• 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: Purpose, Problems, Alternatives

NWRatCon said:
With respect, the tie breaking system is in the Constitution. That doesn't change, but the chance of a tie is ...um, nil?
Click to expand...

How do I know what is in the Constitution what your team is done changing it? You would have to add something to address a popular vote tie, that is what I'm requesting. The Constitution today has tie breaking procedures and has covered every eventuality.

I'll take the orderly transition of power while you hunt for a way to make things disorderly by claiming a tie isn't possible. There have been plenty of things in my lifetime that were impossible, and yet they have happened.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Vote by congressional district 2016:
800px-2016_presidential_election%2C_results_by_congressional_district_%28popular_vote_margin%29.svg.png


I'm pretty sure in all those other elections, the graphic would be similar.

Somebody did the math and I believe the totals came out something like Clinton 248, Trump 290. The actual 2016 result was 304 Trump, 234 Clinton.
Click to expand...

Your map is intentionally and deliberately fraudulent. But then you knew that when you first printed it since the shape and size of each congressional district is NOT the same and can be wildly different, It is dishonest in the extreme.
 
haymarket said:
Why are you against treating all votes and all voters as equals regardless of where they live?
Click to expand...

I am opposed to a tyranny of the majority just as I am against a tyranny of a minority. I am against denying more than half the country a voice in the process just because they don't have cities with millions of citizens in them.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
How do I know what is in the Constitution what your team is done changing it? You would have to add something to address a popular vote tie, that is what I'm requesting. The Constitution today has tie breaking procedures and has covered every eventuality.

I'll take the orderly transition of power while you hunt for a way to make things disorderly by claiming a tie isn't possible. There have been plenty of things in my lifetime that were impossible, and yet they have happened.
Click to expand...

Fine - in case of a popular vote tie. flip a coin and the winner gets the first two years and the other finisher gets the last two years. Your objection is so absurd and inane that the solution fits your objection.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am opposed to a tyranny of the majority just as I am against a tyranny of a minority. I am against denying more than half the country a voice in the process just because they don't have cities with millions of citizens in them.
Click to expand...

You keep misusing the word TYRANNY. Why?

This is not a car nor a bumper sticker so do not treat this site as such.
 
haymarket said:
Why are you against treating all votes and all voters as equals regardless of where they live?
Click to expand...

Every vote IS equal within its specified jurisdiction. But the system prevents one state or a few states from packing in as many citizens as they can so that they can control everybody. I am opposed to disenfranchising half the country for partisan purposes.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Every vote IS equal within its specified jurisdiction. But the system prevents one state or a few states from packing in as many citizens as they can so that they can control everybody. I am opposed to disenfranchising half the country for partisan purposes.
Click to expand...

The jurisdiction of the President is the United States of America. Every vote IS NOT EQUAL in that jurisdiction.

The EC already disenfranchises half the county and two of the past three Presidents are living proof of it,
 
haymarket said:
You use the word TYRANNY as a meaningless sop which is divorced from its meaning. There is no TYRANNY that exists and the removal of the EC would not give us tyranny. It would simply treat all votes as equal in law and in reality.

Every voter would have an equal voice in the system regardless of where they lived. That is not true today.
Click to expand...

I have made my argument. You have offered nothing to rebut it. I have stated my case and choose not to keep repeating it until you actuall address it. This discussion is over until you can make a valid argument. Just spouting the party line isn't cutting it or convincing anybody who is able to think critically re all the issues and factors involved. Do have a pleasant afternoon.
 
NWRatCon said:
Here's a problem with your argument, Athanasius68. We have a President that ignores 60% of the voters in the nation because he won the EC, but lost the popular vote by 3% - 3 million votes. He has never appealed to the nation as a whole. He would not be President but for the EC, and it has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster for the nation as a whole. And, he won't change his approach, because his minority of supporters has a disproportionate influence over the EC. THAT is the political argument, and it is not a good situation.
Click to expand...

Had Mrs. Clinton not ignored certain regions of the country, she would be president today.
Nowadays, people are wondering if Trump can be re-elected because he is losing support in certain areas.
The solution: Figure out a way to appeal to the country as a whole.
 
haymarket said:
The jurisdiction of the President is the United States of America. Every vote IS NOT EQUAL in that jurisdiction.

The EC already disenfranchises half the county and two of the past three Presidents are living proof of it,
Click to expand...

Yes, every vote is equal within their jurisdiction,

Again, the problem that you have is, that you want the URBAN areas, to dictate to the RURAL areas, who the President shall be....

You want to change the type of government from a representative democracy, to a straight democracy, and you wonder why people are against that?
 
Haymarket,

Again, will you answer this question,

What do you think the purpose of the Electoral College is/was?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I have made my argument. You have offered nothing to rebut it. I have stated my case and choose not to keep repeating it until you actuall address it. This discussion is over until you can make a valid argument. Just spouting the party line isn't cutting it or convincing anybody who is able to think critically re all the issues and factors involved. Do have a pleasant afternoon.
Click to expand...

Your argument is fundamentally wrong.

There is no TYRNNY other than a right wing boogey man which is how you are using it.

Your map presents a fraudulent picture since it assumes that all districts are of the same size and they are not so geographic space means nothing.

The jurisdiction of the President is the entire USA so what happens within a state is irrelevant.

There. I have addressed each of your objections.

What else do you have?
 
sjmay said:
Haymarket,

Again, will you answer this question,

What do you think the purpose of the Electoral College is/was?
Click to expand...

Hamilton tells us in Federalist 68. It was ignored in 2016.
 
haymarket said:
Hamilton tells us in Federalist 68. It was ignored in 2016.
Click to expand...

Hamilton also manipulated the first presidential vote,

Again, why don't YOU answer the question.
 
haymarket said:
Imagine if the following scenario were the way sports operated.

Dad takes Junior to a basketball game and its the kids first actual live game. They live in Michigan and are watching the Pistons.

Here is the scoring for each quarter.

1st quarter: Lakers 24 - Pistons 23
2nd quarter Lakers 25 - Detroit 24
3rd quarter Lakers 31 - Detroit 29
4th quarter Pistons 36 - Lakers 21

Final score Pistons 112 - Lakers 101

As they leave the arena Junior is beaming from ear to ear since the home team won. Dad is not so happy nor are most of the exiting Detroit fans.

Junior: That was a great game Dad. I am glad Detroit won.
Dad: Well they did outscore the Lakers son, but we lost the game.
Junior: No Dad - we won 112 to 101. We scored the most points.
Dad: Well son, the league changed the rules to make sure every quarter was hard fought. They put in a system where the winner of each quarter gets one point and the one who scores the most points in the game gets an additional point. Since Los Angeles won three quarters they earned three points and Detroit who won only one quarter and the most points in the game got only two points. So the Lakers win three points to two.
Son: Thats stupid. Every kid knows that when you get the most points you win. Adults are really dumb.
Dad: Well son, did I ever tell you about the Electoral College?
Click to expand...

So the football the team that had the most yardage should, win? Or should only crossing the goal line count. You see we keep score in the EC you get "points" by winning a state. It doesn't matter how many votes you got or how many yards you ran, what matters is did you cross the goal line, in some states you need a lot of votes to cross that line, and in some states not as many.

Winning the EC while losing the popular vote isn't anything new it's happen in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016.

The odds of getting rid of the EC are almost 0 as it would take an amendment to the Constitution, as you'd need 2/3 of both houses to pass. So basically it's not going to happen
 
sjmay said:
Hamilton also manipulated the first presidential vote,

Again, why don't YOU answer the question.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to how he told the nation the EC would function.
 
rwee2000 said:
So the football the team that had the most yardage should, win?
Click to expand...

The team which gets the most points should win.... just lie the candidate who gets the most votes should win.
 
rwee2000 said:
So the football the team that had the most yardage should, win? Or should only crossing the goal line count. You see we keep score in the EC you get "points" by winning a state. It doesn't matter how many votes you got or how many yards you ran, what matters is did you cross the goal line, in some states you need a lot of votes to cross that line, and in some states not as many.

Winning the EC while losing the popular vote isn't anything new it's happen in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016.

The odds of getting rid of the EC are almost 0 as it would take an amendment to the Constitution, as you'd need 2/3 of both houses to pass. So basically it's not going to happen
Click to expand...

Lets be honest here. The goalpost will move until they "win". We see this behavior in toddlers as well.

The last time democrats "won" many were enslaved until many Americans died stopping them led by republicans.
 
haymarket said:
Which is irrelevant to how he told the nation the EC would function.
Click to expand...

So you can,t/won't answer to what you think the Electoral College was there for....

That says a lot about you as a poster.....completely, intellectually dishonest, can't formulate their own opinion....can't answer a direct question.
 
haymarket said:
The team which gets the most points should win.... just lie the candidate who gets the most votes should win.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that is a good idea?
 
NWRatCon said:
Here's a problem with your argument, Athanasius68. We have a President that ignores 60% of the voters in the nation because he won the EC, but lost the popular vote by 3% - 3 million votes. He has never appealed to the nation as a whole. He would not be President but for the EC, and it has been an absolute, unmitigated disaster for the nation as a whole. And, he won't change his approach, because his minority of supporters has a disproportionate influence over the EC. THAT is the political argument, and it is not a good situation.
Click to expand...

And it would be an equally bad situation if Hillz had won in the same manner and, given that she is prone to a bit of arrogance herself, a good many independents and conservatives would be making the same "EC is an unmitigated disaster" argument right now. And that's because she too could be labeled as somewhat guilty of having "never appealed to the nation as a whole."

The only saving grace is, she's less bat**** crazy than Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom