electoral votes than everyone else, but it would, for a lack of a better phrase, level out the playing field a little more and puts importance on the smaller states who have a smaller number of electoral votes. I would do that before doing a straight number of actual votes. Besides, if Trump (since this is what the author of thread is more specifically pointing to) won based on the number of votes, the Left would call for the abolishing of elections altogether and strictly have a ruling class, whom all are in Washington D.C. and have someone like Obama or AOC be the supreme leader. In the end, it doesn't matter what you do, whether it be the Electoral college or straight voting numbers. If someone whose a non-Leftist wins either one The Left will just through a major temper tantrum until there are no more elections and they're in control.
 
It doesn't matter. The Dems already have a solution. They just need enough states to sign on and the electoral college will be rendered useless.

btw, those states that sign on...Dem controlled states...will be electing Presidents. Nobody else's vote will matter.

The Dems are smart that way, eh?

The electoral college and gerrymandering cannot project the right forever. No right wing president has won the popular election to gain office since George HW Bush in the 80's. George W won the popular election in a re-election and that has only happened once. 30 years and 1 popular vote means that the system is set up to favor the right and ignore the will of the public. The electoral college has never benefited the left. It only serves one party - not the people - and that is wrong. And the gap keeps growing. Perhaps the solution in this scenario is that Republicans should stop catering to the wealthy and corporations and start being more inclusive to lower classes, minorities, and foreigners. Social liberalism is far more popular among most Americans than social conservatism. People are rejecting the narrow minded, and borderline racist/sexist (at its best) attitudes that many on the right hold. Fiscal conservatism is more popular with many Americans but social values outweigh fiscal preferences especially when regardless of who is in power our debt is growing out of control. The electoral college overriding the popular vote when it comes down a couple thousand votes is bad enough but by millions (plural) should be an outrage to everyone in 45 states. Our presidential election process is largely determined by 5 states and less than 10% of the US population. The other 90% don't matter. Each voice should be heard, and every voice should matter.
 
You do seem new to this. The Electoral College wasn't at all designed to do what you're suggesting. It was designed to give states like the largest state Virginia (which was already neck-and-neck with Pennsylvania in terms of its free adult male population) a leg up by giving them representation for 3/5 of their reprehensibly enormous slave populations in presidential elections.

1790 Census
15gp3yu.jpg


Which state produced seven of the first eleven presidents? Virginia.

How many times do I need to say "retconned, ahistorical" nonsense to describe contemporary rationalizations of the EC?

That was an amusing read! Almost a 100% flawed argument:

The electoral college was a part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states.
Changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system.
It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing.
 
The electoral college and gerrymandering cannot project the right forever. No right wing president has won the popular election to gain office since George HW Bush in the 80's. George W won the popular election in a re-election and that has only happened once. 30 years and 1 popular vote means that the system is set up to favor the right and ignore the will of the public. The electoral college has never benefited the left. It only serves one party - not the people - and that is wrong. And the gap keeps growing. Perhaps the solution in this scenario is that Republicans should stop catering to the wealthy and corporations and start being more inclusive to lower classes, minorities, and foreigners. Social liberalism is far more popular among most Americans than social conservatism. People are rejecting the narrow minded, and borderline racist/sexist (at its best) attitudes that many on the right hold. Fiscal conservatism is more popular with many Americans but social values outweigh fiscal preferences especially when regardless of who is in power our debt is growing out of control. The electoral college overriding the popular vote when it comes down a couple thousand votes is bad enough but by millions (plural) should be an outrage to everyone in 45 states. Our presidential election process is largely determined by 5 states and less than 10% of the US population. The other 90% don't matter. Each voice should be heard, and every voice should matter.

Yeah when you don't win, like when Crooked Hillary lost to Trump, you want to change the rules so you can win all the time. Just like now all you on the left are pissed because Trump won and has appointed constitutionalist judges to the SC. So you want to change the court to insure you have activist judges on the court. If you don't win change the rules. From the start when Trump won you on the left have attacked him with everything you got.. I see nothing but a bunch of sore losers.
 
The electoral college and gerrymandering cannot project the right forever.

Lots of BS in your post. I'll focus on this one.

If this is the case, why are the Dems working so hard on getting enough states with enough electoral votes to tie their state's votes to the popular vote?

I'll tell you why: Because the Electoral College evens the playing field...as it was intended to do...and the Dems can't win on an even field. They have to cheat.
 
I'll tell you why: Because the Electoral College evens the playing field...as it was intended to do...and the Dems can't win on an even field. They have to cheat.


By that logic the Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics should get at least 2 votes each. Because we want an even playing field, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom