• 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!

Why the Electoral College exists.

haymarket said:
And under the EC some states voters have three to four times the weight behind their vote than other states voters. And that is a serious violation of the sacred principle of one person/one vote.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The States in the US a Sovereign entities. California has no right to override Idaho just because California happens to have more people in it than Idaho.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevant. The States in the US a Sovereign entities. California has no right to override Idaho just because California happens to have more people in it than Idaho.
Click to expand...

No state has an override over another, but there is a formula in Congress and the Presidency for the states to represent their wishes. Only Congress with great difficulty can override the President and of course a Federal Judiciary can pretty easily override almost anything, even if temporarily.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevant. The States in the US a Sovereign entities. California has no right to override Idaho just because California happens to have more people in it than Idaho.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this idea that California overrides anybody? Every American would have one vote with every vote being equal. Nothing could be fairer than that.
 
haymarket said:
Where do you get this idea that California overrides anybody? Every American would have one vote with every vote being equal. Nothing could be fairer than that.
Click to expand...

Because that is what you are wanting. Americans have a say in regards to their own State. That you want to put this on a National level is what would make it unfair to the areas of the country with smaller populations. What is needed in California, maybe a detriment to what is needed in Idaho. Those are facts.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because that is what you are wanting. Americans have a say in regards to their own State. That you want to put this on a National level is what would make it unfair to the areas of the country with smaller populations. What is needed in California, maybe a detriment to what is needed in Idaho. Those are facts.
Click to expand...

Nothing could be fairer than each American citizen having one vote of equal power with every other American citizen.
 
haymarket said:
Nothing could be fairer than each American citizen having one vote of equal power with every other American citizen.
Click to expand...

Love how you like to ignore the fact that each State has its own Sovereignty. Hey, I know! Why don't we just get rid of the the 10th Amendment? Hmm? Just get rid of States altogether! That way you can argue even harder to disregard different area's concerns in favor of big city concerns!
 
haymarket said:
Nothing could be fairer than each American citizen having one vote of equal power with every other American citizen.
Click to expand...

This is why I have a problem with the current setup. Most states are winner take all, which means that if you are a Rep living in a Blue state, or a Dem living in a Red state, you vote is essentially eliminated at the national level.

The idea that one state could override the needs of another is outdated. Most states have very similar needs such funding for infrastructure, school and various social programs, as well as trying to get earmarks for the state.

If a state wants to do something that is outlawed nationally, they usually either ignore it, or find a workaround (e.g. weed, abortion)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Love how you like to ignore the fact that each State has its own Sovereignty. Hey, I know! Why don't we just get rid of the the 10th Amendment? Hmm? Just get rid of States altogether! That way you can argue even harder to disregard different area's concerns in favor of big city concerns!
Click to expand...

Over things within the boundaries of that state and nothing outside of it. And the office of the President is outside of the state and they have no so called sovereignty over that office.
 
haymarket said:
Over things within the boundaries of that state and nothing outside of it. And the office of the President is outside of the state and they have no so called sovereignty over that office.
Click to expand...

So the States have no reason to be involved in who is the President? None, what so ever?
 
beancounter said:
This is why I have a problem with the current setup. Most states are winner take all, which means that if you are a Rep living in a Blue state, or a Dem living in a Red state, you vote is essentially eliminated at the national level.
Click to expand...

This can be changed on a state level. They're the ones that decide how the electoral votes are distributed.
 
I don't see anything in the OP recognizing that the reason and way the EC was set up went hand in hand with the 3/5ths compromise. This became even more clear when it was amended somewhat. It's certainly not the only reason but it definitely was an important one. It's kind of a big thing to omit from the OP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c2f5789c5d_story.html?utm_term=.126fe11c7c0f

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

Election 2016: The Real Reason the Electoral College Exists | Time

How slavery birthed the electoral college

Hell, even Foxnews mentions it, albeit briefly.


Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College: The Electoral College was basically started as a compromise by the drafters of the Constitution as some wanted Congress to choose the president, while others wanted direct election by the people. The beneficiaries of the Electoral College in the nascent days of the United States were the southern slave states which were concerned that the country’s more populous industrial centers would dominate less populous rural regions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-meet-under-old-rules-new-controversy.html





It should be further obvious why it wasn't amended immediately after the Civil War. However, it's stuck around. Even if it isn't done away with, the absence of modern slavery is a good reason for rethinking how it should be structured.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
Its also nice that a couple of dense population centers do not get to hold the other 90% of the country hostage with whatever coyote acme scheme they come up with.
Click to expand...

Carjosse said:
But by doing that you basically saying that votes of Americans living in urban areas and more populous states counts less than those in rural America. Why should the minority of Americans be able to force their policies on the majority? Whether you like it or not the US is an urbanized country by a large margin and will only get bigger.
Click to expand...

akyron said:
Not less. You have a say no matter where you live.
Click to expand...

1/1000th is bigger than 1/100,000 is bigger than 1/30,000,000. The lower population of a state, the more power each individual voter has over where its EC votes go.


That's just now numbers work. Carjosse was correct. You are not.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So the States have no reason to be involved in who is the President? None, what so ever?
Click to expand...

"The states" are not involved in the selection. Today we simply (arbitrarily) aggregate popular votes at the state-level instead of nationally. For no real reason.

The world you're talking about, in which state governments are determinative players in the election of presidents as some expression of state sovereignty, is centuries in the rearview mirror. That isn't at all how the Electoral College works today.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevant. The States in the US a Sovereign entities. California has no right to override Idaho just because California happens to have more people in it than Idaho.
Click to expand...

In statewide elections, yes. CA has no say in ID's elections. But in a national election, a national election will affect every state. I don't get why CA shouldn't have more power than ID.
 
Soopairik said:
In statewide elections, yes. CA has no say in ID's elections. But in a national election, a national election will affect every state. I don't get why CA shouldn't have more power than ID.
Click to expand...

California does have more "power" (actually just Electoral Votes for 2 offices), they have 55 EV, Idaho has 4 EV.

An orderly selection of President and Vice-President is a very good thing and that is what we have had 58 times in a row. Even the issues of the 2000 election was basically limited to 1 state.

How disruptive would a national recount be, or worse, a national tie?
 
Mr Person said:
1/1000th is bigger than 1/100,000 is bigger than 1/30,000,000. The lower population of a state, the more power each individual voter has over where its EC votes go.


That's just now numbers work. Carjosse was correct. You are not.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
1/1000th is bigger than 1/100,000 is bigger than 1/30,000,000. The lower population of a state, the more power each individual voter has over where its EC votes go.


That's just now numbers work. Carjosse was correct. You are not.
Click to expand...

It is interesting how you and others try to boil down people to impersonal numbers. This is a common theme for democrats in their need to create disposable people.

I never said the numbers dont exist. Just that the EC is more fair than any other method that has been tried. And for good reason.

The electoral college made it possible to end slavery. Why are you pro slavery in your policies?

"The electoral college was an integral part of that federal plan. It made a place for the states as well as the people in electing the president by giving them a say at different points in a federal process and preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Abolishing the electoral college now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. "

It is a short road from there to get rid of the senate, states, the constitution.

Why do you hate the constitution?

The founders were interested in preserving liberty rather than working towards an overpowering government.

The electoral college seems an effective if not aesthetically pleasing way to help with the preservation of liberties against government overreach.
 
jdog said:
The OP tried to explain that to you, but apparently you are not intelligent enough to understand.
Click to expand...

Any yet we all have a proper say.

Apparently you are not intelligent enough to understand.
 
akyron said:
It is interesting how you and others try to boil down people to impersonal numbers. This is a common theme for democrats in their need to create disposable people.

I never said the numbers dont exist. Just that the EC is more fair than any other method that has been tried. And for good reason.

The electoral college made it possible to end slavery. Why are you pro slavery in your policies?

"The electoral college was an integral part of that federal plan. It made a place for the states as well as the people in electing the president by giving them a say at different points in a federal process and preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Abolishing the electoral college now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. "

It is a short road from there to get rid of the senate, states, the constitution.

Why do you hate the constitution?

The founders were interested in preserving liberty rather than working towards an overpowering government.

The electoral college seems an effective if not aesthetically pleasing way to help with the preservation of liberties against government overreach.
Click to expand...

You lost me when you say that the Electoral College made is possible to end slavery. The Electoral College was one aspect of the compromise that produced the Constitution. Slavery was ended ultimately in the US through Constitutional Amendment.

Slavery was ended in many places without those places having an Electoral College.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You lost me when you say that the Electoral College made is possible to end slavery. .
Click to expand...

Via the election of Lincoln which would not have been possible otherwise.
 
akyron said:
Via the election of Lincoln which would not have been possible otherwise.
Click to expand...

Lincoln "won" the popular vote with 39.8% of the vote. To be fair, I've never seen what those who advocate for a national vote say about whether a majority vote would be necessary to win or just a plurality.

I disagree with your assertion that only with the election of Lincoln would slavery have been ended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom