• 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?

  • Nah, abolish the Electoral College

    Votes: 17 23.0%

  • Let's be realistic: embrace the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

    Votes: 18 24.3%

  • Do it, expand the size of the House

    Votes: 7 9.5%

  • The status quo is fine, don't change anything

    Votes: 32 43.2%
  • Total voters
    74
Mycroft said:
Everyone's vote matters under the electoral college system.
Click to expand...

Some just matter more than others.

The right isn't interested in lenity.

They are interested in power.

And they'll do anything to get it.

Even when it means that the few in a few states get to override the folks Where all the gdp comes from . From far more people.!
 
What if...? said:
Some just matter more than others.

The right isn't interested in lenity.

They are interested in power.

And they'll do anything to get it.

Even when it means that the few in a few states get to override the folks Where all the gdp comes from . From far more people.!
Click to expand...

All the GDP comes from California and New York? LOL!!

Nonsense.

Anyway, doing things to get power? Are you aware of what the Dems are doing to get power?
 
Mycroft said:
All the GDP comes from California and New York? LOL!!

Nonsense.

Anyway, doing things to get power? Are you aware of what the Dems are doing to get power?
Click to expand...

Nominating Kenyans to be president?
 
Exactice said:
So you are a hypocrite, You say you want stuff thats for the majority, But when called on the facts that it helped the minority but hurt the Majority. You dont care?? Hypocrisy much no?
Click to expand...

Come back to me when you have repealed it. 70th times a charm eh?
 
Mycroft said:
All the GDP comes from California and New York? LOL!!

Nonsense.

Anyway, doing things to get power? Are you aware of what the Dems are doing to get power?
Click to expand...


Whataboutery you would make good comrade.
 
Mycroft said:
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

Yeah dont bother they turned to trolling, basically started attacking character when the facts proved them ignorant. just ignore them.
 
Exactice said:
Yeah dont bother they turned to trolling, basically started attacking character when the facts proved them ignorant. just ignore them.
Click to expand...

I turn to trolling when i get bored of someone or i catch whataboutery.
 
bomberfox said:
I turn to trolling when i get bored of someone or i catch whataboutery.
Click to expand...

And there you go......Facts get boring, I know.... so many hard to swim out of it when you drowning....
 
Exactice said:
Let me clarify something. Are you really trying to get rid of the Electoral College because there is an actual inherent FLAW that you equate. OR are you mad that it did NOT work in your favor and seemingly doesnt in regards to POPULAR vote vs Electoral College.


Im very new to this, so bear with me. But in its very basic thought. The electoral college was designed to balance out the popular vote SHOULD one Majority state carry such a majority that it would TIP the balance of the OTHER remaining states

Small opposing states like Alaska, Delware, DC, Montana, North Dakoata, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming that have smaller populaces. WOULD easily drowned out or ECLIPSED.

the 2016 Elections was a PERFECT example of how and why the Electoral college was implemented. AS a single MAJORITY State should NOT dictate the will of the nation


HRC won California but a whopping 4,269,978 votes. OVER whelming That of course California having the HIGHEST population. This means JUST California Alone, had more popular votes than, Wyoming, Vermont, DC, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota COMBINED.

6 of the 50 states would be disregarded. If it was purely on the popular vote of ONE state.


With that . the Final over ALL popular vote was 2,864,903 for HRC, meaning a NET loss in regards to the other states of 1,405,075 votes.

SHE WON The Popular vote likely due to 1 state and 1 state Alone (not really but you get the net positive point) . Should that ONE state dictate the NATION's will? Due to its OVERWHELMING popular vote?

THAT again is the checks and balance of the EC? That seems fair.

OK the basics out of the way..... the revamp and redistribution.

1) Surely with the nation growing. Populations changing there should be consideration taken.
2) Concerns of Voter Fraud is where my hesitation to changing the basis of the EC
3) Popular Vote can dictate the EC distribution, BUT again going back to voter Fraud.
4) The Recent Census question update to validate POPULATION so as to revise the EC is LEGIT. BUT somehow its become a constitutional issue.
5) PERIOD, LEGAL US citizen should get a vote. Find out ALL legal US citizens, calculate the Fair EC and go forward. BUT the only way to know how many US citizens? Gotta ASK the damn questions....


Alas those that broke the law live in fear... those that done respect the law continue to break the law. THE EC was a balance much like the 3-Co Equal branches of the Governments. Same with the Constitution, one hellava document.... But because people will never be happy because if it does NOT go their way they cry foul......

Thats life
Click to expand...


I see this differently. If you choose to live in a less populous state, one of the consequences will be a less strong political voice in the House and an inordinately strong voice in the US Senate. The only question is what to do about the only national office we have that counts votes. I frankly don't see the point to an election when the tabulation does not serve a valuable purpose. We can do this less expensively without any election at all. If we want the less populous states to have more power relative to more populous, lets just have the US senate do the voting so Wyoming's two senators can make sure they can cancel out California' two senators. Its a lot simpler and it gets rid of this silly façade that these votes cast in California and the votes cast in Wyoming are of equal value or importance.

Let's get rid of the lie so you can run this country as you see fit openly.
 
Greenbeard said:
Compelling that (which is broadly similar to Madison's proposal, assuming a House delegation that kept up with population growth) would require a Constitutional amendment. If you're going to go that far, might as well get rid of that dumb system altogether.
Click to expand...

I believe there will be more support for the proportional allocation, than the all or nothing idea. That will alleviate, but not eliminate, the tyranny of the masses that the all or nothing idea has. It will mean that Democrats in the South will be counted, and Republicans in California and New York will be counted. Sounds like a winner to me.
 
Exactice said:
And there you go......Facts get boring, I know.... so many hard to swim out of it when you drowning....
Click to expand...

You were the one trying to make much more out of my original post than needed :p
 
btthegreat said:
I see this differently. If you choose to live in a less populous state, one of the consequences will be a less strong political voice in the House and an inordinately strong voice in the US Senate. The only question is what to do about the only national office we have that counts votes. I frankly don't see the point to an election when the tabulation does not serve a valuable purpose. We can do this less expensively without any election at all. If we want the less populous states to have more power relative to more populous, lets just have the US senate do the voting so Wyoming's two senators can make sure they can cancel out California' two senators. Its a lot simpler and it gets rid of this silly façade that these votes cast in California and the votes cast in Wyoming are of equal value or importance.

Let's get rid of the lie so you can run this country as you see fit openly.
Click to expand...


But this already stands, The Majority population state in order have a majority electoral votes? And the smaller states with the limited population have a smaller amount of electorates. AGAIN the design was a checks and balance to the popular vote SHOULD a majority population become so disproportionate that it distorts the nation's vote as a whole.

Again the Popular vote was settled by 2.8 million, YET the electorate was 304 to 227. This proves that the while a certain person having a MASS majority vote for 3 key population states COULD NOT distort the nations will. 304-227 is NOT a stolen election.

The Majority of EACH state that had the electorate go to Trump won the majority VOTE in that state. PERIOD. I am lookin now I do NOT see a single state that the Popular vote went to the opponent yet the electorate went to the other.

THIS indeed shows the WILL of the nation as a whole. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
 
smallvoice said:
I believe there will be more support for the proportional allocation, than the all or nothing idea. That will alleviate, but not eliminate, the tyranny of the masses that the all or nothing idea has. It will mean that Democrats in the South will be counted, and Republicans in California and New York will be counted. Sounds like a winner to me.
Click to expand...

Given that the theme of the OP was that we can make the EC workable if we increase the House to account for population growth since it was last increased in 1911, I could be swayed to this if the House was expanded as well.
 
I feel we would benefit more greatly by repealing the 17th amendment, and abolishing the electoral college but not the electoral vote.
As I was taught, Congress was made up of the House members who directly represent the people, and the Senate who were to represent the State, more or less a check and a balance.
The election of a President was determined NOT by a popular vote, but instead by the electoral vote, which gave the minority of the population in less populated States a voice.
In essence our government was NOT intended to be a Democracy in the sense of majority rules.
The members of the House were to represent their constituents wishes, in more or less a majority rules way.
The members of the Senate were to represent their States ability to comply with what a majority of the House agreed upon.
And the President was to take into account the entire population, especially the minority who might be adversely affected by what both the House and the Senate agreed on by a veto, which could be overridden by a two thirds vote in both the House and the Senate.
So, IMO, repeal of the 17th amendment would be a great start in more reasoned and rational government at the Federal level, but repeal of the 16th amendment as well would perhaps be the only way we could get Federal spending under control, making the Senate do the job they were originally meant to do.
If anything at all, the electoral vote should mandatorily be "winner take all", by Federal law. The Executive office election should require nothing more than applying the electoral votes of each State to the winner of the race in each individual State, requiring 270 or more to win.
 
Greenbeard said:
Given that the theme of the OP was that we can make the EC workable if we increase the House to account for population growth since it was last increased in 1911, I could be swayed to this if the House was expanded as well.
Click to expand...

That's the last thing I would support.
 
The problem with the electoral college, at least with the way with how votes are allocated, is that they encourage presidential candidates to focus on just a few states called swing states which are close calls. And if you live in a safe state and vote differently from the majority, your vote for president is nullified.
 
Masterhawk said:
The problem with the electoral college, at least with the way with how votes are allocated, is that they encourage presidential candidates to focus on just a few states called swing states which are close calls. And if you live in a safe state and vote differently from the majority, your vote for president is nullified.
Click to expand...

The electoral college could, IMO, easily be done without, but the electoral vote should remain, and also IMO should by Federal law be made winner take all in each of the States.
California is a prime example of a safe State, with 55 electoral votes.

The executive office of our Federal government is decided by a democratic process, which to a small degree diminishes the power of the majority over the minority of the population. Sadly, passage of the 17th amendment, along with the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act greatly diminished the power of the people and the States to control the Federal government based on rational reasoning. As a result each generation is living off of successive generations, with inflation making it more difficult for following generations to live as well as previous without doing the same.

Eventually, someone has to pay the piper. While government, through the creation of money, can survive perpetually, it is doing so by creating a 2 class society.
 
What a horrific collection of BAD ideas. Sure, Democrats WANT Puerto Rico and DC to have statehood status - because what do they care what it costs? Instantly, nearly the entire population of Puerto Rico would go on welfare, foods, be eligible for social security and medicare. Total cost across time? Hundreds of billions of dollars.

Congress is already a clown car of 535 people all desperate to say anything alarmist or attention grabbing for publicity and otherwise capable of doing almost nothing. Increasing that to 1,000 attention whores, liars and thieves would not be an improvement.

I think the President should not be elected by popular vote whatsoever, but instead by state legislatures based upon the number citizens their state has. Mob rule is always a disaster leading to such as Stalin, Mao, and Hitler as politicians try to bribe voters with their own money of which the government spends mostly on itself.
 
joko104 said:
What a horrific collection of BAD ideas. Sure, Democrats WANT Puerto Rico and DC to have statehood status - because what do they care what it costs? Instantly, nearly the entire population of Puerto Rico would go on welfare, foods, be eligible for social security and medicare. Total cost across time? Hundreds of billions of dollars.
Click to expand...

Residents of DC and Puerto Rico are already eligible for SS and Medicare. And both DC and Puerto Rico operate Medicaid programs today.
 
Individual said:
The electoral college could, IMO, easily be done without, but the electoral vote should remain, and also IMO should by Federal law be made winner take all in each of the States.
California is a prime example of a safe State, with 55 electoral votes.

The executive office of our Federal government is decided by a democratic process, which to a small degree diminishes the power of the majority over the minority of the population. Sadly, passage of the 17th amendment, along with the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act greatly diminished the power of the people and the States to control the Federal government based on rational reasoning. As a result each generation is living off of successive generations, with inflation making it more difficult for following generations to live as well as previous without doing the same.

Eventually, someone has to pay the piper. While government, through the creation of money, can survive perpetually, it is doing so by creating a 2 class society.
Click to expand...

And what does inflation have to do with the EC and winner take all? Especially considering that the 16th and 17th amendments were passed by congress (the president has no say in constitutional amendments)? The federal reserve act was also approved by congress.

A common talking point among EC supporters is that repealing it would lead to big states like California deciding the elections. I was debunking that point by saying that it already encourages candidates to focus attention on a few states.
 
Masterhawk said:
And what does inflation have to do with the EC and winner take all? Especially considering that the 16th and 17th amendments were passed by congress (the president has no say in constitutional amendments)? The federal reserve act was also approved by congress.
Click to expand...
I would prefer to fix our government rather than 'fix' our elections.
"The executive office of our Federal government is decided by a democratic process, which to a small degree diminishes the power of the majority over the minority of the population. Sadly, passage of the 17th amendment, along with the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act greatly diminished the power of the people and the States to control the Federal government based on rational reasoning. As a result each generation is living off of successive generations, with inflation making it more difficult for following generations to live as well as previous without doing the same.

Eventually, someone has to pay the piper. While government, through the creation of money, can survive perpetually, it is doing so by creating a 2 class society."
The more we live beyond our means requires greater government subsidization of those who lack or are incapable of producing means sufficient to provide for their needs and wants.

Masterhawk said:
A common talking point among EC supporters is that repealing it would lead to big states like California deciding the elections. I was debunking that point by saying that it already encourages candidates to focus attention on a few states.
Click to expand...

I'm not an EC supporter at all, but I fully support the electoral vote method of choosing our President, and would like to see the 17th amendment repealed giving State governments a voice once again in the creation of Federal laws.
As of the 2010 census, 50.9% of the population lives in just 9 States, the 11 most populous States possess 270 electoral votes. Basing the Presidential election on popular vote instead of electoral vote would indeed change the focus of candidates campaigning. It would become primarily based on the number of registered voters contained in each State. Perhaps it would be more rational to allocate electoral votes to each State based on the number of registered voters it contains rather than simply population of any age or citizenship?


The 10 Most Liberal States In America For 2019
55 California
3 Hawaii
10 Maryland
11 Massachusetts
29 New York
3 Vermont
20 Illinois
14 New Jersey
7 Connecticut
4 Rhode Island
3 D.C.
156 total EV (short 114)



The 10 Most Conservative States In America For 2019
03 Wyoming
09 Alabama
11 Tennessee
03 North Dakota
06 Mississippi
07 Oklahoma
04 Idaho
03 South Dakota
09 South Carolina
10 Missouri
65 total EV (short 205)
 
The electoral college seems to protect the rights of lesser populated states, and one has to remember the US is a nation of states. The voice of each state should be important, not ignored. This happens with the 2 senators from each state system, but the electoral college also seem to guarantee that less populated states have a real voice in national elections.

I believe in democracy, I'm not a big fan of the electoral system, but I don't think any of the proposed alternatives are good. I think the ONLY alternative to the electoral system is an all out democracy alike to what they have in Switzerland. I mention Switzerland because it is also a nation of "states", where each state has democratic autonomy, securing the rights of each state to not have to implement policies dictated upon them by the Federal state, unless this is democratically supported. Also each state has the right to implement their own policies. Such a system could work in the US as well, if there is any need for change. And ofcourse, Switzerland is also the only country in the world where the people have actual power, power to raise politics, stop politics and vote on policies.

So unless the US seriously consider such a system, I think the electoral college need to stay, partly because there is no better alternative, and partly because it assure some "democratic autonomy" for each state in the "Federation".

PS. I only mention this and answer on this thread, because I also support such a system in my own country.
 
The electoral college will never go away, since you would need 2/3 of the states to override the Constitution. Those who want to get rid of the Electoral College, in favor of the popular vote, will never get enough states. Trump won 30 states and Hillary won 20 states, even though Hillary won the popular vote.

Good luck persuading enough of these 30 Trump states, to cut their own throats. A vote by those small states, for the popular vote, would forever make them second rate states behind the needs of over budgeted states like California and New York.

Why would small states, who know they will forever lose representation, vote to allow this to happen? If anything, it would be easier to go from a popular vote, back to the Electoral College, using a state convention. The enough small states will eagerly support this. The founding fathers built a failsafe, less a few big states get too powerful.

My advice to the Democrats who care, think in terms of practical change and not impractical change.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom