• 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!

Liberals and the call for abolishing the Electoral College

Lutherf said:
Without the electoral college we become a direct democracy and cease to be a republic. That will be the end of the union. States will no longer have autonomy and DC will run everything.
Click to expand...

Being a direct democracy would not in any way destroy the autonomy of states.
 
Fishking said:
Sorry, it's in the Constitution and therefor cannot be abolished.
Click to expand...

The whole country could use the Maine and Nebraska model, which would be a step in that direction.
 
Fishking said:
Irrelevant. Even in good years for Democrats they are no where near passing an constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

That's probably a good thing. Can you imagine what they'd shove into the constitution if given free reign?
(*shudder*)
It's frightening just to contemplate.
 
Lutherf said:
Without the electoral college we become a direct democracy and cease to be a republic. That will be the end of the union. States will no longer have autonomy and DC will run everything.
Click to expand...
The method for electing the President is not what makes us a republic.
 
eohrnberger said:
That's probably a good thing. Can you imagine what they'd shove into the constitution if given free reign?
(*shudder*)
It's frightening just to contemplate.
Click to expand...
If it can pass the requirements for becoming an amendment does it matter who comes up with it? Is it not the people who decide?
 
prometeus said:
If it can pass the requirements for becoming an amendment does it matter who comes up with it? Is it not the people who decide?
Click to expand...

It never has matter who comes up with the amendment.
What matters is the content of the amendment, and in that, I don't trust the leftists in the least.
 
SDET said:
The whole country could use the Maine and Nebraska model, which would be a step in that direction.
Click to expand...

About as likely to happen because the rest of the country doesn't want to be run by California and New York. I have a feeling the states that would do it, compared with the states that didn't do it, would end up favoring Republicans even more.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What needs to change is how they total it. A candidate should not win the entire state. The votes should be divided based on district. As it stands my Republican vote was worthless since I lived in California. My vote literally did not count.
Click to expand...

I don't see other states doing that because, again, that method would give even more power to extremist states with high populations.

For example, in this election California would have given 11 more EVs to Hillary than Trump. California is worth a total of 55 EVs. Pennsylvania would have given Trump 1 EV more than Hillary, with the total EVs being 20. So now California's results are weighted 11x the weight of Pennsylvania instead of just 2.5.
 
Fishking said:
I don't see other states doing that because, again, that method would give even more power to extremist states with high populations.

For example, in this election California would have given 11 more EVs to Hillary than Trump. California is worth a total of 55 EVs. Pennsylvania would have given Trump 1 EV more than Hillary, with the total EVs being 20. So now California's results are weighted 11x the weight of Pennsylvania instead of just 2.5.
Click to expand...

Trump would come out ahead in that deal: CA: 22 Trump, 33 Clinton, PA: 10.5 Trump, 9.5 Clinton. Total: Trump 32.5, Clinton 42.5. With the current system: Trump 20, Clinton 55 .
 
Liberals had their president in power with the electoral college, so they need to stop bitching.
 
Fishking said:
I don't see other states doing that because, again, that method would give even more power to extremist states with high populations.

For example, in this election California would have given 11 more EVs to Hillary than Trump. California is worth a total of 55 EVs. Pennsylvania would have given Trump 1 EV more than Hillary, with the total EVs being 20. So now California's results are weighted 11x the weight of Pennsylvania instead of just 2.5.
Click to expand...

Why would breaking down the votes to districts/counties alter the total number of votes?
 
Fishking said:
To get rid of the EC it would take a constitutional amendment. Guess what that will take? 2/3 of the states ratifying it. Trump won 30 states with is 60% of the states. The cold hard reality is that there is only one party that is anywhere close to amending the Constitution and it's Republicans.

Further, as was pointed out in another thread, Republicans crushed Democrats in state level legislators and executives.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's an interstate compact called the National Popular Vote. States which sign it promise to give all of their electors to the candidate which wins the popular vote and it goes into effect when the states which sign it correspond to a majority of electoral votes. The states which have signed it so far add up to 167 electoral votes (61.1% towards their goal). Unfortunately, the only states which signed it so fare are safe blue states. That's because swing state legislatures are unlikely to willingly give up their monopoly on the election and republican legislators aren't keen on changing the rules.

The national popular vote is perfectly within the bounds of the constitution as the document gives states the right to decide how they distribute their electors.
 
prometeus said:
The method for electing the President is not what makes us a republic.
Click to expand...
incorrect.


the constitution of the founders created a republic of "mixed government" based on the roman model which is a separation of powers of how our elected officialS are elected.

house by the people

senate appointed by the state governments

president elected by the EC


A Classical Republic, (Greek: πολιτεια; Latin: respublica) is a "mixed constitutional government". This definition of the form of a republic existed from Classical Antiquity to the French Revolutionary period. Since that time, the term republic has been confused with the term democracy.

A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of elements from three other types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. There is the Spartan model, which is a tripartite form of government which is a combination of kings, gerousia (aristocracy) and the assembly of all the males (democratic body). There is the Roman model that has a civilian head, and an aristocratic body which is the Senate and smaller assemblies representing the citizens. A republic is marked by a bicameral legislative body (the upper house being aristocratic) and by a written constitution that marks out the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies.

The classical republic or 'mixed government' is a product of the cultural mindset of the Indo-European races of trifunctionality1 and by and large, generated by citizen/soldier/farmer societies. It was first developed by the Doric Greeks on the island of Crete. 11 It is a by-product of the special Doric Cretan mentality of syncretism (which "Crete" forms the central portion of the word).62 "What the Dorians endeavoured to obtain in a state was good order, or cosmos, the regular combination of different elements."

Because of the character of the Anglo-Saxons,1 Britain in the 13th century naturally evolved into the structure of a classical republic mirroring the Spartan model. The old English word "Commonwealth" is same as the Latin word Res publica. The Founding Fathers of the United States modelled America along the same lines as her mother country, Britain, and the Roman Republic with her civilian head. Since the 1920's, there have been no governments that are 'mixed'.

The Presidency is the element of the monarchical office. The United States Senate is the representation of the aristocracy. 42 The House of Representatives is the element of democracy, representing the people. The Senate was originally intended to be the representative body of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, as well as a representation of state's interests, as a corporate entity, in the Federal Government. Madison said, "The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress." 29 Senators were appointed by their respective State legislatures and were not voted on by the people. The Senate was originally designed to check the House of Representatives and the Presidential office and be the "guardian of the constitution

NO SOURCE *

Mixed government is a form of government that incorporates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, the issues are decided variedly, for instance some issues are determined by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person. The idea of mixed government is treated as an antecedent of separation of powers. It is also known as a mixed constitution.

Mixed Government Law & Legal Definition
 
Last edited:
What is a state

The Greeks defined differing governments by their dominant factor. Aristotle writes: "Now a constitution (Politeia) is the ordering of a state (Poleos) in respect of its various magistracies, and especially the magistracy that is supreme over all matters. For the government is everywhere supreme over the state and the constitution is the government. 3 Our customary designation for a monarchy that aims at the common advantage is 'kingship'; for a government of more than one yet only a few 'aristocracy', ...while when the multitude govern the state with a view to the common advantage, it is called by the name common to all the forms of constitution, 'constitutional government'. 4 Where a government has only a king, the dominant factor, it is called a monarchy. Where a government has only a few nobles ruling, the dominant factor, it is called an aristocracy." Where the people are the dominant factor it is called a democracy.

The Greek word for State is "Poleos". It denotes "society" in general. Aristotle writes "A collection of persons all alike does not constitute a state". 5 This Greek word, "Politeia" is then named for every government that includes numerous classes of people as citizens and a written law, a constitution, that defines and delegates rights and responsibilities of those classes. A republic is one that does not have a dominant factor".

Hence, the phrase "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. A democracy is when the people are dominant and a republic is mixed government wherein there is no dominant element. Therefore to say a "democratic republic" is an oxymoron. The confusion lies in that the word "republic" is synonymous with "constitution". For that reason, it is better to say "constitutional democracy" other than "democratic republic".

OUR AMERICAN FOUNDERS SPEAKING OF OUR ......MIXED CONSTITUTION.


As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.
 
Masterhawk said:
Actually, there's an interstate compact called the National Popular Vote. States which sign it promise to give all of their electors to the candidate which wins the popular vote and it goes into effect when the states which sign it correspond to a majority of electoral votes. The states which have signed it so far add up to 167 electoral votes (61.1% towards their goal). Unfortunately, the only states which signed it so fare are safe blue states. That's because swing state legislatures are unlikely to willingly give up their monopoly on the election and republican legislators aren't keen on changing the rules.

The national popular vote is perfectly within the bounds of the constitution as the document gives states the right to decide how they distribute their electors.
Click to expand...

That has as much of a chance of happening as a constitutional amendment. As you stated, the only states going for it are the ones that Hillary already won.
 
Constitutional Law
Back to Basics I

What is the Constitution? The Constitution is a contract. The Constitution/contract contains seven short articles, twenty-seven amendments and the Declaration of Independence is tied to the Constitution under article seven. The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 by delegates from twelve colonies. Rhode Island, the thirteenth colony, signed later.

In Article 4 Section 4 the Constitution directs: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,. . ." This article is not referring to any party. There is no party system outlined in the Constitution either in fact or in principle. The word republican is referring to the word republic, which comes from the Latin words res publica; res meaning thing and publica meaning public, the public thing is the law.

One of the most misunderstood and therefore harmful beliefs, to our freedoms, is that millions of American People falsely believe America is a democracy, with rule by majority vote. Article IV Section 4 clearly guarantees every State shall be a republic, there is nothing to argue about. Because Article IV Section 4 defines our form of government as a republic it will remain a republic until an Article V amendment changes that fact. Republic means to rule by law and in America our law is Constitutional Law. All of our representatives take an Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution and therefore Constitutional Law. When you read the Constitution you are actually studying Constitutional Law.

The misunderstanding, that our form of government is a democracy has been intentional to take freedoms, not to give freedoms. In reality our Founders set up a mixed-constitution, to check the powers of government, with elements of different forms of government in it. We have elements of monarchy or rule by one vested in the president to veto bills and to give pardons. We have elements of oligarchy or rule by few vested in federal and state legislatures to make laws. We have elements of democracy vested in the People to elect our representatives. However, all of these different forms of government must stay within the boundary (pale) and understanding (ken) of the republic, rule by law, or their actions are null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

Article VI Clause 2 directs that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all treaties and laws must be made within the pale and ken of the Constitution. This same article and clause also directs that all judges in every State shall be bound by the Constitution.
Another interesting fact is that the Constitution is a document or perfect distribution or perfect equipoise; meaning one clause cannot and must not be read as if to stand alone. When our representatives plan a redistribution of the Peoples money, for any reason, under pretense of the commerce clause or the welfare clause they must also look to Article I Section 1 and Section 8, the 5th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

Article I Section 1 does not allow Congress to do anything that is not an enumerated power; Section 8 list all the powers Congress can act upon; the 5th Amendment forbids the taking of the Peoples money (property) without just compensation; under the 9th Amendment the government has no no right to take property and under the 10th Amendment they have no power to take property.

The Declaration of Independence is not considered law; however, it does point out certain very important issues, such as: our Rights are unalienable and that our Rights are endowed by a Creator. It is fashionable among some Americans today to disregard this statement. To declare that there is no proof of a Creator; however, no man can disprove the existence of a Creator. The words unalienable and inalienable both mean that which cannot be changed, not by majority vote or by a dictator. This statement also directs that are our Rights are endowed by a Creator and not by man.
Clearly our Founding Fathers gave each of us religious freedom to believe as we chose; however, their point was not in what you personally believe but in the fact that man did not create existence. That Rights come from Nature and Nature's God, as written by Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence. No government can control Nature and change the course of our unalienable Rights.
 
Last edited:
The misunderstanding, that our form of government is a democracy has been intentional to take freedoms, not to give freedoms. In reality our Founders set up a mixed-constitution, to check the powers of government, with elements of different forms of government in it. We have elements of monarchy or rule by one vested in the president to veto bills and to give pardons. We have elements of oligarchy or rule by few vested in federal and state legislatures to make laws. We have elements of democracy vested in the People to elect our representatives. However, all of these different forms of government must stay within the boundary (pale) and understanding (ken) of the republic, rule by law, or their actions are null and void and of no effect whatsoever.



The Presidency is the element of the monarchical office. The United States Senate is the representation of the aristocracy. the House of Representatives is the element of democracy, representing the people. The Senate was originally intended to be the representative body of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, as well as a representation of state's interests, as a corporate entity, in the Federal Government. Madison said, "The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress." 29 Senators were appointed by their respective State legislatures and were not voted on by the people. The Senate was originally designed to check the House of Representatives and the Presidential office and be the "guardian of the constitution

As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.
 
Last edited:
Sure they do, because of the coastal cities where in charge they would always win.
 
Crovax said:
I didnt say it could be abolished, I said it could be defacto abolished. Was I not clear enough?
Click to expand...

One very small problem with that pact. It occurs when the majority of one or more of the compact states votes for a different candidate than the rest. At that point if the state officials proceed they will probably find themselves jobless shortly there after, and or sued by the citizens of the state to reverse the states participation in said compact.
 
PirateMk1 said:
One very small problem with that pact. It occurs when the majority of one or more of the compact states votes for a different candidate than the rest. At that point if the state officials proceed they will probably find themselves jobless shortly there after, and or sued by the citizens of the state to reverse the states participation in said compact.
Click to expand...

It might be risky for their re-election, but there's no grounds for a lawsuit that I can see.
 
Fishking said:
Sorry, it's in the Constitution and therefor cannot be abolished.
Click to expand...

States can assign electors however they wish.
If enough states decide to award their electors by
National Popular vote then that is what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom