• 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!

Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

Should Congress create an amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 36.6%

  • No

    Votes: 19 46.3%

  • Yes, but it could never get passed.

    Votes: 4 9.8%

  • I have no opinion.

    Votes: 3 7.3%
  • Total voters
    41
Tucker Case said:
In a tie-breaker. In all other aspects, California has more value.
Click to expand...
In the house, CA has no value. In the Senate, CA has equal value.
ONLY in the EC does CA have more value, the exception to the rule.
But, thank you for admitting that your example supports my position.

It means that proportionally, they are represented. It is not about their WILL being represented, it's about THEM being represented.
Click to expand...
Unsound. If the people were to be represened in the election of the Predient, the simplest way to do this is for them to elect the president.
You mentioned Occam?

They are only equal if there is need for a tie-breaker vote.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- they are eqial in ALL other places, except the EC.
 
Goobieman said:
In the house, CA has no value. In the Senate, CA has equal value.
ONLY in the EC does CA have more value, the exception to the rule.
But, thank you for admitting that your example supports my position.


Unsound. If the people were to be represened in the election of the Predient, the simplest way to do this is for them to elect the president.
You mentioned Occam?


On the contrary -- they are eqial in ALL other places, except the EC.
Click to expand...

All I can say is See Federalist paper # 68.


And for the record, I tend to agree more with Antifederalist #72 but since the EC already exists, I'd stick with Hamilton's description and go no further as far as decreasing freedom.
 
Off Topic: Isn't this the very same debate we had when I first signed up here, Goobieman? :lol:

Something tells me you and I are never going to agree on this one. :rofl
 
Tucker Case said:
Off Topic: Isn't this the very same debate we had when I first signed up here, Goobieman? :lol:

Something tells me you and I are never going to agree on this one. :rofl
Click to expand...
Might be!!
:mrgreen:
 
Scrap the EC.

In today's system, if you are a Democrat in a heavily Republican state, or vice versa, your vote will not count because none of the EC votes will go to the candidate you voted for. Everyone's vote should decide an election, not just the ones who voted for the state's favorite candidate.
 
Tucker Case said:
All I can say is See Federalist paper # 68
Click to expand...
Interesting.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President....
Click to expand...
This paper touts the involvement of the people in the election of the President, and yet there is no Constitutional direction for the electors to be chosen by the people, or similar prohibition against the people from being shut out of the process. At BEST, the involvement of the people is specified to 4 degrees removed.

So, I am not at all sure how this supports your cause.
 
C. Gerstle said:
Scrap the EC.
In today's system, if you are a Democrat in a heavily Republican state, or vice versa, your vote will not count because none of the EC votes will go to the candidate you voted for. Everyone's vote should decide an election, not just the ones who voted for the state's favorite candidate.
Click to expand...
Everyone's vote DOES decide the election.
What you don't rcognize is that the election you vote in is the election of your state's electors, in which your vote counts exactly as much as everyone else's in your state.
 
Goobieman said:
Interesting.


This paper touts the involvement of the people in the election of the President, and yet there is no Constitutional direction for the electors to be chosen by the people, or similar prohibition against the people from being shut out of the process. At BEST, the involvement of the people is specified to 4 degrees removed.

So, I am not at all sure how this supports your cause.
Click to expand...

Well, the federalist papers are considered to be an argument in favor of ratifying the constitution. They, in effect, are supposed to lay out why the rueles contained therein exist.

Hamilton was either under the impression that what he said in #68 was the intent of the EC, or he figured that was the only way to keep the anti-federalists from gaining enough support to prevent it's ratification.

One can never really know for sure if he thought that's what the intent was or if it was subterfuge to decrease support of the anti-federalists.

Either way, ratification of the constitution was heavily influenced by the arguments contained in the federalists papers. That means that items such as this, were the general consensus view of how it should end up being under the system.

The one thing I've never seen in the Federalist or anti-federalist papers is the idea that the State legislatures should chose the electors without involving the people.

It is worded in the constitution that the legislators will make the final determination, but the arguments both for and against the EC have never stated that anyone but the masses should be the one's making the final choice on their electors.

My understanding of the EC coms frm both Federalist 68 and Anti-federalist 72. Like I said, I tend to agree more with anti-federalist 72 in general, but as long as the EC exists, I would have no issues if it worked as described in Federalist 68.

Either way is preferable to the current system, IMO. My preference of a proportional allocation for Illinois is more consistent with the anti-federalist view than any other option, but my willingness to accept the Maine/Nebraska system is in keeping with the Federalist point of view.

My dislike for any state based winner-take-all system is primarily because it fits neither view.

In truth, while I tend towards Anti-federalism, I can live with the views found in Federalism.

Both of these views are pretty much absent in modern politics.
 
I don't really have a strong opinion on this, but I lean towards no simply because it isn't that big of an issue. The electoral college was created so smaller states could have more say in government, (just like the senate was created for that purpose). We have a very large country, and many of the states have different needs. But I don't know what to think about this issue.
 
Lakryte said:
I don't really have a strong opinion on this, but I lean towards no simply because it isn't that big of an issue. The electoral college was created so smaller states could have more say in government, (just like the senate was created for that purpose). We have a very large country, and many of the states have different needs. But I don't know what to think about this issue.
Click to expand...

The EC wasn't created for that purpose though. It was actually created because our founding fathers were elitists who didn't fully trust the general public to choose the President.

At least according to Hamilton.
 
The EC wasn't created for that purpose though. It was actually created because our founding fathers were elitists who didn't fully trust the general public to choose the President.

At least according to Hamilton.
Click to expand...
I don't trust much of the general public either at times. But their voices are still being heard, the Bush case is the only case in history where the electoral college disagrees with popular vote. I don't like the electoral college because if people vote against who the state goes for, their votes will virtually not count in the big picture. But I am hesitant to change the system right now. Especially with all this ACORN controversy. Maybe in the future, but right now I'm not ready for that I don't think. I really have no strong opinion on this though.
 
Tucker Case said:
Well, the federalist papers are considered to be an argument in favor of ratifying the constitution. They, in effect, are supposed to lay out why the rueles contained therein exist.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but the Constitution seems to contradict this one (or at least the parts that I bolded).

Hamilton was either under the impression that what he said in #68 was the intent of the EC, or he figured that was the only way to keep the anti-federalists from gaining enough support to prevent it's ratification.
Click to expand...
I think that's being too generous. The argument he made clearly indicates a direct involvement of the people, something, as noted, not found anywhere in the Constitution. If F68 was intended to gain the support of the people based on the idea that said constitution woudl mandate that they have a say in elelcting th ePresident, he was misleading (at best).

Either way, ratification of the constitution was heavily influenced by the arguments contained in the federalists papers. That means that items such as this, were the general consensus view of how it should end up being under the system.
Click to expand...
Well, OK, but I still dont see how this supports your 'the state ARE uneuqal' argument. All it really does is describe the process and imply that the people would participate.

The one thing I've never seen in the Federalist or anti-federalist papers is the idea that the State legislatures should chose the electors without involving the people.
Click to expand...
However true that may be, the fact is they gave the legislatures plenary power to do so -- and thru the 1800s, many states legislatures took it upon themselves to do so.

It is worded in the constitution that the legislators will make the final determination, but the arguments both for and against the EC have never stated that anyone but the masses should be the one's making the final choice on their electors.
Click to expand...
Which makes me wonder why that was not specified by the Constitution.
Perhaps, as noted above, this was just lip service, indicating that there was no intention to involve the people, but the need for popular support to ratify the constituion, such an involvement had to be stated.

My understanding of the EC coms frm both Federalist 68 and Anti-federalist 72. Like I said, I tend to agree more with anti-federalist 72 in general, but as long as the EC exists, I would have no issues if it worked as described in Federalist 68.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is not set up for it to work that way. I -love- to tell people that their state could decide to not hold an election and seat their electors based on a game of poker -- or just seat the guy from (the other party) outright.

Either way is preferable to the current system, IMO. My preference of a proportional allocation for Illinois is more consistent with the anti-federalist view than any other option, but my willingness to accept the Maine/Nebraska system is in keeping with the Federalist point of view.
Click to expand...
That's fine. Call your legislators.
Of course, given the other things they do you you out on IL, I'd not hold out too much hope.

Both of these views are pretty much absent in modern politics.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Lakryte said:
I don't trust much of the general public either at times. But their voices are still being heard, the Bush case is the only case in history where the electoral college disagrees with popular vote. I don't like the electoral college because if people vote against who the state goes for, their votes will virtually not count in the big picture. But I am hesitant to change the system right now. Especially with all this ACORN controversy. Maybe in the future, but right now I'm not ready for that I don't think. I really have no strong opinion on this though.
Click to expand...

Actually, it happened with John Q. Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison as well as Bush. All of them had fewer popular votes but won their respective elections.
 
Lakryte said:
I don't trust much of the general public either at times. But their voices are still being heard, the Bush case is the only case in history where the electoral college disagrees with popular vote.
Click to expand...
Only if history begins in 2000.
 
Tucker Case said:
People don't feel that way at all. they feel, correctly, that a vote for a third party is a waste of time in the current system because the third party can NEVER get any EC votes.

Unfortunately, as it stands, people aren't interested in regaining the country form partisan nonsense because they're more interested in who Angelina Jolie is blowing this week than they are in how the two party system has become a fetid mass of donkephant manure that engulfs the nation.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

It seriously would make zero difference and it baffles me that you think it would. If a 3rd party gets a few electoral votes, then so what? They will still act as a spoiler and those electoral votes still could have gone to prevent whichever of the two parties you dislike more from winning.

A proportional allocation of a State's Electoral college votes wouldn't apply to presidential elections?!??!?! :confused:

Who knew?

The Electoral College - Reform Options

Please, if you aren't going to bother to follow the conversation, then have the decency to not bother replying.
Click to expand...

It should have been very obvious that I had started talking about another kind of proportional representation that actually would make the American government system better. It is, in fact, relevant to the discussion because the main reason we do not use proportional representation in Congress is the same illogical dedication to political districts instead of the the will of the people. Now, I do not think the will of the people is the best way of determining things, but it sure as hell makes more sense than doing it based upon legal entities such as states/districts.

Goobieman said:
I addressed this earlier when I argued that each state shoud have one vote in the EC.
Click to expand...

Because the constitution says so is not really a reason.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Because the constitution says so is not really a reason.
Click to expand...

"Beacause the Constitution says so" is "not really a reason" for an argument having to do with the workings of the government created by it?
 
Goobieman said:
Only if history begins in 2000.
Click to expand...

The board is littered with people who think history began the moment they first became aware of something.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, it happened with John Q. Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison as well as Bush. All of them had fewer popular votes but won their respective elections.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and when Hayes became President, the Supreme Court actually CHANGED the vote count of the Electoral College.
 
Harshaw said:
"Beacause the Constitution says so" is "not really a reason" for an argument having to do with the workings of the government created by it?
Click to expand...

When discussing the rightness or wrongness of something, it is not at all important what the law says. The law does not serve as evidence for what is right or wrong. Using the law to try to determine what is right or wrong is backwards. You logically and ideally through evidence try to determine what is right or wrong and then try to get the law to follow it.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Because the constitution says so is not really a reason.
Click to expand...
My argument was not based on 'the constitution says so' it as based on the idea that the US is a federal republic of sovereign states, and, given that the President is the head of the government of that federal republic, the states should (and therefore do) determine the President.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
When discussing the rightness or wrongness of something, it is not at all important what the law says. The law does not serve as evidence for what is right or wrong. Using the law to try to determine what is right or wrong is backwards. You logically and ideally through evidence try to determine what is right or wrong and then try to get the law to follow it.
Click to expand...

This isn't about "right or wrong." It's about a method of selecting the President.
 
Harshaw said:
This isn't about "right or wrong." It's about a method of selecting the President.
Click to expand...

The rightness or wrongness of our method of selecting the president. When the OP is about whether an amendment should be used to abolish the EC, then it becomes an argument of what we should do, not on what the law says.
 
Fair enough. Though I would hesitate to use "right" or "wrong" do describe proposing alternatives, because there's really no moral component to it. It's a matter of practicality and preference.
 
Goobieman said:
Well, yes, but the Constitution seems to contradict this one (or at least the parts that I bolded).
Click to expand...

True, it does contradict it, but that doesn't mean that what Hamilton describes isn't what the expected approach would be.


I think that's being too generous. The argument he made clearly indicates a direct involvement of the people, something, as noted, not found anywhere in the Constitution. If F68 was intended to gain the support of the people based on the idea that said constitution woudl mandate that they have a say in elelcting th ePresident, he was misleading (at best).
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you there. Misleading at best, lying at worst.

Well, OK, but I still dont see how this supports your 'the state ARE uneuqal' argument. All it really does is describe the process and imply that the people would participate.
Click to expand...

The states are unequal argument is mainly based on the fact that they don't have equal EC votes. If they were meant to have an equal say, they would have equal votes.

I think that some degree of representation, even if not direct, was definitely and clearly a determinant factor for the way that the number of EC votes were decided.


However true that may be, the fact is they gave the legislatures plenary power to do so -- and thru the 1800s, many states legislatures took it upon themselves to do so.
Click to expand...

True. I disagree with them having done that. :mrgreen:


Which makes me wonder why that was not specified by the Constitution.
Perhaps, as noted above, this was just lip service, indicating that there was no intention to involve the people, but the need for popular support to ratify the constituion, such an involvement had to be stated.
Click to expand...

I think there might be truth to that.


The Constitution is not set up for it to work that way. I -love- to tell people that their state could decide to not hold an election and seat their electors based on a game of poker -- or just seat the guy from (the other party) outright.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen you do it. (Hell, in that first conversation we had on this you DID do that to me. :lol:)

I realize that this is true and that's why in one of my earlier posts (I think it was my first or second one in this thread) I said that I don't care if a some state I don't live in decides to use the groundhog seeing it's shadow or not as the determining factor for choosing where their EC votes go. Technically, they can do that.

My personal compromise with my distaste for the EC is that I only concern myself with Illinois' votes.

I just don't want those votes to suddenly become a single vote, thus negating my ability to change Illinois!

If that one state = one vote thing actually happened, I'd be forced to argue for the abolishment of the EC altogether, which means I'd have to be in favor of an amendment. Which means I would have to argue, somewhat counter-intuitively, to increase federal authority over the States (which I define as a hybrid of the People of that state + their Legislatures), which would basically really piss me off. :lol:

(Note: I'm not really sure if the above paragraph will make any sense to anyone but myself. Trust me, in my ****ed up brain that makes perfect sense.)

That's fine. Call your legislators.
Click to expand...

I have, and they suck. Oh wait, the next sentence shows you already know that. :lol:


Of course, given the other things they do you you out on IL, I'd not hold out too much hope.
Click to expand...

Way to twist the knife. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom