• 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 electoral college

do away with the electoral college?

  • yes

    Votes: 20 47.6%

  • no

    Votes: 18 42.9%

  • other

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • Total voters
    42
A Republican form of government has its leaders dining in topless bondage nightclubs.

Oh, wait! My bad. That's a Republican Party form of government!

In all seriousness, the problem is that "republic" is a word that is very very broad. It doesn't mean what some people think it means. The Dictionary.com definition is this:

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

4. any of the five periods of republican government in France.Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.

5. a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.


So really, being a "republic form of government" has nothing to do with an electoral college. Getting rid of it wouldn't make us no longer a republican form of government in the slightest.
 
Groucho said:
So really, being a "republic form of government" has nothing to do with an electoral college. Getting rid of it wouldn't make us no longer a republican form of government in the slightest.
Click to expand...

This is true.

However, the U.S. is not just a republic. It's also a federal national government. And the electoral college would take away from our federal character.
 
The only reason why we have an electoral college is because it was necessary back when travel and counting votes was hard. Each state back then would decide how they wanted their delagates to vote and only they went to Washington to vote. With all the electronic means of counting the votes and transferring the results today, it's no longer necessary, and should be done away with. It would make our elections much more fair. Our ballots should also be choice ballots, like first, second, and third choice so if your first choice doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice so you could vote for a third party without in reality giving your vote to the one you least want to win. It's time we came into the 21'st century and gave up on this old outdated stuff.
 
I agree with jacksbrat

looked at the poll results, very interesting, it's 24 yes, 23 no and 4 other
 
jacksbrat said:
The only reason why we have an electoral college is because it was necessary back when travel and counting votes was hard.
Click to expand...

It also avoided having a national election where votes from one state were counted with others. It kept all elections, and control of them, inside the states.
 
If we had a popular vote candidates would spend more time in densely populated areas and less time in rural states.
 
A bit of an aside, but anarcho-fascist is an Orwellian term :p
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
If we had a popular vote candidates would spend more time in densely populated areas and less time in rural states.
Click to expand...

Um, yes, that has been repeated many times in this thread, debunked many times, and then repeated again without any support.
 
Groucho said:
Um, yes, that has been repeated many times in this thread, debunked many times, and then repeated again without any support.
Click to expand...

Why would they spend more time where there's a low population density? Right now candidates go all over contested states.
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
The People shall serve the State free from the bonds of hierarchical control!!!
Click to expand...

Because fascism isn't completely authoritarian and divisive in nature?
 
Groucho said:
No they don't. That's the point. Please go back and read this thread; I've posted evidence more than once.
Click to expand...

You posted assertions that they spend almost all of their time in battleground states, and ignore the states that aren't contested.
I agree with that.
I am saying that they go all over the states that are contested.

They would campaign in more states, but wouldn't they concentrate their effort on the large cities?
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
You posted assertions that they spend almost all of their time in battleground states, and ignore the states that aren't contested.
I agree with that.
I am saying that they go all over the states that are contested.

They would campaign in more states, but wouldn't they concentrate their effort on the large cities?
Click to expand...

No, I posted facts, not assertions; I even had maps showing where they campaigned.

Even with your argument, they are still only campaigning in contested states (meaning about 20% of the country). And of course in those states they are going where they can reach the most people: cities. It would be foolish not to, really.

Without the electoral college, they will probably still mostly concentrate on cities -- you go where the people are -- but at least they would be doing it all over the US instead of just the few contested states.
 
Groucho said:
No, I posted facts, not assertions; I even had maps showing where they campaigned.

Even with your argument, they are still only campaigning in contested states (meaning about 20% of the country). And of course in those states they are going where they can reach the most people: cities. It would be foolish not to, really.

Without the electoral college, they will probably still mostly concentrate on cities -- you go where the people are -- but at least they would be doing it all over the US instead of just the few contested states.
Click to expand...

You posted statements that you asserted were facts. The terms aren't mutually exclusive.
Could you post the maps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom